Talk:Mud Creek (Chillisquaque Creek tributary)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 01:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no need for the citation in the lead; the information is repeated and cited in the body.
 * The length of the creek actually isn't repeated. It's critical information for the article, but I don't know where it would go outside of the lead. --Jakob (talk)  15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it's in the infobox. I'm not going to fail GA because of a citation in the lead, but the usual style would be to cite it in the infobox and not the lead.  I think it should be in the body too, though -- your first paragraph treats the lead as an introduction, so it begins to go into more detail, but the lead should also be a summary, with the body giving all the information in the lead, with more detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd get rid of most of the digits in the numbers -- I know the source gives this precision, but it's unrealistic, and it would be better to just say "about" and use only a believable precision. For example, there's no way that the daily load of phosphorus is constant to within 1%, which would be a couple of ounces; quoting it to an accuracy of 100 micrograms isn't helpful to the reader.  I'd put in only as many digits as seem to be reasonable.  Some numbers, such as averages, can be more precise, but even there I'd eliminate some digits.
 * I've trimmed it to two digits after the decimal point (except for one value, which was 0.0002 and would thus look like 0 if I removed any digits). --Jakob (talk)  15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK on the 0.0002.  I think I'd have eliminated more digits, but this looks more sensible now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "It then exits Madison Township. Upon exiting Madison Township": Suggest merging these paragraphs and eliminating the duplicate phrase. I also think you should eliminate the single-sentence paragraphs (both in this section and throughout the article); and there's no need for a separate section just to say that all the tributaries are unnamed.
 * Paragraphs merged. --Jakob (talk)  15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll add some more information on the tributaries tomorrow; I can figure out their lengths from The National Map.--Jakob (talk)  02:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, never mind that. I merged the tributaries section with the watershed section. --Jakob (talk)  16:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better. I did a little more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Stating the load of sediment and phosphorus in the lead is not the same as saying it's impaired; a reader will probably not know how much phosphorus should be in the load. I would avoid using "impaired" without an explanation, too; it's a bit jargony for an encyclopedia.
 * I added a note defining "impaired". --Jakob (talk)  15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I tweaked this to avoid the bare link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Where does it say in the given source that the entirety of every stream in the watershed is impaired? I couldn't find that, but I may just have missed it.
 * Map on page 24. --Jakob (talk)  15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Much of what's in the hydrology section appears to be taken from the tables in the source; I think it would be better to leave it in table form. In running prose it reads very awkwardly, and it makes a very poor reference for the reader.  Also, given that the data all comes from a particular study, I think the date needs to be given.  Currently the article just gives the data without qualification; this would be undesirable in any case, but given that the streams are impaired it should be clear to the reader that this is current, or at least recent data.
 * In past GAs I've written, that info has been in prose form. I'll see what can be done about improving the writing. --Jakob (talk)  15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Generally I'm concerned that the article does not read at all smoothly; it reads like an assemblage of facts, not like a coherent description of the creek and its environment. The article needs to be copyedited throughout for concision and smoothness.  For example:"Four were built in the 1930s, one was built in the 1940s (1946), two were built in the 1960s (in 1962), and one was built in the 1980s (in 1984)" could be much more concise: "Four were built in the 1930s, one in 1946, two in 1962, and the most recent in 1984."
 * I've done some light copyediting, including fixing the example you gave. I think the prose is mostly okay, but I haven't yet looked at the hydrology section. I'll do that tomorrow. --Jakob (talk)  02:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I copyedited the hydrology section. --Jakob (talk)  16:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The external links checker tool finds one dead link.
 * I added an archive.org link to the ref. --Jakob (talk)  15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Reference 6 displays a syntax error in the footnotes.
 * Repaired. --Jakob (talk)  15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you confident that the 1883 reference for the type of sandstone has not been superseded by later geological names? The TMDL reference briefly discusses the geology but doesn't mention "Oriskany cherty sandstone", and as far as I can tell from some googling the modern name is just "Oriskany sandstone".
 * I doubt that the geology could do any major change in 130 years. I changed Oriskany cherty sandstone to Oriskany sandstone, though. --Jakob (talk)  15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt that George Whitmoyer is notable enough to be worth mentioning, and I think the same is true of the John Gosse Freeze reference.
 * Whitmoyer was the first (or at least one of the first) settler(s) in the watershed, hence the mention. I've always considered that information valuable when it can be found and anyway, he's notable enough to have significant coverage. The part about John Gosse Freeze is more to show that the creek has an alternate name, rather than when Freeze thinks. Shouldn't alternate names given by reliable sources be mentioned? --Jakob (talk)  15:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to do this, since this article has been waiting a long time for a review, but I'm afraid this is not close to GA standard at the moment, so I'm going to fail it. The prose is not clear and concise and the article is not well-organized. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider your quickfail. I have the time to fix this and I'm willing to put in the work. I can't guarantee that I can fix everything, but I'm sure I can at least get close. Thanks, --Jakob (talk)  03:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd be willing to give you feedback as you work on it, and if it gets to the point where I think it's GA-worthy, you can renominate it and I will review it. Would that work for you?  If you find you don't agree with my comments, you could always just renominate it anyway.  And if you would like another opinion now, we can ask for one on the GA talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:RGA does say that "If you fail an article and then discover that the editors appear willing to make significant improvements, it is possible to re-open the review", but if you would prefer I can just fix the issues, renominate, and ping you to do a second review. --Jakob (talk)  03:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK - I'll reopen it. How do I do that - just reinstate the nomination template? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ritchie33 just reopened this GAN for me, so we should be back in business once Legobot makes a pass. Let me know when you're ready for me to take another look, or if you have any questions about my review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll help with the review. Upon quick reading this article, it appears that there are really no mistakes in this article and I do not see any reasons for not promoting this article to GA status. Anyone who wanted to find out more about Mud Creek could read this article and learn more about it. However, I did notice a couple bumps/mistakes along the way. I did notice that there was a couple wikilinks that were red, meaning that they led to pages that weren't exactly there. There are currently 5 red links. They are links to: Organic Enrichment, Trimmers Rock Foundation, Onondaga and Old Port Foundations, Soil Association, and the John Gosse Freeze links. I believe that if you fix these, I see no reason why we shouldn't promote this to GA status. Yoshi24517 Chat  Absent 03:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed Onondaga and Old Port Formation, organic enrichment, and soil association. Trimmers Rock Formation should stay since all the other rock formations are linked and someone might write an article on it at some point. Since you bring it up, I suppose I could write an article on Mr. Freeze at some point in the not-too-distant future and turn that link blue. --Jakob (talk)  17:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Re the redlinks, I think Yoshi24517 is mistaken -- WP:REDLINK says "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject", though it adds that generally redlinks to people's names should be avoided because of the risk of incorrect links to people with similar names. I think you could safely re-add all those redlinks unless you feel they won't ever be separate articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I added back the redlinks to organic enrichment and soil association. --Jakob (talk)  13:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Overall this is much improved. I'm still somewhat concerned about the way the prose essentially recites data from tables, though I understand that GA's prose requirements are not as high as FA, so that might be OK. But I'm more concerned about the fact that some of the sources for the water sampling are from very specific dates, which are only visible to a reader who follows the footnotes. After all, the whole point of an impaired stream is that it wasn't always this way; water quality changes and the measurements are not absolute or permanent. I think the reader would be better served by text that went something like this: "A series of USGS analyses in the late 1960s found that ... (and then give the data) ... A 2011 review of the watershed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection found that every stream in the Mud Creek watershed failed to meet the water quality standards for its intended use ..." and then add the relevant information after that, if possible highlighting in prose the items that indicate unfitness for use. Using this data as if it were general undated facts about the creek seems wrong to me.

I see why you want to keep the references to Whitmoyer and Freeze but I'm not convinced the information is phrased in a way that meets your goals. How about: "An early settler in the area was George Whitmoyer, who built a cabin in the valley of Mud Creek at Jerseytown in 1772"? That makes it clear the reason for mentioning him. I'm not convinced this is notable but it's arguable.

For Freeze, how about: "In John Gosse Freeze's 1888 book A History of Columbia County, Pennsylvania: From the Earliest Times, the name "Mud Creek" does not appear; instead Freeze refers to the creek as the east branch of Chillisquaque Creek." As above I think this is marginal but I'm willing to leave it in. I think the rephrasing would help make it clearer why you mention it.

Let me know what you think about the above and I'll take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the years that the data comes from into the prose and also rewrote the sentence about Whitmoyer as you suggested. As for the bit about Freeze, the name "Mud Creek" does actually appear. Freeze says the following: Mud Creek, which is in fact properly, the East Branch of the Chillisquaque...". --Jakob (talk)  00:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The "as of" dates are a big help. Can you do something similar in the lead where you reference that data?  I changed the tense in several places to past, because this is data that's going to change over time.  Can you do the same for the description of land use, which should also be as of 2011?  Re Freeze, how about "John Gosse Freeze gives the name Mud Creek as the east branch of Chillisquaque Creek in his 1888 book A History of Columbia County, Pennsylvania: From the Earliest Times, but adds that the creek's name is more correctly the East Branch of the Chillisquaque"?  I wasn't clear from the wording you have now that Freeze actually used the name "Mud Creek" in his book. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything now looks good, so I'm passing this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)