Wikipedia:Peer review/Upper Pine Bottom State Park/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Upper Pine Bottom State Park[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we believe that it could be a Good or Featured Article, and are looking for some feedback before it is submitted to WP:GAN or WP:FAC. It follows a format and style very similar to that of Black Moshannon State Park, Worlds End State Park, Leonard Harrison State Park, Colton Point State Park, and Cherry Springs State Park which are all featured articles that we have worked on. We will make articles for the red links before GAN or FAC. This is a very small park with not much there today, but it has an interesting history. If you review it, please gve your opinion if this is OK for a potential FA (or is the park too small?).

Thanks in advance for any feedback, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS There is alt text in the Geobox, but it is not showing up in the alt text viewer. Not sure what the problem is, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text doesn't appear to be included in the older {{Geobox Protected Area}}, but is set up in the newer Geobox 2s, {{Geobox|Protected Area}}. Presque Isle uses the newer geobox with alt text (as an example). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 19:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That fixed it - thanks! I had looked at Presque Isle, but did not notice that it uses Geobox 2. Will switch the other parks over too. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Dincher (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is the first part of my review - more will follow. The article looks like the expected quality product of careful research, backed up by ravishing photographs that I want to jump into.

  • Two general points
    • I hesitate to say this, but...the article would benefit from a map showing the park and its immediate surroundings. Any chance? (or was the mapmaking power all dispersed in the wastes of the Arctic Ocean?)
I am pretty sure Ruhrfish could make a map, but it would really show very, very litte. A picnic table or two and a parking lot. The surrounds are woods and rocks, perhaps are map of the area showing Waterville, Little Pine State Park, etc, with Upper Pine Bottom at the center? Dincher (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can make a map of the region showing Upper Pine Bottom State Park, Upper Pine Bottom Run, part of Pine Creek and Little Pine Creek, the villages of Haneyville and Waterville, and the bottom of Little Pine State Park. There is no official map of the park and there are almost no facilities to show on the map. The outline of the park is shown in the aerial photo (I added it). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I made File:Upper Pine Bottom State Park Map.png and added it to the Geobox at 300 pixels wide. To get the map large enough to include both Haneyville and Waterville and the bottom of Little Pine State Park, Upper Pine Bottom State Park is a pretty small green traingle. Is this OK, or does it need to be modified? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The maps looks good. Dincher (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think it can serve as a model for maps for other small parks like Hyner View. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having at this point read to about half-way through the article, I am wondering whether, perhaps, there is a little too much background and prehistory of the park? Some of this is clearly essential, but I am not sure that all of it is. As an example, I'm wondering if the detailed forest acreages in the second paragraph of the "State forest and park" section are really necessary. I have made a few similar comments on overdetailing as I have gone through.
      • I removed most of the acreage (it is in the Tiadaghton State Forest article now). I left in the original purchase size and the current size in acres as I thought those were most important - it is also interesting to see how much larger both are compared to the park itself (park is 5 acres, first purchase was 409 acres, state forest is 146,500 acres). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • "completely surrounded" – tautology? ("surround" means encircle, and is intrinsically complete).
Completely is out. Dincher (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It is also on Upper Pine Bottom Run..." No "also" required, this is a separate fact about the park's location.
Also is gone. Dincher (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Upper Pine Bottom State Park is tied for second smallest state park in Pennsylvania..." - sounds as if there was a competition leading to a trophy. Perhaps just say it is one of the smallest state parks in Pennsylvania.
It now says that it's one of the smallest. Dincher (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Second-growth forest now covers the region and Upper Pine Bottom Run is state-approved and stocked for trout fishing in season." Unrelated facts conjoined by "and", without punctuation. I think the forest information would be better associated with the final setence, and suggest a rehash: "Upper Pine Bottom Run is state-approved and stocked for trout fishing in season. Second-growth forest now covers the region; the surrounding state forest and park are home to a variety of flora and fauna."
Fixed this per your suggestion. Thanks Dincher (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Native Americans
    • The first paragraph gives general historical information about the early settlement of Pennsylvania, without reference to the park; I wonder if all this information is necessary? To me, the section could begin just as well at the second paragraph, although I would like to have a year, or at least a century, for the earlieat inhabitants of the West Branch Susquehanna River drainage basin.
Agreed, but at a previous PA state park PR or FAC I forget which this info was asked for and added. We had originally not inluded the bits about the Paleo-Indians. I agree that it is very general and seems out of place here. Dincher (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Moshannon State Park. All the PA state park FAs listed above have a similar section too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try to avoid "...the Iroquois. The Iroquois..."
Changed this, thanks. Dincher (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was the "Last Purchase"? The caps suggest that it's an official term; could it be explained or linked?
      • I tweaked the sentence to make it clearer that this is just the name in Pennsylvania for the land acquired in the second Treaty of Fort Stanwix. The term is mentioned in the treaty's article. If there were an article on the history of land purchases in the state, that would be a great link for it - I would need to do a lot of research fist though. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This section in particular would, I think, be easier to follow with the help of the map suggested above.
  • Lumber and turnpike
    • "Iron ore was found along the road, which led seven men to form a company to manufacture iron." Passive voice, and sounds as if "the road" led seven men to form a company etc. Suggest: "The discovery of iron ore along the road led seven men..."etc
    • I'm a bit puzzled by the equivalence of $7,000 in 1817 to $93,000 present-day. The 2009 figure seems low. I went to the Measuringworth.com site and, using the GDP deflator (the method recommended for calculating the present-day equivalent costs of commercial projects), came up with a 2009 value of $131,000. I see you have used the standard "Current Year" template, but this makes me wonder about the basis of its calculation.
      • The article uses the {{inflation}} template (based on Federal Reserve data for US prices), which is supposed to be for the current year (2009), which is why I also used the "Current Year" Magic word (so the two would both be automatically updated). Added "approximatley" before the figure. Not sure what else to do. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The inflation templates uses only CPI, the value from Measuringworth.com somehow uses the GDP. The site also indicates that there is "no single 'correct' measure" in finding the value of money, so using the CPI should be fine for use here. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 20:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The lumber industry came to Upper Pine Bottom Run in 1815..." This statement seems at odds with the date given in the first paragraph of this section.
      • Removed that and combined the two sawmill sentences (1815 and 1817) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "other early business establishments there were two stores and a hotel, which still stands." The comma is misplaced - should be after "two stores", not after "hotel" ("which still stands" relates only to the hotel)
    • "Economic development and increased settlement led to the establishment of Cummings Township by the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 1832, with land taken from parts of Mifflin and Brown Townships." Again I suggest a switch to the active voice: "Economic development and increased settlement led the Pennsylvania General Assembly to establish Cummings Township in 1832, with land taken from parts of Mifflin and Brown Townships."
Fixed by Ruhrfisch. Dincher (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • State forest and park
    • "...Tiadaghton State Forest, which surrounds the park." As this is the first mention of the park this section, it should be named.
    • "by 1933", surely, not "in 1933".
      • I am not sure whic mention of 1933 is meant here, also tried looking at all 1930's mentions and still am not sure, could you please be more specific? (Or did Dinceady fix this/). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It disappeared with the removal of the acreages so all is well. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back soon Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much - will start working on these soon. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • I did find the map of the park location and surroundings helpful.
  • State forest and park (continued)
    • Do we still do nbsp? "31 public camps" et al
      • Added, thanks
    • Excuse my ignorance, but what is a "public camp"? Campsite? Temporary housing in the Depression? or what?
They were campsites, thanks for asking about this, I have changed it to campsites. Dincher (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The following sentence reads: "It was originally established as "Upper Pine Bottom Class B Public Camp". 31 camps appear to have become an "it". In the next sentence, "it" has become "Class B camps". Some sorting out required. The answer to my earlier question seems to be that public camps were "public camping grounds" for hikers, hunters etc.
    • "During the Great Depression, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) set up nine camps in Tiadaghton State Forest and planted large numbers of trees there." Another of those sentences where two apparently unrelated facts are connected by an "and" Or perhaps they ae connected?
      • The CCC did lots of work in state forests and this was added so the later sentence on Plantation Loop made more sense. I moved the tree planting later. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...Forrey's 1984 History of Pennsylvania's State Parks still called it a state forest picnic area. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Penn DOT) 1990 map still called it a picnic area..." These two successive statements are worded a bit repetitively ("still called it a state forest picnic area" followed by "still called it a picnic area"). Is some variation in phrasing possible?
      • Tried to vary the wording, hopefully it is better, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Final paragraph of this section has numerous links. Some of these terms (hunters, hikers) have been mentioned earlier, unlinked.
  • Geology and climate
    • "The land on which Upper Pine Bottom State Park sits has undergone tremendous change over the last 400 million years." Er, yes, most places have! It does read rather as a statement of the obvious - does it need to be said? The description in the rest of the paragraph explains the extent of change well enough.
    • Misplaced bracket? "...(specifically what became Africa) and what became North America..."
    • I'm not clear what special information the aerial map is giving that is relevant to this section. Perhaps the caption could be made a bit more informative.
      • Rewrote caption to emphaiosze the dissected plateau. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Temperatures. I'm no meteorologist, but I'm sure that 20 °F is not 11 °C, and that 26 °F is not 14 °C. For a start, both Celsius figures should be minuses. Also, these figures are not "temperature ranges".
      • added a breif explanation - it is referring to the average difference between the high and low temperature (the range). Is this clearer? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to leave it for the moment but will finish tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last part - not much here

  • Ecology
    • "...Wolves, Lynx, Wolverines, Panthers, Fishers, Bobcats and foxes" Why the caps (except for the foxes)?
      • This follows the MOS here, specifically In articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups, a consistent style of capitalization should be used for species names. This could involve the use of: ...title case for common names of species throughout (see WP:BIRDS) and lower case for non-specific names such as eagle or bilberry, which may work well for articles with a broad coverage of natural history. I added a hidden note at the top. I think there is only one species of fox in Pennsylvania, so I can perhaps make it Fox with the correct wikilink (need to check). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I like the idea of finding more specifics on foxes in PA. Will try to do some research on my end, but it might not be very soon. Busy. Dincher (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It says here that red and gray foxes live in Pennsylvania. Dincher (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "all except for the last three..." - "for" is not necessary
    • More capitalised animals later in he paragraph
    • "European American explorers"? Not sure what is meant: European explorers of America? American explorers with European origins? Suggest rephrase to clarify.
reworded to eliminate European Americans, now it says explorers and settlers. Dincher (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third para redlinks: are these realistic future articles?
      • Have made stubs abd will try to get them to start class and get some DYKs. There are enough sources out there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreation
    • "Recreational opportunities there..." Clarify where "there" is, e.g. by "Upper Pine Bottom State Park also serves as a parking area and access point for the surrounding state forest, where recreational opportunities include hunting and hiking;..."etc
    • More animal caps.

No more. The article is comprehensive, packed with detail, and the illustrations are mouthwatering. I hope the points I have raised will help the article on its route through FAC. I look forward to seeing it there. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for you very detailed review and kind words - we will finish repsonding to your comments soon, but they are much appreciated. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am closing this to get ready for the FAC - thanks for all the helpful comments. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Upper_Pine_Bottom_State_Park/archive1&oldid=1138566514"