Talk:Little Nescopeck Creek

Little Nescopeck Creek was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 13, 2015	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 11, 2013.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Little Nescopeck Creek's width has more than tripled since 1894, partially due to the construction of the Jeddo Tunnel?

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Little Nescopeck Creek is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Pennsylvania may be able to help!

Disambiguation[edit]

I notice some edits here referring to this river as "Little Nescopeck Creek B" have been reverted, with the edit summary “B isn't part of the official name, though”.
So can anyone clarify the soundness of calling the other river "Little Nescopeck Creek A"? Is the one official but not the other? I have to say I'd find that hard to believe. What exactly do the people who name rivers over there actually call them? If they have an official form of disambiguation (viz. the many rivers called Avon dotted about) then it'd be handy to use it. OTOH If the A and B are just a means to disambiguate them here, then (per WP:NATDAB) we can call them what we like (viz. ~~these two~~ (sorry, these two) in Germany).
Does anybody know? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonraker12: I'm the only other person watching this page; it's not exactly the talkpage for Mississippi River

. That said, the fact that there are two Little Nescopeck Creeks presents a bit of a problem. As you probably know, when there are multiple creeks by the same name, they're disambiguated by the creek they're a tributary of, cf. Mahoning Creek (Susquehanna River). If disambiguation is still needed, I go by the counties the stream is in, cf. Limestone Run (Union County, Pennsylvania) and Limestone Run (Montour and Northumberland Counties, Pennsylvania). However, even that is not an option here, since both creeks are in the same county. So basically, I just have to go with whatever method of disambiguation I can find. In this case, one report uses "A" and "B" to distinguish the two. Needless to say, the letters aren't part of the official name; disambiguators never are. Why haven't I moved this page to Little Nescopeck Creek B? I will as soon as the GA nomination gets reviewed (any takers?). It would be confusing for any potential reviewers to find a disambiguation page instead of an article. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 19:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You Could do township by township E.g. Little Nescopeck Creek (Sugarloaf Township, Pennsylvania). ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob: Thanks for the reply (And sorry for the formality; I didn't think to check there). If you are holding off until after a GA assessment, that's fair enough (and good luck with that; I'm not that familiar with that side of things, but it seems akin to putting your hands repeatedly into a mangle). Do you envisage moving this article, and leaving this title as a dab page for both? That would make sense. Eddy's suggestion for disambiguation is reasonable, too: I was going to suggest "LNC (southern Luzerne County)" and "LNC (eastern Luzerne County)" for them, like the German one (above). Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Little Nescopeck Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please avoid SHOUTING in the references, we don't need all those capital letters.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead doesn't seem to cover the article as a whole, e.g. Geology, History and Recreation don't appear to get a look-in.

Reworked. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You link a common term like "stream" but not an uncommon one like "macroinvertebrate".

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"18 of these species..." avoid starting sentences with numerals.

That sentence is no longer present in the article. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid single-sentence paragraphs.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent with the use of conversions, e.g. you convert everything the infobox and the Course section, but not later, e.g. in the Hydrology section, then you start converting again in the Geology section, and then stop in the Watershed section.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is "daily load"?

It's presumably the weight of a given dissolved substance (typically a metal) that flows through the creek per day. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you suggesting you don't know what a daily load is either? A definition or a wikilink (or both) should be provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The precision of these "daily load"s is too much, you don't need any decimal points at all, some would even recommend cutting to the nearest 10lb or whatever.

Precision reduced somewhat. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"a Mississippian Period rock" it looks much like this is really the Mississippian sub-period, not a capitalised Period.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Amot Series" v "Basher series", consistency in capitalisation needed.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are those series, what do they mean?

Added wikilink to soil series. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"and LNESC9. LNESC9 is upstream" avoid the quick repeat, perhaps "The latter is upstream..."

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link riparian zone.

Done. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"a woolen mill " isn't that a "wool mill", because wouldn't a "woolen (sic) mill" be a mill made of wool?

Actually, a woolen mill is apparently a thing, whereas a wool mill is not. I've wikilinked it. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I didn't see "woolen mill" in the article which redirects from that, whereas Wool mill seems to be quite prevalent. Perhaps it's an ENGVAR thing again. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1998, there were plans to convert " what happened?
As ref 1 is so huge (333 pages!) and different parts are of it are used to reference around thirty statements in here, it would be advisable to separate out the refs and give them the actual page numbers.

This could be very difficult, but if it's critical to this article passing, I'll give it a try. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be too difficult, after all you must have found each reference when you wrote the article. We really ought not be placing the onus of verifying the references on our readers, at least not expecting them to find a needle in a haystack. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few issues so I'm placing it on hold for a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reviewing, but I think the disambiguation should be handled before this is a GA. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will move it when this review is done, so that the bot does not deliver a failure notice to my talk page again, as it did with Scotch Run. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you plan to move it to? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little Nescopeck Creek B, naturally, to match Little Nescopeck Creek A. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasnt there a discussion that Little Nescopeck Creek (eastern Columbia County) or something like that would be better? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It still appears that issues are outstanding on this nomination, please ensure they are complete by 10 July. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakec: Will you be finishing this off? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page numbers are harder than you think; I'd have to read the whole document from start to finish, and at that point I may as well just start over with the article. It'd probably be a good idea for me to rewrite from scratch anyway; this was my first PA stream article and I was terrible at research when I wrote it two years ago. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that you'd like to withdraw this GA nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakec: could you let me know how you wish to proceed please? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal would be the best course of action at the moment IMO. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll "fail" the nomination at this time. Good luck with the re-nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Little Nescopeck 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: 18 January 2022).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]