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
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
"In the mid-1970s," -repeated three times. You could get away with merging and not mentioning it again. In the third instance you could say "during the same period"
Done.
Geography
"Harveys Creek is in the Wyoming Valley.[13" -this should be at the top, not stray at the bottom.
Done.
Watershed
"However, its source is in the quadrangle of Harveys Lake. It also f" -however and also grate with me here, please find a way to avoid it.
Done.
Are there really no articles for rockfill or earthfill dam? I would delink.
" Plunkett's Battle" -if it was major, why is there no article?
Who knows. One of the shortcomings of Wikipedia, I guess. Or maybe it's here, but under another name.
I'd hardly call communities with under 300 people "major". Remove major
I see your point, but they are major for the Harveys Creek watershed.
Delink water supply
Why?
The content is all here for GA but it isn't structured in the way I would have done it. I always prefer reading about the history first and finding a way to merge short sections into others. In places some paragraphs would seem to belong further up and some shuffling needed to make it flow better. It's not stopping it being promoted to GA though, and I'd guess it's probably in a standard order according to WP:River guidelines.♦
Dr. Blofeld13:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Passing comment. I agree that the layout needs attention. Putting History first is standard for most articles, and I checked, it is also standard for river articles -
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Article_structure_guidelines. The Biology and Recreation sections are rather short; per
MOS:BODY: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose". Images squeeze text, and intrude into following sections, which is another layout issue. There is a tendency to use statistics without explanation, as in the Tributaries and the Hydrology and climate section, which gives the article a feel of notes toward an article, rather than the finished article. SilkTork✔Tea time19:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, I think History should come first and I think biology and geography could probably be merged. It's not just the section ordering either which doesn't seem right, it's also the paragraph/sentence structuring in places which I think needs to be ordered better and the article will read a lot better for it.♦
Dr. Blofeld20:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I actually think the course-hydrology/geography/watershed-other stuff is the way it's always been done with Pennsylvania streams. Certainly since 2013 (when I became active in those kinds of articles), and
beforethat to a good extent. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
17:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)reply
While I don't think the article is in the best order and am not convinced about the way in which certain paragraphs are structured, I think the content is basically there for GA.♦
Dr. Blofeld22:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Harveys 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.