Jump to content

Talk:Powderly Creek

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineePowderly Creek was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 17, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 28, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the early 1970s, a flooded strip pit near Powderly Creek made national news when a UFO supposedly crashed into it?
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Powderly 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) 05:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Powderly 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) 09:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Powderly Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 20:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Not part of the criteria and thus feel free to ignore: a) Is there any more recent information than "the 2000s"? b) The two long PDFs may be easier to read with pagenumbers given. c) Source #8 may merit a linkfix (also because it's not clear where to search for the information).

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    "The creek is an impaired stream." both in the lead and in the article text is a bit sentence fragment-ey, a problem replicated in the first paragraph of the hydrology section. "Tenths of a mile" is repetitive. "in Powderly Creek either in its upper reaches" seems to be missing a word. "The pH of the creek at this site" - which site? "Powderly Creek experiences measurable flow loss." what is flow loss - are people pumping too much water from it? " but on a considerably larger scale." is comparing two watersheds but it's not clear from the text which is the "larger scale". I am wondering what is "macabre" about a creek flowing through a basin. Should "Office of Surface Mines" be prefixed with a "The"? "It was also owned by the Hudson Coal Company." not clear if the creek or the colliery is meant. "Powderly Creek poses to flooding hazard in Carbondale Township,"?
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    What is https://www.pacode.com/? It does say "No statutes or acts will be found at this website." Otherwise everything seems to check out.
    C. It contains no original research:
    Seems like everything in the lead is supported by the article text. I notice that the coordinates appear to be unsourced. It looks like the creek turns northwest a little after passing under Lackawanna Avenue and that its mouth is at a slightly higher elevation. Reserving judgment on source #2 and #5 owing to length issues, and on #6 since it demands a login. Might want to specify at which point of the creek the daily manganese load was established. On that source, which pagenumber is the US Route mentioned on? [1] is there a key somewhere for the acronyms?
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    But "recreation" is a bit sparse.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Are there really no images?
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Sorry, but given how long this has been in limbo I'll fail it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Powderly_Creek&oldid=1205422096"