Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Moshannon State Park


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:46, 24 April 2008.

Black Moshannon State Park
Co-Nominators Ruhrfisch and Dincher
 * We are nominating this article for featured article because we believe that is represents some of the best work that wikipedia has to offer regarding state parks. It has undergone an extensive peer review (thanks to The Rambling Man, VerruckteDan, Ben MacDui, Dtbohrer and María) which is archived on the talk page. Ruhrfisch and Dincher (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Great article, very complete and well referenced. Definitely one of Wikipedia's finest. This is great work from all the editors, especially User:Dincher and User:Ruhrfisch. VerruckteDan (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and kinds words. Dincher (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto on the thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your helpful comments Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. All of my comments (except for one, which is pending) were addressed or explained, and I think this is an excellent article. Thus, I Support. This has to be one of the best Geography articles on Wikipedia. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Support language and style (I'm not qualified yet to support more). Editors were very attentive to my concerns, and everyone else's. Great article. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Comments - just getting my feet wet having a look-through. Comments below..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought all parks were open year round, and it makes it sound like recreation is the main aim of the park (rather than conservation). The word features is what makes the second bit sound advertorial. I am trying to think of a different way to phrase it but you guys know the park better....Actually, the first clause is redundant: try " There is an extensive network of trails which allow (year-round) hiking, biking, and viewing the bog habitat at the Black Moshannon State Natural Area. " - is any meaning lost?
 * There are several Pennsylvania state parks in remote areas or atop mountains that are for all intents and purposes closed in winter. I tried putting your sentence in without the paranthesis "There is an extensive network of trails which allow year-round hiking, biking, and viewing the bog habitat at the Black Moshannon State Natural Area." and realized that in the winter when the snow is deep you can't hike or mountain bike on the trails. I have changed the word "features" to the more neutral "has" and tweaked slightly so it now reads: Black Moshannon State Park is open year round for recreation and has an extensive network of trails... Also, Juliancolton has asked (above) if there should be an "of" in viewing [of] the bog habitat. I tend to think not, but would appreciate your opinion on this. Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC) OK. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (outdent) I definitely prefer the 'viewing' without the 'of' too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * :Lenape (or Delaware) - I am Australian and got confused for a second here; an epithet after 'Delaware' - x- Indian, or x-tribe, may be helpful.




 * The most specific information is given in one the National Register of Historic Places nomination forms and is just "One of the first jobs undertaken by the CCC at Black Moshannon was the construction of a new dam at Black Moshannon Lake." We also have the black and white CCC photo published in 1936 showing men working on the completed dam. My guess is that the dam was begun in 1933 and finished that year or by 1934, but I have no verifiable source for that. Sorry, Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The CCC-built dam forming Black Moshannon Lake was replaced in the 1950s by the current structure - again, why not exact date?
 * Again, the most specific sources (NRHP nomination forms again) all just say the new dam was built in the 1950s. Sorry, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since its establishment in 1937, Black Moshannon State Park has undergone several changes. - this is a little vague and could be more specific, i.e. it is about chunks of the park used for other purposes (?) This is not a deal-breaker really as I am a bit conflicted about it.
 * It is meant to introduce the section and the fact that, although many of the CCC-built facilities still exist, the park is not a museum and there have been other developments since the CCC finished their work - i.e. the airport, ski area, new facilities, Bog Natural Area, etc. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be great to have a bit more detail in the Wildlife section - rare or unusual critters, or those which normally occur further north. It is a tad listy as it stands


 * Sorry, didn't see the IBA, but then you have some bird stuff in wildlife. Id be inclined to make this a 4 lvl heading under wildlife
 * Changed, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

or something similar.
 * How about "Nineteen cabins can be used by visitors at Black Moshannon State Park."? I think that "are used" makes it sound like everyone uses them, which is not the case. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, better. I put it in. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, gotta sleep now - I'll try to get onto more from Boating, fishing, and hunting down tomorrow. Very interesting reading and should pass this time. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful comments and rest well. I must admit I do not understand "should pass this time" as this has not been in FAC before. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hadn't meant it like that. nevermind. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Some more: Edward Gertler... - erm, who? A couple of words on who he is would be good to clarify why what he says is notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Edward Gertler is the author of the book used in reference 36. Dincher (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Already done. Didn't you check it? Dincher (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad. Great. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally, very nearly there. It would be great if you could get any more wildlife info (eg on the bears or whatver) in hte wildlife section which looks a little short and listy compared with the bird bit. If there is nil then don't worry too much but essentially it is a natural area so a little more on the fauna would be good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. The wildlife at the park isn't that unusual for Pennsylvania. The bear, deer, squirrel, etc., are pretty much plentiful. The IBA received special treatment since the birds are unusual for the rest of PA. Perhaps we could add a bit about how the common wildlife has come back since the lumber era. Dincher (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just added a sentence about how the animals have come back from very low population levels. Dincher (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Better, I think we're over the line. I am in Australia so haven't a clue what the normal wildlife of Pennsylvania is. I think these sort of articles provide a great opportunity to go into greater depth on ecological material. Compared with what I could find on some Australian natural areas it's still a tiny bit underdone but it ain't a deal-breaker no more. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your comments, edits, and support Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. Dincher (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

 Oppose  Support. Well done, both of you. --Moni3 (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and the suggestions. You've helped make this article better. Dincher (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, thanks for your suggestions, copyedit, and support, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment
 * I think I've said that for all WP:PENNA state park articles I've reviewed: please reduce the dazzling of unnecessary wikilinks in the references. You don't need to link PADCNR in the references to begin with, much less every time it shows up. Most other city and department links are at the very least arguably unnecessary. Circeus (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. Dincher (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks very well written, although I haven't gone through it properly. Tony   (talk)  14:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments This is a thoroughly-researched, well-written, and carefully illustrated article. I have a few questions and comments before I support.


 * The 1892 local history - is this a seminal local history? is there nothing else? If not, the age of the source should be made clear in the prose.
 * After this, the lands of the West Branch Susquehanna River valley were under the nominal control of the Iroquois - I tend to think that nineteenth-century works on Native Americans have been supplanted by more up-to-date history, perhaps more than two years after the Wounded Knee Massacre?
 * The forests near the three original counties, Philadelphia, Bucks, and Chester, were the first to be harvested, as the early settlers used the readily available timber to build homes, barns, and ships, and cleared the land for agriculture. The demand for lumber slowly increased and by the time of the American Revolution the lumber industry had reached the interior and mountainous regions of Pennsylvania
 * Meginnes (1892 history) is a seminal local history, but is now nowhere the only source cited for anything in the article. I added a few more citations to other, more modern references to the Native Americans and Lumber sections for this and the next question. The 1892 history is useful for a general reader in that it is available online (the other history references for the Native Americans are print only, as is Taber's work on the West Branch Susquehanna lumber industry centered in Williamsport). Is this OK? I suppose we could remove these if required to, but I just reread Meginness' chapter on "ABORIGINAL OCCUPATION" and it has the Susquehannocks (and all their names), the war with the Iroquois they lost, the Lenape (he even uses their own name, as well as Delaware) being subject to the Iroquois and being allowed to move into the West Branch Susquehanna watershed, and their all leaving the area. I would prefer to keep it. Perhaps it could be added to the reference for Wallace's "Indians of Pennsylvania" with some sort of note - "For a general overview of Native American History in the West Branch Susquehanna watershed, see ..." and the lumber chapter could be added to the Taber note? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think adding the note you propose would be a good idea. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have moved both Meginness chapter references into notes as described above and hope this meets your request. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While there are no known archeological sites within Black Moshannon State Park, the name Moshannon (pronounced /Mō ˈsha-nən/) is derived from a Lenape (or Delaware) name for Moshannon and Black Moshannon Creeks: Moss-hanne, which means "moose stream" or "elk stream" - Are we sure about this fact, sourced to a 1928 work on Native American linguistic history?
 * No known archeological sites is now sourced to three references - just to be clear, I can find no mention of archeological sites within the park in any source on it or on Black Moshannon Creek I have read (and I read the 300 hits for "Black Moshannon" on Google Books, looked in libraries, etc.) Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was asking whether we are sure about the name - I was assuming that was what the source was used for. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my misunderstanding. Donehoo is incredibly thorough and goes back to original documents (maps, land deeds, traveler's journals, etc.) usually in the PA State Archives and cites these, plus he apparently knew or at least understood Iroquoian and Lenape and other Native languages and gives the probable original Native American language name or names (most have been corrupted more than "Moss hanne" -> Moshannon). The Susquehanna River Basin Commission still cites him on their official website. The park website and other sources (Gertler for one) agree on "Moss hanne" too - should I add one of them? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am reassured - thank you. Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This source has an author and publication information - it should be included in the footnote.
 * Fixed, thanks for the catch! Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not all of the footnotes are formatted the same way. Some have the author's first name first and some have the last name first, for example.
 * Fixed, thanks Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This source does not look reliable to me and I am not convinced by the rationale provided above. Note that the website says: "If you have any additional information about this ski area, please contact DCSki's Editor, or add your comments by scrolling below. To view historical information about other lost ski areas in the Mid-Atlantic region, click here. Note that DCSki's Lost Ski Areas section contains recollections pieced together by DCSki readers. We try to continually develop a clearer and more accurate picture of closed ski areas, but understand that some of the details reported on this page may be inaccurate." The comments included in Wikipedia's article appear to be from a random reader.
 * I was able to find some more data from the New York Times and some other sources removed the DC Ski ref and the sentence on it closing due to lack of snow making equipment. In the process of looking I also found more data for the airport, 50th anniversary of the park, and climate, so I added those too. I did not find anything on archeology. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This link wasn't working when I checked.
 * It has been moved to here and is fixed in the article. Thanks and good catch, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ruhrfisch knows what I think of infoboxes. I will accept that these editors deem the infobox necessary. However, this one is out of control! Cut a map! The box is too busy!
 * Disagree. A general map of the park and a specific map of the historical area are relevant and should stay. Dincher (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)The infobox follows the model of Presque Isle State Park which is FA. I know you dislike boxes - where in the MOS is "too busy" listed, and is this an actionable criterion? If absolutley required to, I suppose the park map could go in place of the Antes sign. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that both maps are useful, however my eyes refuse to look at them because of all of business in the box. I would suggest removing the Antes sign (which the user has to click on to read anyway) and placing one of the maps there. (I consider this part of good article layout, which is part the WP:MOS, which is criteria 2, if you want to get picky about it.)Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, the park map is out of the infobox and in the Native American History section. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Antes Historical Marker.jpg - This image is not particularly enlightening.
 * Disagree. It it gives an additional history of the area. Shows how the land has gone from a town to a "wilderness". Dincher (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It could go if it must. Dincher (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The sign doesn't really show that (it is a picture of text!) and the user has to click on it to read it. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I swapped it for another picture of where the tavern and village used to be. Long term the Antes school house is still standing and I will try to get a picture of it for this section (only have it in the background in a few cruddy / unusable pictures now). Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * At times, particularly in the "Ecology" section, I felt overwhelmed by links. Is there any way to fix this situation?
 * We wanted to link each plant and animal for readers unfamiliar with the area and its ecology. I have gone through and made sure that no links are duplicated in the body of the article Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I think cutting out links like hunting, trapping, and 19th century will help make these high-value links more visible. Right now, some of the paragraphs just look like lists of links. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * gone, gone, gone. Dincher (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will take a second look for more links tomorrow Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Two sections of the article sound too much like an advertisement for the park to me:
 * The "Cabins" section gives so much detail about what is in the cabins and when they are available that I felt like I was reading a brochure.
 * I believe this information is needed because it is an article about the park. I feel like there is too much info about the history, ecology and geology. I feel like cutting out details about the facilities at the park will even further diminish the details on what is actually available to the visitor. Dincher (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I tweaked this section somewhat, removing some adjectives, etc.,
 * I still think this is unnecessary information, but unless other reviewers mention it, I will let it go. Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Does the "Trails" section need to list every trail? I think examples would be sufficient. Again, I had a brochure moment.
 * Same thoughts as the cabins. Dincher (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)What criteria would be used for examples? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed several repeated instances of "gentle slopes" and one "steep". This should read less like a brochure. Dincher (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The brochure moments are still there for me. Examples:
 * All cabin renters need to bring their own dinnerware, pots and pans, towels, dishes, and bed linens
 * Shortened this a bit, but I still feel like readers will need to know if they need to bring household items. Dincher (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The use of these picnic tables and unreserved pavilions is first come, first served, and they are free of charge
 * I don't understand the problem here. It clearly states the availability of the facilities.Dincher (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not exactly sure how to choose the trails, but something must be done. When I got to this list, I just groaned - readers are not interested in every detail about the park. We have to remember that we are not here to provide detailed hiking information about the park. We are not just replicating the parks website. We need to be selective. I noticed that one trail won an award - that is an obvious choice for inclusion. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I eliminated a few of them kept, Allegheny Front Trail it is a major trail that passes through the park and could be it's own article, kept Bog Trail it's the winner. Kept Hay Road Trail it is historical. Kept Moss-Hanne Trail it goes through the natural area. Kept Ski Slope Trail it is historical, as is Sleepy Hollow Trail. Kept Snowmobile Trail it is a connector trail to snowmobile trails in the state forest (I wish there was no such thing (snowmobile trails in state forests that is.)), kept Star Mill Trail it's also historical. Dincher (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I tweaked this a bit - all 13 trails are still in the article, but only 6 of 13 are in the "Trails" section - one is now in Native Americans, four are in the "Lumber" section (in a block of 3 and Tent Hill Trail after Tent Hill), Ski Slope Trail is in "Modern Era" (guess where?), and Sleepy Hollow Trail's story of gypsy moth recovery now follows the forests in the "Wildlife" section. I call it the getting small children to eat method - chop it up into little bits and mix it in with things they like. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I always like being compared to a small child. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do we need a list of nearby state parks?
 * There are 120 Pennsylvania state park articles that have nearby state parks listed. I believe this information is relevant to the reader that is interested in visiting this particular park and any nearby parks. Dincher (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)This also follows the model of FA Presque Isle State Park Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for an interesting read! As usual, Ruhr, your images are beautiful! Awadewit (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I want a picture of the "watermelon seed spitting contest"!
 * I'll see what I can do in July Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Initial response: Thanks very much for your careful reading, comments, and questions, which I will work on responding to individually. However, I wanted to make clear that this is one of 120 Pennsylvania state parks. As such, we have tried to do certain things the same through all 120 articles, although there are naturally some variations. I will also note that some of the issues on Native American references are my fault - this section has been rewritten in PR and again here in FAC and I was not as careful as I should have been and apologize. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your critical eye, helpful comments, and support. I apologize again for the small child remark - I was trying to make an analogy, not cast aspersions. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support! Dincher (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: I meant to get to this sooner, but (insert charming excuse for lack of time here). I participated in the Peer Review and thought the article excellent then, but as is usually the case, the article has improved even more due to helpful comments from FAC reviewers able to get here before me.  Wonderful work, guys; this is a highly interesting and well put together article that deserves its gold star. María ( habla  con migo ) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and all the work at PR! Dincher (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - thanks very much for your careful reading, comments and support Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.