Talk:Nescopeck Creek

Suggestions for GA without being a GA review
To earn GA, all the references need to be filled out. No bare urls, and add publishing information to everything, which is currently rather lacking. Also, some of the templates seem to be broken, so those need fixing. Chris857 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The references need more work, but I've made a start on them. Until the references are cleaned up, this article is not ready for GA. Folklore1 (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added some critical details to the references that will be helpful in finding and verifying info at a later date, when some of the online locations may have changed. For citations to multiple page sources, I've added page numbers. Also, author and publisher. Folklore1 (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have two suggestions as well.
 * (1) Citations to long PDFs should include page numbers. Otherwise, readers have a hard time finding the place in the PDF that verifies a particular claim. In this case, all of the many claims supported by the 148-page Nescopeck Creek Watershed Stewardship Report need citations to specific pages. You can use a short-form citation like "Stewardship Report, p. 59" inside a pair of ref tags for each of these if you give the full bibliographic information somewhere, perhaps in a "Works cited" section below the "References" section.
 * (2) Every river or creek article needs a map. If you can find or make a course map or watershed map, that would be great. In lieu of that, you can easily add a locator map to a river geobox, which automatically places a red dot at the river mouth by keying on the mouth coordinates entered in the geobox. You have used a river infobox (not identical to a geobox), which is fine, but if you are interested in the locator map possibility, you can see an example in the Larrys Creek article, which is featured. If this doesn't make sense, just ping me on my talk page, and I'll be glad to help. Finetooth (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Finetooth, I added a locator map to the article but (as you can tell) it doesn't look that good. Any suggestions? King Jakob  C2 21:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to make the locator maps function properly in an infobox. I always use a geobox for streams. I'd be happy to set up a geobox in one of my sandboxes and then transfer it to this article, if you like. Just let me know. Finetooth (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Thanks for all your hard work King  Jakob  C2 22:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I've installed the basic geobox with a locator map. I'd like to do some fine tuning, but I have to leave now to attend a July 4 picnic. It appears to me that the creek's source, as defined by the United States Geological Survey, which I've cited, is in Dennison Township rather than Hanover Township. If you click on the source coordinates and then look at the Acme Mapper topo map, you'll see what I mean. More later. Finetooth (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I checked both cited sources for the Hanover Township claim, then saw that the odd one was published in 1832. The more recent one, the long PDF, says Dennison Township, confirmed by the topo map. I used this instance to set up the "Works cited" plus short-form citation system that I mentioned. Tracking down the exact page numbers supporting the many other claims will be tedious, and I leave that to you. :-)


 * I would suggest that you consider being somewhat more selective in presenting statistics and details. Keeping everything for the main stem is probably OK, but I think most readers will glaze over when reading details about the tributaries; e.g. "However, the Cranberry Creek watershed contains 6.5 percent barren land, the Black Creek watershed contains 14 percent, and the Stony Creek watershed contains 30 percent." What to keep and what to omit is up to you, but I'd be inclined to pare things down a bit.


 * I'd be careful about how I presented the discharge statistics. The long PDF says they are fairly dependable only for the upper watershed, consisting of 49 mi2 above Nescopeck Creek B. That's only about one-third of the whole watershed. Finetooth (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'd think of the information on tributaries as narrow topics merged into an article about a larger topic (the main stem). I'll get to the hard tedious work of tracking down claims today or tomorrow. King Jakob  C2 19:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031063055/http://www.usgwarchives.org/maps/pa/county/luzerne/usgs/luzerne.jpg to http://www.usgwarchives.org/maps/pa/county/luzerne/usgs/luzerne.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130831230909/http://fishingcreeksportsmanassn.org/Downloads/conservation_plan.pdf to http://www.fishingcreeksportsmanassn.org/Downloads/conservation_plan.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)