Talk:Nescopeck Mountain/GA1

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

Reviewer: JackTheVicar (talk · contribs) 01:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I will start my review sometime within the next 24–36 hours. JackTheVicar (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I was interested in reviewing this article as I have an interest in mountains in the Appalachians, I am currently sandboxing a draft to overhaul the Kittatinny Mountain article which I've been working on here User:JackTheVicar/sandbox/Box5 and likely will spend a few more weeks (maybe 2-3 months) before I'm satisfied enough to release into the wild. So, I'm particular about mountains. Right now, I think the article is C-class, while it doesn't need to be comprehensive (as an FAC would), I think the article is not developed enough to cover all the major aspects of the topic adequately under the GA criteria--what I ask for in some of my points below ought to be summarized within the article, the absence of such information stands out. However, I am willing to wait for a week or two if it will be appropriately remedied. JackTheVicar (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * General
 * The Lat-Long coordinates don't match the USGS GNIS data. Where are the Lat-Long coordinates used in the article located along the ridge? Why is that point important on the mountain? (especially as opposed to those listed on USGS GNIS) Is it the summit/highest point? USGS GNIS database has 6 points listed for the six quadrangle maps it covers--not just one that is mentioned in the article.
 * Topo maps of the mountain show several 1600-foot spots, the article references 1604' as its height, USGS GNIS says 1594'. Which is its highest? I think more detail within the article should discuss the elevation of mountain, despite it being generally featureless.


 * Geography
 * Nescopeck is described as the northern ridge in the Pocono region. The Poconos are not mentioned in the article.
 * In your description of the water gap, you should mention the changes in elevation (it's rather drastic, at a 1000-feet in elevation)


 * Geology
 * The page number needed for Williamson in footnote 12 is Pages 54 to 55
 * The geology section is a little sparse--not mentioning the Ridge and Valley Appalachians of which Nescopeck is part of the Anthracite Upland Section. Perhaps these links might come in handy:
 * Bedrock geologic map of the Berwick quadrangle, Luzerne and Columbia counties, Pennsylvania provides more specific information than just formation stratiagraphy.
 * Pennsylvania Geology Online
 * Further, how do these formations create the mountain--it is likely not a conformity over the Marcellus Formation (on which these formations rest).
 * The map at Onondaga Formation contradicts its mention in the Nescopeck article, as it labels anything south of Port Jervis New York (the western edge of Shawangunk Ridge) as "similar formations", but not the delineated Onondaga Formation.
 * I would like to see something about orogeny (I think Nescopeck, as part of the Appalachian Basin/Pennsylvania Salient is part of the Alleghenian Orogeny, but I'd have to check USGS and other reports to confirm). Usually information or orogeny belongs with mountains--not to the extent as it should with formations, but at least a summary.
 * Between geology/geography/streams and valley sections, there should be discussion on which drainages/watersheds part of the mountain are in and how the mountain's topography and geology impacts those watersheds and local ecology.
 * Further, because orographic lift is important in Pennsylvania and other Appalachian region weather patterns (especially the winters), there should be some discussion on how the mountain impacts local climate and weather patterns (you don't have a section for climate, though there ought to be one).
 * As far as glaciation, the Appalachians exhibit evidence (especially in bedrock geology) from three different glacial episodes, the Wisconsinian being the most recent (ending 10,000-20,000 years ago) and leaving the most evidence behind. Your discussion of glaciation only mentions "an ice age" and two rather vague sentences. I think more coverage of glaciation (and especially its impact on carving the present shape of the mountain) would be important. Are there any remnant glacial lakes (several Appalachian ridges have them)?
 * Further, in the geology discussion, you do not mention the types of rock--I am certain the formations are sedimentary rock formations (conglomerate, sandstone, etc.) and should mention how erosion shaped the mountain in the millennia after the last ice age.
 * A "See also" template to Geology of the Appalachians might be appropriate.
 * Out of curiosity, were there any sizeable fires on the mountain? Any major geological/seismic episodes? fault lines?


 * History and etymology
 * I would try to incorporate This two-sentence paragraph (follows) into the first paragraph of the section where I think it would be apt and at greater effect. Nescopeck Mountain is most likely named for a Native American village called Nescopeck. The word nescopeck itself is a corruption of neskchoppeck, which may mean "dirty waters" or "black waters". I'm currently looking for sources on Munsee derivation for you as we discussed on the talk page, but I'm not going to require that for this GA review.
 * A bit of discussion on Native American habitation would be called for - there's Paul Wallace's Nescopeck Indians (1948) (who seem to be a mixed-tribal unit of Susquehannocks (Munsee), Iroqouis and others), influences of the Iroquois in the region, John Moore's Bows, Bullets, and Bears might have a few stories--I know he writes that the Indians in the region were starving and fighting smallpox when the Moravians arrived. Bloomsburg University did an archaeological dig at the site of the Nescopeck village. See
 * Why was the top of the mountain devoid of trees in the middle of the 1800s - was it logging, or 18th- and 19th-century iron forges needing charcoal (which happened throughout NJ and NE Pennsy) or was it cleared to make it easier to prospect for coal mines? (Gordon records that it was timberless as late as 1832 )
 * A gypsy moth infestation began on Nescopeck... -- this might probably be better explored in the Biology section? perhaps elaborate acres? damage costs? types of trees?
 * Was Lehigh Valley RR a "gravity railroad"?
 * Interesting fact not mentioned within: From 1832 to 1838 the Catawissa rail-road was graded at various sections of the line in Maine township. The gap between Nescopeck and Catawissa mountains was crossed by a network of trestling, constructed at an enormous cost. Then the work suddenly ceased. In 1853, nearly twenty years later, work was resumed and the road was completed. from J.H. Battle, History of Columbia and Montour Counties, Pennsylvania (1887), p. 293. Might be fruitful for expansion.


 * Biology
 * ephemeral/fluctuating pool natural community - is there an article about this vis-à-vis vernal pools? I ask particularly to explain "ephemeral/fluctuating".
 * Is there a reason a dwarf forest emerged there? As a wildland firefighter, a similar spot on Kittatinny Mountain (which juxtaposes dwarf forest with the only NJ aspen colony) is due to fire ecology (something I study)--especially with what wildfires do to soil nutrients.
 * Perhaps Mary Davis' Old Growth in the East (1993) at p. 41 might have something substantial to say
 * No mentions of wildlife...endangered species? lepidoptera (it's on a migration route)? Birds?


 * Recreation
 * hunting? fishing (many websites list the mountain's streams as fishing locations), birdwatching? campgrounds? Is there access with ATVs or Horses to the trails? I recall the state park allows skiing on trails. agritourism? ecotourism? Cultural activities? I know there's a Blues Festival that is held at the foot of the mountain.
 * maybe a little discussion on Nescopeck State Park (it also has 19 miles of trails), and its formation--why was the protected area seen as needed to be created? are there other protected areas?
 * The line: There is high visibility from the top of the ridge and the town of Bloomsburg can be seen -- would be more meaningful if there is an indication of how far Bloomsburg is away to explain why this fact is important.


 * I must say that I am not sure how to fix any of these, though there are many that I don't think need fixing (you seem to be confusing Nescopeck State Park with Nescopeck Mountain, for instance). --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  14:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To expand upon the above, I'm sorry to reject this feedback so abruptly when you have clearly put a lot of work into reviewing this. But I simply do not have the resources or expertise to make all of these changes. I incorporated all information that, to the best of my knowledge, is covered in reliable sources, so major expansion would be very difficult. Most of your comments about geography are far above my level. I will try to fix a few things, but I think that most of this either has been done (the height of the water gap is already sort of mentioned), or cannot be done (your references to wildlife concern Nescopeck State Park, not Nescopeck Mountain). --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  14:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But you do mention the park in relation to the extent of the ridge, and if it's part of the mountain's area and ecosystem, therefore it goes without saying that some mention of the park's creation and purpose, its description would seem necessary. I'm not conflating the two...Appalachian mountain ridges have unique ecology, often endangered flowers, birds, butterflies, etc. The federal government's agencies, the state park system and Forestry office, Penn State, and organizations like The Nature Conservancy or the Sierra Club probably have such information for you and other inquirers (i work under NJ Parks and Forestry, have colleagues in NPS and US Fish and Wildlife and I work a lot with professors at Rutgers, so I know one email about any spot in my state of NJ will get me a list of resources and an informative conversation on them within a day or two...i encourage you to reach out to a few). For example: If you want to know about gypsy moths on the mountain, call your local forestry office, or agriculture extension service, or the county pest control officer, or Penn State (which has a big gypsy moth programme). The state likely has a report on any defoliation areas, impact/damage, pesticide applications, In NJ, one call to NJDEP would get me a copy of their reports. As far as the geological and geographical information, it is a mountain. For instance, Not discussing orogeny would be like writing a biography of a child actor with no mention of birth, parents, education, or youth up to age 16. You don't mention the composition of the strata (the three formations)...something that can be found on the bedrock geology map, can be found on USGS source files for each formation (they're public records, easily found online). As I see it, an article on a geologic feature like a mountain ought to be meaty on the geology information. Some basic information on the mountain's geology isn't mentioned...as i said above, the absence of it stands out. I couldn't begin to consider the major aspects criteria to be satisfied without the geology points I made above. And as I showed with a few links (above) that I found in the 90 minutes I spent with the article yesterday...there's more information from additional reliable sources out there that you haven't incorporated. If I could find a half dozen in a quick google search, you can too. JackTheVicar (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - Are you going to address or respond to the above comments? If you don't want to proceed with those suggestions, let me know and I could close out the GA1 as a fail. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Failing statement
Step Four of the GAN instructions states: You are expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article to GA quality in a timely manner. As the nominator has indicated that the requested improvements are above his level and made statements that improvement would be difficult, it is unlikely that the nominator will make an attempt to address my concerns. Further, since I initially posted my review on 11 October and templated the nominator on 13 October, there has been no effort at either the article or response to the suggested improvement here at the GA review--all while the nominator was working on other articles. I assume this as a purposeful or knowing avoidance of this GA review in the wake of his statement above.

While the article is well written, it is incomplete. For an article on a geologic feature (i.e. a mountain), from my opinion on the matter, the article ought to reflect accurate and complete geological information or data. This does not. Merely mentioning a formation without stating the rock materials that comprise the formation is insufficient. Additionally, there is no discussion of the mountain's orogeny which I think is essential as indicated above. There is minimal discussion of geographical features, history and scant information on ecology or ecosystems. I have directed the nominator where this information can be found. If the nominator decides to renominate this article at WP:GAN, I would advise him to seek out that information and improve the article accordingly. While I am not asking for FAC level comprehensiveness, failing to address the issues I raised above or improving the article with additional information as suggested above, I cannot in good conscience certify the requirement of criteria 3a—that the article "addresses the main aspects of the topic". Without this information, the article should be assessed at present as C-class.

Therefore, sadly, I must fail this article in accordance with the GAN criteria and instructions. JackTheVicar (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)