Talk:Messers Run/GA1

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

Reviewer: Yulun5566 (talk · contribs) 08:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues

 * 1) "It is difficult to access the stream as most of it is several hundred meters from any road."
 * How is that not neutral? --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Images and Grammar

 * 1) Overly factual article with too many details that dates back to 1997
 * L:Articles aren't supposed to be factual now? --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Lack of images and visually unappealing to anyone reading the article
 * Can't be helped, unless someone wants to blunder through the woods and look for it. As far as I know, there are no decent road crossings. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Other comments

 * 1) Should improve these areas or else the article would be deemed to be irrelevant to readers wanting current day information

Let's try this again
Review was sub-par to the point of trolling, and has been abandoned for about a fortnight. I'm just going to commandeer it rather than send the article back for a second run through GAN. G RAPPLE   X  14:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Ref 1 need not be used in the lead.
 * I have moved it slightly, but it is still needed as a source for the length, which I do not believe fits anywhere but the lead. I think that the manual of style neither requires nor forbids citations in the lead.
 * It doesn't forbid them but generally the point is to use them for something likely to be challenged, in addition to using them in the article body as well. It's fine to keep it there, but what should be addressed is having information in the lead that isn't present elsewhere—shoehorn it in if you must, but the lead of an article shouldn't contain unique information not repeated in its body. G RAPPLE   X  14:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I have stuck it into the course section. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  15:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't forbid them but generally the point is to use them for something likely to be challenged, in addition to using them in the article body as well. It's fine to keep it there, but what should be addressed is having information in the lead that isn't present elsewhere—shoehorn it in if you must, but the lead of an article shouldn't contain unique information not repeated in its body. G RAPPLE   X  14:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. I have stuck it into the course section. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  15:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is linked several times in the body, link only on first non-lead use.
 * Done.


 * "Surveyed one time by" -> I would just say "surveyed by".
 * Done.


 * Consider linking the township names in the lead.
 * Done.


 * There are a few one-line paragraphs, these are to be avoided where possible. Integrate the information into a larger paragraph, or re-distribute the larger paragraphs to add text to the one-liners.
 * Done.


 * You do use unit conversions through most of the article but the "Biology" section is lacking in the same.
 * Done.


 * Overall the text is fine, it's dry but to the point and works well.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * Fine, everything is cited and the sources used are of good quality. Consider adding publishing information for the book sources, though; they seem to be from university presses and this would be worth presenting.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * Covers a range of related information, good depth.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Contains no pro- or anti- river bias.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Two edits in all of 2015, which I would say is more than stable.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * I do feel we can illustrate this article better; images around the subject might be worth including. By way of suggestion, File:Pottsville Formation Worlds End.jpg would illustrate the "Geography and geology" section nicely as an image of the geology the river passes over; File:Turkey Run War Memorial, Mahanoy Twp, Schuylkill Co PA.JPG could be captioned to say that the river's watershed includes Mahanoy Township, and a lot of the fish species mentioned under "Biology" can be pictured, though I quite like File:White Sucker, Catostomus commersonii.jpg to show a white sucker.
 * Added the Pottsville Formation picture and one picture of a brook trout (the creek's trout have been more extensively studied than its white suckers) I have in the past been hesitant add these kinds of pictures, as they might mislead readers into thinking that they actually come from Messers Run. However, the captions I used may rectify this, and rocks and fish do look pretty much alike. However, I don't think a picture of a random war memorial helps the reader understand the stream, so I did not add the war memorial picture.
 * I tweaked the captions a little; I felt it was better say where they were from rather than were they were not, but it's still clear they're examples of something like, not from, the river. G RAPPLE   X  15:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Nothing too major to work on, placing this on hold for however long it takes to address anything raised. G RAPPLE   X  14:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking up the review. I have responded to all your comments. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  14:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Nothing too major to work on, placing this on hold for however long it takes to address anything raised. G RAPPLE   X  14:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking up the review. I have responded to all your comments. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  14:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This all seems tickety-boo after the changes have been actioned. I'm happy to pass this. G RAPPLE   X  15:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)