Talk:Roaring Brook (Lackawanna River tributary)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 09:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Grabbing this for a review. Miyagawa (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, lets get the review underway.
 * Images: All licences are fine.
 * Lead: Link Drainage basin to watershed
 * Done.


 * Also Moosic Mountains, even though it is a stub; and the Pocono Mountains
 * Done.


 * Course: See if you can break that large first paragraph into two, it'll make it easier to read.
 * Done.


 * I'd also just remove the carriage return from the single sentence (current) second paragraph and just have it be at the end of the new second paragraph
 * Fixed.


 * Hydrology: "The concentration of fluoride in Roaring Brook at Scranton was once measured to" - can we be anymore specific about when? Even if it's just a decade.
 * That means that it was measured one time; the date's given in the previous paragraph.


 * The final two paragraphs both start with "The peak annual discharge" - is there a way of changing one or the other to remove the repetition?
 * Reworded.


 * Geography, geology, and climate: You should move "Horace Hollister's 1885 History of the Lackawanna Valley described Roaring Brook as being "the noisiest tributary of the Lackawanna"." up to the other comments by Hollister - it looks out of place down towards the bottom of this section.
 * Done.


 * Watershed: If you're going to link Drainage basin in the article body, it should be up near the top when watershed is first mentioned.
 * I don't know. I don't think there's anything wrong with spacing out he links a little.


 * Merge the final two paragraphs since the last one is a single sentence.
 * Done.


 * Biography: Any chance of being a bit more specific with your linkage in "Wolves, bears, wildcats, and panthers" as I'm doubtful that all members of those families are found there.
 * The article doesn't imply that either, and there's nothing more specific to be said. Most readers probably won't care about the exact species anyway.


 * Notes: Can we get a cite for the note?
 * Nested references would appear to break the note.


 * Citations: There's quite a few instances of listing an organisation as an author - could you edit these and change those to publishers as they're not a specific individual(s) who wrote the text.
 * No, oftentimes the organization literally is the author; there isn't a single individual or even several credited with writing it.


 * Cite #13: Is the publisher the National Dam Inspection Program? If so, remove that from the title of the citation and place in a publisher field.
 * No, part of the title.


 * Cite #20: Publisher/Location details? Old books like that tend to have them printed on the bottom of the first page with text.
 * Done.


 * Cite #21 through 23: Need to be filled out with full source information, and in the case of the Life one, the article information.
 * Better.


 * Ok, placing this one on hold. Ping me back when you've had a chance to look or need more than 7 days. Miyagawa (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging . --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  00:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, happy to promote on that basis. Miyagawa (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)