A fact from Solomon Creek appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 February 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Solomon Creek boreholes are the second-largest sources of iron discharge in the
Coal Region, contributing 9% of the iron load in the region?
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
The infobox could have more information. It is lacking source and mouth coordinates, source and mouth elevation, and discharge information. The coordinates could be found on google maps. The elevations can be found here: www.daftlogic.com/sandbox-google-maps-find-altitude.htm. Discharge statistics can be found in USGS waterflow data here [1].
{{Infobox river}} doesn't have any parameters for coordinates, but {{coord}} is in use, look just above the infobox. The discharge information was already in the article and I've added that and the elevation information to the infobox. --Jakob (
talk) 00:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Or I suppose I could just use {{coord}} in the current infobox since there's a way to get coordinates to display inline with that. I've done that, have a look at the infobox again. --Jakob (
talk) 17:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)reply
You mentioned the
Laurel Run Mill Fire in the article. Perhaps you could expand on it a bit in the history section of the article and maybe even write a small stub.
You mean the 'error handle invoked' message? Just click OK; it doesn't seem to affect anything. I've also fixed the external link. --Jakob (
talk) 17:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)reply
The hydrology section may be too hard to understand for most readers. For example, "The load of iron is between 0 at sites SC04 and SC03 and 9,624 pounds (4,365 kg) per day at the Buttonwood Tunnel." I am not sure most readers would know where those sites are or what a "load of iron" on a river is. The section has alot of good content, but perhaps it needs some revisions.
I fixed the specific example you mentioned and also specified the locations of the sites where possible. The load of iron in a stream is the weight of dissolved iron that flows through it in a given time (usually a day). --Jakob (
talk) 17:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Good job editing it so far. I still see site notations such as SC06 listed in the text in the third paragraph. Perhaps you could remove those details there too? Also, perhaps you should specify what a load of iron on the creek is in the text. Getting better though.
PointsofNoReturn (
talk)
01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)reply
"It picks up Pine Creek and passes through Wilkes-Barre mountain and then through Ashley" from the course section. "Passes through" seems a little awkwardly worded. Maybe "passes by"?
The Hydrology section and geology section seem to be closely paraphrased to Source 1. I cannot do a document comparison because source 1 is way too large. Rewording might be necessary.
Try
this for a document comparison. I looked at the top 3 results and reworded a couple of things, but most of them seem to be coincidences or unavoidable (terms, names of organizations and places, etc.). --Jakob (
talk) 22:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)reply
It would be good if the infobox had discharge statistics in it, with average, max and min discharge. Mentioning it in the text is good enough if the infobox does not have a parameter for discharge.
It might be good to indicate the pages used in source 1 in the reference template. The document is over 100 pages. Same for the books and other long sources.
I haven't tried yet, but I know it would be a very difficult task and I might not even be able to find all the page numbers. --Jakob (
talk) 02:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)reply
A segment on the Laurel Run Mine Fire would be an interesting addition to the history section. It is also mentioned in the lead, so it probably should be mentioned in the article too in greater detail.
There is a lack of images besides the 1805 engraving in the article. Perhaps an image of a fish could work. Pictures of the river would also be helpful too.
I found a picture of Solomon Creek during a quick flickr search. It's a free image located here [2]. This might make a good infobox picture and the 1809 engraving could go into the history section.
I added a map since there are no other free images of the creek. I'll be sure to upload one if I'm ever in the area myself. --Jakob (
talk) 17:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty far away from the creek and it's winter now, so I doubt there are any interesting fish to photograph there. I've only even seen fish in an creek I've written an article on
once as far as I know. --Jakob (
talk) 23:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Don't worry about it. All I meant is to get a picture of a species of a fish that is in the river. For example, you could put a picture of a brook trout into the article.
PointsofNoReturn (
talk)
23:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)reply
I will be away for two days starting tomorrow. This article seems close to being promoted. If need be, I will extend the hold timer two days to make up for the loss of time, although I think the article will be promoted soon anyway.PointsofNoReturn (
talk)
23:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)reply
I check pages listed in
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for
orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of
Solomon Creek's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.
AnomieBOT⚡01:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Solomon 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, 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).
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.