Jump to content

Talk:Roaring Brook (Lackawanna River tributary)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 09:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Ok, lets get the review underway.
  • Images: All licences are fine.
  • Lead: Link Drainage basin to watershed
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Course: See if you can break that large first paragraph into two, it'll make it easier to read.
  • Done.
  • I'd also just remove the carriage return from the single sentence (current) second paragraph and just have it be at the end of the new second paragraph
  • Fixed.
  • Hydrology: "The concentration of fluoride in Roaring Brook at Scranton was once measured to" - can we be anymore specific about when? Even if it's just a decade.
  • That means that it was measured one time; the date's given in the previous paragraph.
  • The final two paragraphs both start with "The peak annual discharge" - is there a way of changing one or the other to remove the repetition?
  • Reworded.
  • Geography, geology, and climate: You should move "Horace Hollister's 1885 History of the Lackawanna Valley described Roaring Brook as being "the noisiest tributary of the Lackawanna"." up to the other comments by Hollister - it looks out of place down towards the bottom of this section.
  • Done.
  • Watershed: If you're going to link Drainage basin in the article body, it should be up near the top when watershed is first mentioned.
  • I don't know. I don't think there's anything wrong with spacing out he links a little.
  • Merge the final two paragraphs since the last one is a single sentence.
  • Done.
  • Biography: Any chance of being a bit more specific with your linkage in "Wolves, bears, wildcats, and panthers" as I'm doubtful that all members of those families are found there.
  • The article doesn't imply that either, and there's nothing more specific to be said. Most readers probably won't care about the exact species anyway.
  • Notes: Can we get a cite for the note?
  • Nested references would appear to break the note.
  • Citations: There's quite a few instances of listing an organisation as an author - could you edit these and change those to publishers as they're not a specific individual(s) who wrote the text.
  • No, oftentimes the organization literally is the author; there isn't a single individual or even several credited with writing it.
  • Cite #13: Is the publisher the National Dam Inspection Program? If so, remove that from the title of the citation and place in a publisher field.
  • No, part of the title.
  • Cite #20: Publisher/Location details? Old books like that tend to have them printed on the bottom of the first page with text.
  • Done.
  • Cite #21 through 23: Need to be filled out with full source information, and in the case of the Life one, the article information.
  • Better.