Talk:Little Catawissa Creek

Little Catawissa Creek has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 15, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Little Catawissa Creek appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 November 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that it is not known why river chubs have disappeared from Little Catawissa Creek?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Little Catawissa Creek.

Wikipedia

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Little Catawissa Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As with all these articles, be consistent with the use of the {{convert}} template. It is used sporadically.

Done. I'm really quite impressed at the usefulness and complexity of that template. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that all the images are used up before you're into the main part of the article, the last few sections are really dry, just statistics and offer not a lot of interest to the reader, an image might break that up a little.

I found a couple other pictures of mine from Commons and added them. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"has some alkalinity" seems odd (to me), why not "is slightly alkaline"?

Well, the sentence would then read "The creek is slightly alkaline and is slightly acidic." which just doesn't sound right =). The point is that alkalinity isn't quite the same thing as having a pH of higher than 7. There's a link to alkalinity down in the hydrology section, but I can add one up in the lead as well. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid linking common terms (like Fish or soil).

Okay. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there just one ref in the lead? If you've expanded upon the lead correctly, the ref should be in the main body.

Well, it's there to cite the length, which is basic and important information, but doesn't really belong in the body. I personally don't think it's such a big deal, but I'll change it if you insist. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it belongs in the body! You don't have information in the lead only. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The creek has been surveyed " as of when?

Up to, but not including the 1997 report. Article adjusted to reflect this. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the whole "air temperature" and "water temperature" at a specific time on a specific day really of interest or of significance?

Well, they can change depending on the time of year and even the time of day, so the date and time are needed for context. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the temperature on the same day for five years in a row will vary wildly too. Is this information actually notable? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" micro siemens(umhos) " space?

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're not umhos, they're mhos.

They're micro-mhos. Changed, anyway. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well then that should have been a mu, not a u. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Little Catawissa Creek is on..." followed by "Little Catawissa Creek is completely..." followed by "Little Catawissa Creek is managed..." is really dull prose, especially clunky when you have these all as single-sentence paragraphs.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please find specific pages for the use of reference 2, it should not be up to the reader to wade through huge PDFs to verify claims.
Are you going to fix this one? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Done now. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now, the usual comments on these nominations form the majority of my issues, perhaps you can fix all the other nominations/articles so we don't need to repeat them in the future. Article is on hold for a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, so I'll pass it, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Little Catawissa Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]