Talk:Mahoning Creek (Susquehanna River tributary)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: LeftAire (talk · contribs) 17:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I am going to review this article! My first geography article that I am to review, but hopefully the process is seamless! I'll have a review of what needs to be fixed within the next few days if not sooner. LeftAire (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources are fine, but I think that the the ones that are from Google Books need to be listed by page number, etc. I can show you how to do it if you need help, and User:Imzadi1979 kind of alluded to that on the talk page, as I see....
 * Done. I also removed a possible misinterpretation that somehow lasted two years and ended up on DYK (!) way back in 2013. The sentence "At its time, it was one of the last Native American villages in its vicinity.", which refers to the old village mentioned in the second paragraph of the history section was being supported by this bit. I figured I'd ask for a second opinion. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  17:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a large number of one sentence paragraphs, but only a handful of them are necessary. The only ones that need to be kept are the ones in the History and Etymology section (excluding the sentence of the Watershed Association, it is out of place compared to the rest of the section. I suggest it being removed, relocated to another section, or further expanded).
 * All but two of those are now gone. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  17:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the second and third paragraphs for the History and Etymology section need to be combined. Among the talk of constructions are various types of mills, and the sentence with Philip Maus building the mill might as well be next to the first sentence mentioning him. Perhaps after the Phillip Maus was among the first settlers in Valley Township, Montour County, having settled there in 1769 sentence, you can list Maus later built a sawmill that significantly contributed to the construction of numerous wooden buildings in the vicinity.
 * One paragraph is about the first settlers, the other is about things that happened after that. They should stay separate. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  17:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Change Mr. Deen to John Deen, Sr.
 * The sentence about him was actually another misinterpretation. Removed. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  17:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the article could benefit from some images of the wildlife. Perhaps add a picture of one of the bird or plant species? And maybe another picture of the creek someplace?
 * Two more pictures are now in the article. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  17:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Overall
 * Well-written?
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

For the most part the writing seems fine, though I'm concerned about the use of 'It' being used so frequently. Perhaps that's a minor quibble of mine.
 * "It" is used 15 times, which comes out to slightly over 0.5% of all words. For comparison, 0.49% of the words in this FA at "it". --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  14:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Verifiable?
 * Reference layout:
 * Reliable sources:
 * No original research:


 * Broad in coverage?
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:


 * Neutral?:


 * Stable?:


 * Illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * Appropriate licensing:
 * Relevance and captioning:


 * Pass or Fail?:.

I shall re-read either later today or tomorrow in order to see if I will potentially encounter errors or clarifications that I might have missed my first time around. Let me know if I have something mixed up in my assessment so far, and we'll try to work it out. Thanks for your patience (which has been quite lengthy given the nomination date, apparently)! LeftAire (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind the second and third paragraphs being separate after re-reading, but is the sentence about the watershed really necessary? Please elaborate. (On a bit of a side note) Sorry for not responding sooner, I didn't realize you'd fix these errors so quickly...LeftAire (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is necessary in my opinion; I've added a few sentences to it. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  14:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine now. Excuse me if I was appearing to be too nit-picky. I'll go ahead and pass the article. Thanks for your quick responses, this has been the most seamless GA review I have encountered so far! LeftAire (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fast review. I did have one question though: what's your opinion in the possible misinterpretation I mentioned above. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  15:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I think adding that they didn't disperse from the region until 1774 is useful. The end of the first sentence seems a bit abrupt and could benefit with a little more information about the Delaware Indians, though you don't have to go into detail about the purchase of the tract of land of that region if you want. My apologies for not responding sooner. LeftAire (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)