Talk:Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park/Archive 1

General discussion
Ricketts Glen State Park in northeast Pennsylvania has 24 named waterfalls. The waterfalls will be the subject of a list (which we hope will be a WP:FL eventually) and the article on the park is on our list to try and get to WP:FA eventually. After four trips to the park, Ruhrfisch had obtained ok to good photos of each named waterfall, then dougtone on Flickr posted 685 photos of the park (most taken just a few days before the most productive trip Ruhrfisch made). Now the best are on Commons and here for your viewing pleasure.

The photos are organized as if you started at the southernmost falls (Adams) and hiked north, upstream along Kitchen Creek. There are six named waterfalls on or entering the main stem of Kitchen Creek before "Waters Meet" (this section is also known as Ricketts Glen). At "Waters Meet", two branches of Kitchen Creek come down separate glens (valleys) and join together. The branch in Glen Leigh (eight named waterfalls) enters from the northeast, and the branch in Ganoga Glen (ten named waterfalls) enters from the northwest.

So please look at the pictures for each waterfall and vote for the one you think would best illustrate it in the list. At the end, you can vote for up to three overall favorites for the Ricketts Glen State Park article, plus the best panorama. Thanks for your help, and enjoy!
 * Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO VOTED, THE POLLS ARE NOW CLOSED Winners are noted below and are in the list. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * 2--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2-- I like (3) better in the thumb, but full size it shows too slow a shutter speed for my taste, so 2's my vote.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 02:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 – ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 – It shows just enough of the pool below. Finetooth (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2  Little  Mountain  5   02:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 The water seems to have a more fluffy and mystical feel about it  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 (Surprised to see it's not winning. The other three are "ordinary"; #4 is mystical and memorable.) - Hordaland (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 — All nice photos, but the blurriness of the waterfall next to the sharply-defined rocks is more impressive than anything else. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - Does the best at showing the waterfall--Blargh29 (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - Color contrast Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - Very nice. Dincher (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. Actually I like #4 for its artistic value, but for an encyclopedia, #2 is probably better. --Moni3 (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - Its a little dark and unevenly framed, but a striking image. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - I like 4, but as Moni says, 2 is probably a better representation. Choess (talk) 07:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - Right balance of light, composition. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - it is a better overall picture of the fall, presenting it against the sky and a smaller fall at the bottom right. It is not as sharp as 2&mdash;my second choice&mdash;but reduced in size, the flaw is not evident.  Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 05:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "2" - 11 votes (winner), "4" - 5 votes, "1" - 1 vote

Votes

 * 3--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 – Nicely framed; all parts are interesting; better contrast than the dark ones. Finetooth (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2  Little  Mountain  5   02:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 I can (almost) see the troll there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hordaland (talk • contribs) 09:48, November 14, 2009
 * 1 Ben   Mac  Dui  11:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 Don't care for the angle on 1 as much, and you can't see the falls as well in 2 and 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyttend (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - 1 is washed out.3 is too dark and has that pipe thing. 2 is OK, but it is hard to see the waterfall under the bridge.--Blargh29 (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - it is currently too washed out, but that could be fixed in Photoshop; the composition is the best of the four Awadewit (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - fix in photoshop Dincher (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not keen on any of these, tbh. 1, if it wasn't washed out. Ceoil (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - 1 washed out, can't really see waterfall in 2 and 4. Choess (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - Only one where you can really see it's a waterfall. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 03:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "3" - 5 votes (winner), "4" - 3 votes, "2" - 2 votes, "1" - 1 vote

Votes

 * 1--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 – Nice leaves add variety. Good colors. Finetooth (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1  Little  Mountain  5   02:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 More tranquil with the non-dead leaves  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 Leaves on the trees are always nice, but you can't see the waterfall well in 4, and the angle is better than 2 or 3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyttend (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - Has the most direct shot of the waterfall. 4 is nice, but the leaves cover the waterfall.--Blargh29 (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 allows for best view of water and rocks, but 4 adds variety, with leaves Awadewit (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - you can see most of it not all the falls. Dincher (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 green, people. Green... --Moni3 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 is by far the better framed and sharpest image. Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - most water. Choess (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - Most comprehensive view of waterfall/cascade. Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - nicely framed; the waterfall is clearly presented. Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 05:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "1" - 10 votes (winner), "4" - 3 votes

Votes

 * 3--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 – ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6  Little  Mountain  5   02:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 – Good example of the rule of thirds. Nice horizontal and vertical balance. Nice colors. Finetooth (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * g Golden contrast, good composition  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 Ben   Mac  Dui  11:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 Looks great with the tree across the falls. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 - really clear shot of the falls. You get a great idea of what makes this fall unique--Blargh29 (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 - composition and colors Awadewit (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 - I like how I can see the little leaf in the foreground. Dincher (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - scope and composition --Moni3 (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 jumps out. It is better composed, has a good sense of movement and such purty colours! Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - really conveys the power of the falls. Choess (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - has green, and conveys the raw power of the waterfall. Unlike 3, has no background artifact issues. Daniel Case (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7 - full view of the falls (with surroundings), and not as obstructed by foreground objects (leaves, branches) as the others. Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 05:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "6" - 7 votes (including "g"), "3" - 5 votes, "5" - 1 vote, "1" - 1 vote, "7" - 1 vote

Votes

 * 4--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 – ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5  Little  Mountain  5   02:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 – My second choice would be 4, but 5 makes the falls look a bit more impressive. Finetooth (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 Ben   Mac  Dui  11:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 Centering is great, and like with the Adams Falls, the blurriness of the falls is impressive. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - Shows the width of the falls.--Blargh29 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - composition and lovely fall setting Awadewit (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 - different angle. Dincher (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - color and composition --Moni3 (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - Coulors do not seem right in 4 - where is all the green we can see in the others. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 - Choess (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - the humans add scale to the picture and an indication that this feature is in a park. If such distractions are unwanted, 2 is the choice.  Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - tiebreaker - looking at the draft list, I like some green for variety 05:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 05:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "2" - 6 votes (counting Jappalang), "5" - 4 votes, "4" - 3 votes, "6" - 1 vote

Votes

 * 4--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 4 has a refreshing feeling to it. I feel much better already. Wow... I really needed a break from text, my eye's were going all buggy on me. Cheers ! (Ice Explorer (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC))
 * 4  Little  Mountain  5   02:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5  I like the leaves at the bottom. Finetooth (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 Has more yellow  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 Ben   Mac  Dui  11:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 Water looks like it's shimmering. Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 - great shot, shows the color of the water --Blargh29 (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 – ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 18:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 - I like the different angle of the shot Awadewit (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - Great fall colors. Dincher (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 - I like the light and reflection. 1 if slightly cropped. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - Doesn't have the blown highlight that 1 does. Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - full view Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 05:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "5" - 6 votes, "4" - 4 votes, "3" - 2 votes, "1" - 2 votes

Votes

 * 3--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3  Little  Mountain  5   02:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 – Excellent composition shows the falls in context. Finetooth (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 3 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 Not perhaps the best view of the falls, but it provides more context and some variety would be good. Ben   Mac  Dui  11:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 3 Centering is good, and the log in the water is prominent enough without being too prominent. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 Cool shot. Blargh29 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 (3 is nice too, but the falls appear to wider than they are tall making landscape better than portrait; 6 is nice too, but probably wouldn't go well in a table) – ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 18:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - I like seeing the setting of the falls Awadewit (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 - falls and colors. great. Dincher (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - Diffuse light prevented blown highlights. I like seeing the whole falls here, along with the stairs next to them. Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 - full view Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 (tiebreaker) I like the colors, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "6" - 4 votes (winner), "3" - 4 votes, "2" - 3 votes, "4" - 1 vote

Votes

 * 6--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 or 7... I like 6 a lot, but 7 shows the entire falls.  Little  Mountain  5   02:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7  Finetooth (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 7 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 Ben   Mac  Dui  11:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 Shows the complete falls — very useful for illustration in an encyclopedia — and context. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - great shot of the falls head on--Blargh29 (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 7 – ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 18:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 - different composition from the other shots - you don't want all the shots to be the same in a list Awadewit (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 - different angle and my favorite spot to see a waterfall. Dincher (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - A it is a longer shot and gives a better idea of the immediate area. Ceoil (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - 1 is great but a little overexposed; 2 has depth-of-field issues. Doug's pictures are great but need color work. Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7 - full view Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "7" - 4 (or 4.5) votes (winner), "6" - 2 (or 1.5) votes, "1" - 2 votes, "2" - 2 votes, "5" - 2 votes, "3" - 1 vote

Votes

 * 4--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4  Little  Mountain  5   02:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 – I like 5 too. Finetooth (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 4 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - for variety - Hordaland (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 Ben   Mac  Dui  11:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 shows the complete falls, and I like the angle better than 6. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6--Blargh29 (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - I like the composition Awadewit (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 - Shows the complete fall, more details. Dincher (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - Avoided overexposure here; nice misty touch. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 – ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 03:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 Fluffy and yellow  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 - nice composition Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "4" - 6 votes (winner), "5" - 3 votes, "2" - 2 votes, "1" - 2 votes, "6" - 1 vote

Votes

 * 2--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6, top has a nice composition, good color and is dramatic. Thus giving a feeling of things in motion. Something that is important when photographing waterfalls. It get's my vote. (Ice Explorer (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC))
 * 6  Little  Mountain  5   02:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8 – Finetooth (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 7 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 Ben   Mac  Dui  11:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7 Great angle, and the bridge at the top contributes significantly. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * --Blargh29 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC) (I assume this is a vote for 3 as it is the # character, which wikicode renders as 1 here - thinks it is a numbered list Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC))
 * 9 - not many photos with green in them in the above sets - this is a good contrast - it would be nice to have all the seasons represented - winter anywhere? Awadewit (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I have read, in winter much of the waterfalls trail is only accessible with ice climbing equipment - it is a wet place, lots of little springs and seeps and runs and the trail is muddy and slippery in many spots even in summer. Still some of the southernmost falls might still be fairly accessible in winter - will see what I can do in a month or two. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Here is a photo on Flickr of ice on the trail - the caption says despite having cleats they had to turn around as it was too risky. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A frozen waterfall! Awesome! Now, I really want one. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8 - shows falls, trees in foreground and stairs too. Dincher (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - Grabs me. I likes. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - I like the way it twists around the tree. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8 - full view, encompass man-made features, and better colours Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8 - tiebreaker, like the full falls, stairs and bridge at top Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "8" - 4 votes (winner), "6" - 3 votes, "2" - 2 votes, "7" - 2 votes, "3" - 2 votes, "9" - 1 vote

Votes

 * 2--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2  Little  Mountain  5   02:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 – Finetooth (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 4 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - Hordaland (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 Great lighting and centering, and shows the entire waterfall. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - Blargh29 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - composition - Awadewit (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 - good background. I like seeing the sky. Dincher (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - Best of a difficult set. I like the look of the water practically breaking. Wish we could see the whole thing though (was it under a bridge?) Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The falls twists about 90 degrees - there is a walkway beside it and the edge is visible in the pictures of the top half. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 04:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "2" - 7 votes (winner), "4" - 1 vote, "5" - 1 vote, "3" - 1 vote

Votes

 * 4--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4  Little  Mountain  5   02:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 – Finetooth (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 4 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 Lighting is great. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4--Blargh29 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - lighting Awadewit (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 - again, I can see more than just falls, gives context. Dincher (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - I think the wider shot works best. Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - Ditto above, and has the bridal-veil effect w/o losing depth of field. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 – ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 03:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - Looks the best for me! It's really clear and provides a very good view of the waterfall. My vote for this one!! Ankitbhatt (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - more to see Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "4" - 7 votes (winner), "1" - 5 votes, "5" - 2 votes

Votes

 * 5--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6  Little  Mountain  5   02:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 6 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 – Finetooth (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 3 So beautifully green. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6--Blargh29 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 - composition and color Awadewit (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 - I like the angle. Dincher (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - Colour. Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 - Best of a tough set. Daniel Case (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 - full view and better colours Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 04:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "6" - 7 votes (winner), "5" - 2 votes, "3" - 2 votes

Votes

 * 7--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4  Little  Mountain  5   02:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 4 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 – Finetooth (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7 - Hordaland (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 or 7 Ben   Mac  Dui  11:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4, great centering and nice closeup. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6--Blargh29 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 good composition Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7 - Dincher (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - Right combination of bridal veil and natural elements. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7 - Sometimes less is more, and this photo is of better composition than other similar shots Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "4" - 5.5 votes (winner), "7" - 4.5 votes, "2" - 1 vote, "6" - 1 vote

Votes

 * 4--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1  Little  Mountain  5   02:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 – Finetooth (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 Ben   Mac  Dui  11:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5--Blargh29 (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 4 – ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 18:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 - composition Awadewit (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 I can see the depth. Dincher (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 Best one yet. Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 5, it gives a great view of the entirety of the falls. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * comment - I decided only to vote as a tiebreaker, but 1 is one of my favorites. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tallly as of Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "5" - 5 votes (winner), "1" - 4 votes, "4" - 2 votes

Votes

 * 3--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3  Little  Mountain  5   02:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 4 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 – Finetooth (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 Ben   Mac  Dui  11:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4--Blargh29 (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - composition Awadewit (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - good color. Dincher (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - In focus. Daniel Case (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - composition Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 — a wide picture for a wider falls, and doesn't have the distraction of leaves and branches as does #1. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "4" - 6 votes (winner), "3" - 4 votes, "1" - 1 vote

Votes

 * 6--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6  Little  Mountain  5   03:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 3 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6  Finetooth (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 Ben   Mac  Dui  11:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5--Blargh29 (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 - Lovely stream! Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - I feel like I can slide right down the falls. Dincher (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 - Only a panorama can do this justice. Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6, good point, Daniel. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)~
 * "6" - 6 votes (winner), "3" - 2 votes, "2" - 1 vote, "5" - 1 vote

Votes

 * 7--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7  Little  Mountain  5   03:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 7 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 – Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1--Blargh29 (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7, but I think it should be lightened up a bit Awadewit (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - nice background Dincher (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - Best composition, color. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - composition Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7, the steps improve the picture somewhat. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "7" - 5 votes (winner), "1" - 3 votes, "4" - 2 votes

Votes

 * 2--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 2 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 – Finetooth (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2  Little  Mountain  5   03:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8 - great angle of the waterfall.Blargh29 (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 - I like the levels Awadewit (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - uniqute perspective. Dincher (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 8 - Best depth of field, color. Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 - shows the entire thing Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 — it's always good to be comprehensive Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "2" - 4 votes (winner), "8" - 2 votes, "6" - 2 votes, "5" - 1 vote, "1" - 1 vote

Votes

 * 1--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 2 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 – Finetooth (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1  Little  Mountain  5   03:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3--Blargh29 (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 Awadewit (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - it feels like my feet are wet. Dincher (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - Good composition. I can practically hear it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 — action-filled closeup. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "1" - 5 votes (winner), "3" - 3 votes, 2 - 1 vote

Votes

 * 7--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 – ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 – Finetooth (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5  Little  Mountain  5   03:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7 or 3 Ben   Mac  Dui  11:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - maybe not the best technical shot, but gives the best sense of scale for the waterfall--Blargh29 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - I like the gush of water effect Awadewit (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - nice POV Dincher (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7 - Only one to effectively convey the waterfall's height. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - gives context of the scale and appearance of the Falls Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 — Good angle from above; and as views from above are good, but they're hard to get, a good one should be prized. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7 - (tiebreaker) There was a three-way tie between 7, 5 and 4 here. I tried each as a thumb in the list and thought 7 and 5 looked best - 4 is also a favorite shot of mine, but it did not look as good in the table, nor did it convey the height as well in 200 px size. We have a winter photo of Ganoga from the base (similar to 5) that I will use in either this article or the park article, so I went with 7. Ganoga is the tallest falls in the park and I wanted an image that truly conveyed its height and 7 did this best. Another cool thing about Ganoga is how the appearance changes as you climb - the falls twists a bit coming down, so from the base that and perspective make the top look narrorer (view in 5), but from the trail part way up you can see it is nearly the same width all the way down (view in 7). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "7" - 4 votes (winner), "5" - 3 votes, "4" - 3 votes, "6" - 1 vote, "3" - 1 vote

Votes

 * 3--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 3 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 – Finetooth (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2  Little  Mountain  5   03:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 The secodn fall has more space before teh cutoff  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - Hordaland (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - good angle--Blargh29 (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - I think the photo needs to be straightened a bit, though Awadewit (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I rotated and re-cropped it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - nice perspective. Dincher (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - The least cluttered. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 — Good angle on the falls, and not at all tilted. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "2" - 5 votes (winner), "3" - 4 votes, "4" - 2 votes

Votes

 * 4--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 – ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 – Finetooth (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1  Little  Mountain  5   03:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - Hordaland (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 Ben   Mac  Dui  11:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 5 - cool angle--Blargh29 (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - I like the green frame Awadewit (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - nice front on picture. Dincher (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - Straight on works here. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 - least obstructed Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 — Great angle, photo on level with the top of the falls is a plus. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "1" - 10 votes (winner), "4" - 2 votes, "5" - 1 vote

Votes

 * 2--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 6 – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 – Finetooth (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2  Little  Mountain  5   03:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 Ben   Mac  Dui  11:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - cool.Blargh29 (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 Awadewit (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 - nice framing. Dincher (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 - Only a panorama seems to do this one justice. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 - least obstructed Jappalang (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 — Not a fan of 3, and it shows more of the falls with fewer distractions than any other. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "2" - 6 votes (winner), "4" - 3 votes, "6" - 1 vote, "3" - 1 vote

Best in show
Only a few waterfall images (two or three?) will make it into the main Ricketts Glen State Park article. Which of the above are your favorites? Please vote for no more than three, by Falls Name and number, best first:
 * for example Erie 6, Wyandot 7, Adams 5

Votes

 * Murray Reynolds 6, Seneca 1, Oneida Falls 1 Finetooth (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Harrison Wright 4, Seneca 1, Oneida 1  Little  Mountain  5   16:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ganoga Falls 3, Murray Reynolds 6, Wyandot, 6 Dincher (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * R. B. Ricketts 4, Wyandot 6, Harrison Wright 4 ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 04:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Panoramas
Which panorama is best for the bottom of the park's article?















Votes

 * Number 6 is the best overall. It has the best color, composition and a relaxed calm feeling that would be perfect for the end of an article. (Ice Explorer (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Either 2 or 6. I like seeing the park infrastructure included in the photo. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 5. I don't like seeing the manmade stuff.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 6  Little  Mountain  5   03:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 6 – Captures the mystery of the place. Finetooth (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 6 (That's much nicer than most other man-made stuff... Like it's not the hotdog stand nor the toilets.)  - Hordaland (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 2 Ben   Mac  Dui  11:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 - I like the spotty light. Makes it look mysterious. Plus, the stairs remind us that this is a State Park, with human activity. (I had originally voted for 2, but upon further inspection, there appears to be a full torso apparition crossing the bridge!) --Blargh29 (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I think the full torso aparation could be fixed with more careful stitching. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 or 7 Awadewit (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 2 It's nice to see that it's a park with man-made structures and people in it. Dincher (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6 though it the left hand side is darkenedout and needs to be touched up in photoshop. All fine images though. Ceoil (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 In focus. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 6, Blargh has a good point about human activity. I too would have gone with 2 if not for the splinching; but ultimately the lighting on 6 appeals to me more than does the lighting in 2.  Nyttend (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tally as of 16:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "6" - 7.5 votes, "2" - 2.5 votes, "5" - 1 vote, "3" - 1 vote, "1 or 7" - 1 vote `

Bonus
Identify this waterfall and win a valuable (barnstar) prize! We aren't sure which it is, uploader did not identify it.

Identity

 * It seems to resemble Harrison Wright Falls. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The author has a Facebook account. I've sent him a note asking the name of the waterfall. Finetooth (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Harrison Wright 5 was originally unidentified, but is from a similar perspective. The background rocks just seem too different. I wondered if was Oneida? FYI, Ozone 9 was also originally unidentified, but the rocks match. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't Harrison Wright Falls. I've been to this waterfall (I remember the distinct rocks in the middle of the pool) and if I remember correctly, it's one of the unnamed falls. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have some pictures of the unnamed falls - it might be the one in the middle of Erie 5 with lower water (the unknown falls photo is also a few years older, so the logs etc. are different too). There is also an unnamed falls between R. B. Ricketts and B. Reynolds that this might be (can upload this one if wanted). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it might be the left side (looking upstream) of the bottom part of Tuscarora Falls - see here Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, that it is. Nice work! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation
One of the things I worry about is how to make sure we have identified the waterfalls correctly. Here are my notes - for all I went by the official park map for order and relative location. There are four other criteria I used - some waterfalls have a small sign by them in the park (park sign, here linked to a Flickr page of a photo of that sign in a sequential set), photographs identifying waterfalls in Scott E. Brown's 2004 book Pennsylvania waterfalls: a guide for hikers and photographers (book), photos of falls on the Pennsylvania State Parks Flickr page, and photos of falls in the Pennsylvania Trail of Geology Park Guide 13 for Ricketts Glen.

Ricketts Glen
 * 1) Adams - Park Geology guide, only falls south of PA 118
 * 2) Kitchen Creek - only falls under PA 118 bridge
 * 3) Shingle Cabin - only named falls on a tributary
 * 4) Murray Reynolds - park sign, first major falls north of 118
 * 5) Sheldon Reynolds - second major falls north of 118
 * 6) Harrison Wright - Park Geology guide, third major falls north of 118, last before Waters Meet

Glen Leigh
 * 1) Wyandot - book (from Waters Meet)
 * 2) B. Reynolds - book, park sign, PA State Parks Flickr page
 * 3) R. B. Ricketts
 * 4) Ozone - park sign, PA State Parks Flickr page
 * 5) Huron - park sign
 * 6) Shawnee
 * 7) F.L. Ricketts - Park Geology guide, PA State Parks Flickr page
 * 8) Onondaga - book, park sign

Ganoga Glen
 * 1) Erie Falls - book
 * 2) Tuscarora Falls - second falls after Erie, tall enough not to be confused with others
 * 3) Conestoga Falls
 * 4) Mohican Falls
 * 5) Delaware Falls - PA State Parks Flickr page
 * 6) Seneca Falls
 * 7) Ganoga Falls - book, park sign, PA State Parks Flickr page
 * 8) Cayuga Falls - book, third to last falls
 * 9) Oneida Falls - second to last falls
 * 10) Mohawk Falls - last falls

My biggest concern are the falls in Ganoga Glen between Tuscarora and Ganoga. The park map shows Conestoga between Tuscarora and the unnamed tributary, Brown's book says it is easy to miss Conestoga as it is a slide in a narrow crevasse below the trail, so only what is pictured matches this. Mohican is shown on the map as just above the unnamed tributary, and the falls pictured are the first above the trib, plus match Brown's description (two parts, hard to get a goodp icture of both at once). Delaware is identified in the official state parks Flickr page, but that fall is nowhere near 37 feet, but it is part of a whole series of falls in a wide section of the creek. There is a slide at the top of Delaware that may be Seneca instead - see File:Ricketts Glen State Park Delaware Falls 4.jpg. I just know if this goes into article space it will move to near the top of Google for identifying the falls and don't want to make a mistake. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like this may require a trip to the park. Wish I could do it. Are all the named falls labled with signs at the park? Dincher (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately most of the falls in the park do not have signs. I saw a few when I was there this summer and fall, and in dougtone's Flickr set there are more than I noticed (and these are all marked above, with links to the photos of the signs). Ricketts Glen is easy as there are only 6 falls (4 according to the park map). Glen Leigh is a little trickier as there is a decent sized waterfall (series of 3 or 4 cascades maybe 3 to 5 feet tall) without a name between RB Ricketts and B Reynolds, but almost every photo set agrees on the eight there, plus half have park signs. Ganoga Glen only has one sign that I saw or dougtone photographed and it is on Ganoga, which is the one falls that does not need a sign. Even there 6 of the falls are pretty clear (Erie, Tuscarora, Ganoga, Cayuga, Oneida, and Mohawk) and Delaware has an "official" Flickr photo. Hopefully someone from DCNR will repsond to the email, though I am guessing with the holiday it will not be until next week. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

GNIS Mistake
There's got to be a mistake with Shawnee and Huron Falls' elevations. Huron is marked at 1900ft and Shawnee is 1880ft. Shawnee is upstream and should therefore have the higher elevation. I am putting them in the table for now, hoping it can be corrected soon. Am I correct in my observation here? I am pretty sure it's a GNIS mistake. Dincher (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed this is an error. Not as obvious, but the elevations of Murray Reynolds is 1,496 feet, while Sheldon Reynolds is 1,506 feet - a difference of only 10 feet. Murray is 16 feet tall, and Sheldon is 36 feet tall. If the elevation is at the top of each, they should be at least 36 feet apart (plus how much Kitchen Creek drops between them), if it is at the bottom of each, they should be at least 16 feet apart (plus). Let's see how Ganoga Glen works out, then I will contact GNIS. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I am having trouble accessing the google book source and making sense out of it for the notes section of the table. Is it okay if I work through the GNIS information and leave the notes for you? Dincher (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is fine - I have a hard copy of the RG part of the waterfalls book and can access it on the web too. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Dincher (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Found another one: R B Ricketts is 36 feet tall at 1726 feet elevation, Ozone is 60 feet tall at 1752 elevation, the difference in their elevations is only 26 feet. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Found another one: Erie (Eric) Falls is listed at 1791 ft and Tuscarora Falls is listed at 1759 ft. Dincher (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

History
How much history should we include in this article? I think we should try to keep it pretty short. Of course the history will be greatly expanded at Ricketts Glen State Park. Dincher (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the History section can be pretty short too - I am not sure if there needs to be a mention of Native Americans, since this is about the falls and we don't have any refs that they knew about the falls. Though there is a ref that Murray Reynolds found a Native American pot decorated in the style of "the peoples of the Susquehanna region" in 1890 under a ledge of rocks on "Kitchen's Creek" here. I thought we could include the picture and story and ref in the Native Americans section of the park article history. Should the pot be mentioned here?
 * Yes, include it here. Dincher (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would definitely include the modern discovery of the falls in 1865, the naming of Ganoga Lake in 1881, as that means the falls could not have been named earlier, Col. Ricketts hiring a team of 6 men (led by Matt Hirlinger) to build the Falls Trail from 1889 to 1893 and Ricketts naming the falls (all found in Petrillo, Ch. 5, pp. 42 and 43). The state acquiring the land and making the park is in Petrillo, p. 69 (Afterword).
 * In modern times, I would mention how the Falls Trail is very popular and can be dangerous. On the RGSP talk page there are links to a helicopter dropping poles into the gorge to rebuild a bridge and practicing resues on icy trails (1997), and a four year project to upgrade the Falls Trail and to allow ice climbing / hiking (1998).
 * For the picture here I thought something with a bridge / the trail would be good


 * What do you think? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the waters meet bridge. The plans sound good. Dincher (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I will restitch it to avoid the half person at left in Waters Meet. I uploaded the colored version of the plunge pool diagram. Do you want me to work on the history, or do you want to? Also realized I need to send the elevation errors in to GNIS. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead with it. I am pretty busy at work and IRL. Dincher (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)