![]() | Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River tributary) 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You've done an awful lot of work on this article with very little help. I converted most of the many imperial quantities in the article to metric just now using the "convert" template ( Template:Convert), which is very handy in all sorts of situations involving quantities of units. I have a couple of other suggestions for improvement. I would suggest looking at featured articles on rivers to see how other writers and editors have organized their materials. Specifically, I was helped when I did my first stream articles by looking at Larrys Creek. I would also suggest making the article less list-y by including the communities, tributaries, and bridges in the "Course" section. The convention for course descriptions is to start at the headwaters and proceed downstream to the mouth. Mention notable changes (direction, tributary confluence, bridge, dam, road, village, stream gauge, waterfall, and so on) as they occur going downstream. A second convention is to refer to things on the right bank as "right" and things on the wikt:left bank as "left"; e.g., "at X Village, Something Creek enters from the right". Hope this helps. Please ping me on my talk page or comment on this talk page if I can be of further help. Finetooth ( talk) 16:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
As you were lacking a map, I have created a simple one below for you to add to the article. You may want to check the co-ords, and add at least those for the mouth to your info box which should give you some co-ords for the article. Also consider using the Template:Geobox/type/river which would cope with your mean, min and max river flows; and a lot of other extras. Jokulhlaup ( talk) 18:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
You really think it's only start-class?-- King Jakob C2 14:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I saw this article was up for GAN, but I don't have time to do the review myself. Here are some suggestions:
Fredlyfish4 ( talk) 23:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 17:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
On first pass, this looks strong--well sourced, comprehensive, and ripe for promotion. Thanks again for your work on it. I've marked a few quibbles below, and also made a few minor copyedits as I went; please check that I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll get to the bare link in 9 or 10 hours. Thanks for reviewing! King Jakob C2 01:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Thanks for the super-speedy response! This is a big pass. |
This is covered twice in different spots in the biology section. It should be edited so the subject is only dealt with once, i think, since both sections talk about ranges of density. hamiltonstone ( talk) 11:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, what was Camp Creasy? hamiltonstone ( talk) 11:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
As requested, here are some initial comments on the article (with more to come). I picked one small section to look at initially, on Dams.
One problem I have with this one paragraph section is that after reading it I have no idea how many dams there currently are on the creek. The paragraph mentions six (and shows a picture of one, Boone's Dam near Bloomsburg). Boone's Dam is the only one referred to in the present tense (is), all the rest are described using the past tense in some way (was built, were) which makes you think the ones that are not Boone's Dam might no longer exist. However, I know there is still a dam in Benton (as I photographed it and uploaded the pic to Commons here).
A possible source for dams on most major PA creeks is Gertler's book "Keystone Canoeing". I do not own it, but know a library that does and will try to look up Fishing Creek in it. Gertler usually describes the extant dams in at least some detail, so that would help here. I think more information on canoeing the creek could be added (using Gertler as a source).
Another issue this section raises is organization. There is a lot of information present, but it is not clear what the organizing theme (if any) is. The dams could be presented in chronological order (if dates of construction are known) or in some sort of geographic order (dams encountered going up stream or down). They might even be presented in terms of use / purpose (so I imagine the older ones were built for sawmills or gristmills, and it may be the newer ones were built for recreation or even flood control). It is even possible that the information could be scattered through the article (no section on dams) - this is what I did in the Larrys Creek article (current dam in Course section, but I had less specific information on dams and more on mills so that was in History).
I know Lycoming County history much better than Columbia County, but I assume that logging played a large role along Fishing Creek too (and if so, that there were likely many sawmills and associated dams). I know it depends on sources, but there is very little on logging / lumber / sawmills in the article currently.
Once the information is better organized, the prose needs work.
There is a lovely watershed map (currently in the Box in the lead), but several features shown on the map are not mentioned in the article. Ricketts Glen State Park is shown (and labeled) but not mentioned. State lands (mostly game land, but presumably state forest too) are shown in lighter green, but barely mentioned (I would think the Recreation section would list these major protected areas in the watershed too). Kitchen Creek and Pine Creek are also shown, but not mentioned.
Hope this helps, more to come. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The article needs to be more careful in using (and reading) sources used - the state website lists two dams near Benton (one in the borough and one in the township) and the source the article uses for the one Benton dam mentioned actually says there are two dams near Benton "There are two dams on Fishing Creek, with one located just north of Benton across from Mill Race Golf Course and the second in downtown Benton." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River). 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.usgwarchives.org/maps/pa/county/columb/usgs/orangmpl.jpgWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)