Talk:Powderly Creek/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 20:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Not part of the criteria and thus feel free to ignore: a) Is there any more recent information than "the 2000s"? b) The two long PDFs may be easier to read with pagenumbers given. c) Source #8 may merit a linkfix (also because it's not clear where to search for the information).
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * "The creek is an impaired stream." both in the lead and in the article text is a bit sentence fragment-ey, a problem replicated in the first paragraph of the hydrology section. "Tenths of a mile" is repetitive. "in Powderly Creek either in its upper reaches" seems to be missing a word. "The pH of the creek at this site" - which site? "Powderly Creek experiences measurable flow loss." what is flow loss - are people pumping too much water from it? " but on a considerably larger scale." is comparing two watersheds but it's not clear from the text which is the "larger scale". I am wondering what is "macabre" about a creek flowing through a basin. Should "Office of Surface Mines" be prefixed with a "The"? "It was also owned by the Hudson Coal Company." not clear if the creek or the colliery is meant. "Powderly Creek poses to flooding hazard in Carbondale Township,"?
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * What is https://www.pacode.com/? It does say "No statutes or acts will be found at this website." Otherwise everything seems to check out.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Seems like everything in the lead is supported by the article text. I notice that the coordinates appear to be unsourced. It looks like the creek turns northwest a little after passing under Lackawanna Avenue and that its mouth is at a slightly higher elevation. Reserving judgment on source #2 and #5 owing to length issues, and on #6 since it demands a login. Might want to specify at which point of the creek the daily manganese load was established. On that source, which pagenumber is the US Route mentioned on? is there a key somewhere for the acronyms?
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * But "recreation" is a bit sparse.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Are there really no images?
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Sorry, but given how long this has been in limbo I'll fail it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Are there really no images?
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Sorry, but given how long this has been in limbo I'll fail it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but given how long this has been in limbo I'll fail it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but given how long this has been in limbo I'll fail it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)