Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quehanna Wild Area/archive1


 * 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 by Karanacs 23:28, 27 March 2010.

Quehanna Wild Area

 * Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk) and Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Quehanna Wild Area was founded on Pennsylvania State Forest land as a nuclear research center to develop atomic-powered jet engines, and today is a wild area over three times bigger than Manhattan, with a legacy of radioactive and toxic waste and its own elk herd. If this sounds too odd to be true, we are hoping to get this through FAC before April 1 — see here — and believe it meets the FAC criteria. It follows several Pennsylvania state park FAs as models. We want to thank for help with the Tornado section,  for reading it over, and everyone who encouraged us, starting with. We hope this article does justice to Quehanna. Thanks in advance for any feedback, which we will do our utmost to respond to quickly. Auntieruth55 (talk) and Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. No dab links, external links fine. Ucucha 03:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and wow, you're fast Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - A refreshingly wonderful read; great job with the article. Bravo.  ceran  thor 03:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My goodness, you are fast too - thanks for the support and kind words, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: This is really wonderful stuff, and not just because it would be great for April 1. The story is almost too good to be true, expertly told in clear, concise prose and well illustrated. In short, this article is up to Ruhrfisch's high standards, and it is a pleasure to support its promotion to FA status. Jonyungk (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your kind words and support and reading the earlier versions. I want to thank Auntieruth55 for all her hard work on the article too. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the teamwork, and thanks to Auntieruth55 for her contribution, as well. Jonyungk (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Wot, no PR? So, I'm reading it for the first time, and that may take a while, so I'll just mention at this stage a handful of points from the lead:-
 * First sentence is quite hard to absorb, what with three "ins", two "ands", and a host of blue links. I suppose you have a reason for giving three versions of the measurement (acres, square miles and km²)? Otherwise, perhaps the acreage could go. Anyway, I have come up with a split vesion of the sentence, which may be easier to grasp. Perhaps you'd consider this, or something like it:-
 * "Quehanna Wild Area is a wildlife area within parts of Cameron, Clearfield, and Elk counties in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. With a total area of 48186 acre, it covers parts of Elk and Moshannon State Forests."
 * Thanks, I have used your suggestion. The problem is that I think most Americans have trouble converting acres to square miles (unlike hectares and square kilometers), so it seemed helpful to give both. As for the lack of PR, the hope was to get this to FA before April 1, with the possibility of it being the April 1 TFA, so we skipped PR. I just learned that Raul has already scheduled April 1st. Had we known that it would have gone to PR first. Sorry, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "its protected acreage is three times the surface area of Manhattan." Don't quite see the relevance of this, unless the area of Manhattan is some sort of unofficial unit used in describing acreages. The analogy is somewhat lost on we poor Brits, who have no idea what area Manhatten covers.
 * I am OK with taking this out of the lead (it is also in the article body). Auntieruth55 added this originally, so I will defer to her call on this. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Geometry guy also had issues with this, I have removed the Manhattan sentence from the lead and tweaked it in the body. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Curtiss-Wright left in 1960, and a succession of tenants further contaminated the nuclear reactor facility and its hot cells with radioactive isotopes, including Strontium-90 and Cobalt-60  and the manufacture of radiation-treated hardwood flooring continued until 2002." Four "ands" and some odd punctuation. Once again I recommend splitting and slightly rephrasing: "Curtiss-Wright left in 1960, after which a succession of tenants further contaminated the nuclear reactor facility and its hot cells with radioactive isotopes, including Strontium-90  and Cobalt-60.  The manufacture of radiation-treated hardwood flooring continued until 2002."
 * I could swear this was written as two sentences, but I agree with you and have split it per your suggestion. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's my pennyworth for the moment, but I will read on and report further. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

More prose points (apologies if any of these have been picked up already):-
 * Lumber era
 * "...and was later was divided ..." One "was" has to go - your choice.
 * Fixed (see below), thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence in which the above occurs needs further attention. I suggest replace the third "and" with a semicolon.
 * I made it Chingleclamouche Township was included in Clearfield County when it was established in 1804. Later it was divided between at least three counties and many townships, and no longer exists under that name. Is this OK? I was so intimidated by spelling "Chingleclamouche" correctly that I lost all sense of grammar. Thanks for catching these, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The first European American settlers arrived in Chingleclamouche Township circa 1793, and the first sawmill in Clearfield County began operating in 1805." Two things: are these two events directly connected? If so this should be made clearer. Secondly, it's a personal thing, but think the use of circa in narrative prose is untidy, and would prefer to see it as "in about".
 * They are not explicitly related. Would a semicolon in place of the and be better? I removed both uses of circa in the article. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading on through the "lumber era", I am wondering about the level of detail here. This subsection extends to 800-plus words, or 10 percent of the article - is that a fair reflection of the importance of the lumber era? The kinds of detail which might be excessive include the makes of locomotives, their ability to run up 10% gradients, the ethnicity of the railroad builders. Is all of this necessary?
 * Thanks, I removed the 10% grades and ethnicity of the builders, I also moved chestnut blight to the Fauna section as the other plant pests are there. I left the makes of locomotives as it is a bit unusual (at least from my limited knowledge) to have had all three makes operating in one region, probably because there were nine different firms with logging railroads. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * State forests
 * "The initial state acquisition of land that became the Moshannon State Forest was purchased in 1898;" Redundancy - acquisition and purchase mean the same thing. You could delete "purchased", or rephrase along the lines; "In 1898 the state made its first purchase of land that would form the Moshannon State Forest;"
 * I already fixed this changing capitalizations as it also caught my eye. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "...as of 1997" - "as of" rather suggests a current situation, like "as of now". Is there a reason why the size of the forest has been dated 1997? Has its area changed significantly since then (perhaps I'll find out as I read on)?
 * The best reference I have for the sizes of both forests is 1997. My guess is that both have acquired some new land since, and there are sometimes swaps of parcels between forests, but the web sites are not updated often, so I used 1997 as it was the same good date (Thorpe's book) for both. I changed both to just "in 1997". Thansk, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "...leases in 1970, 4,500 campsites had been leased." Jarring repetition; coould the "leases" be "permits"?
 * Permits works for me, thanks Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The major fires you mention were not "in addition" to the minor fires. I suggest you rephrase the last clause: "and minor fires occurred in other years".
 * Thanks, I have used your suggestion, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggestion (need not be implemented): "The Quehanna Trail System passes near or through the sites of several CCC camps." As this sentence is in the present tense, perhaps it should read " several former CCC camps"
 * Yes, it should and now it does read that way. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I trust that the beavers sued and got compensation :)
 * Nope, they just got "Second_City_Television#Sketches_and_characters|"blow'd up good, blow'd up real good!"]] Poor rodents. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Atoms for peace
 * "By 1960 the Air Force decided not to pursue nuclear-powered aircraft..." It has to be either "In 1960..." or "...had decided not to..."
 * Used "By 1960 the Air Force had decided" as the source is vague if it happened in 1960 or not. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference to the Kennedy administration in between sentences each referring to events in 1960 is confusing chronologically.
 * Kennedy is in Stranahan's book, but I forgot the Kennedy adminstration did not start until 1961. I changed it to By 1960 the Air Force had decided not to pursue nuclear-powered aircraft, and the federal government canceled $70 million... Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "disassembled" seems contrived. Perhaps "dismantled"?
 * The original text was dismantled so I was trying to avoid following it too closely. Will use dimantle. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Curtiss-Wright still owned or leased 80 square miles (207 km2)" When was "still", and you need to specify what they owned 80 square miles of.
 * I changed it to In early 1963, Curtiss-Wright still owned or leased all of Quehanna and sublet land along Quehanna Highway to a firm that recovered copper ... The still is meant to be in the sense of "even though they stopped their operations there". Is this better? Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

More follows. Brianboulton (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as the capitalization of all of the species names need to be changed, it will take some time to get to your points, which are appreciated. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that all of these points have now been addressed. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All dealt with satisfactorily, though I am still worying about the beavers (can I oppose on that?) I'll try and get through with my comments by tomorrow, but basically all is looking well. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Continuing: A few more points, chiefly minor:-
 * Reactor facility
 * "The irradiator contained over 1 million curies of cobalt-60 to produce intense gamma rays to sterilize medical equipment, and irradiate food and wood." I'm not sure how to read this. Does the cobalt-60 do two things, i.e. produce intense  gamma rays and irradiate food and wood? Or is it the gamma rays that do two things, i.e. sterilize medical equipment and irradiate food and wood? The sentence needs tweaking for clarity.
 * Thanks. The gamma rays are what is used to sterilize and irradiate, changed it to The irradiator contained over 1 million curies of cobalt-60 to produce intense gamma rays, which were used to sterilize medical equipment and irradiate food and wood. Better? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Pennsylvania commissioned a 'site characterization study'" - what manifestation of "Pennsylvania" did this? (Note also, later, "Pennsylvania concluded..." and "Pennsylvania's control")
 * Tha vagueness is in the source for each: In response, the Commonwealth, as owner of the site, contracted for a site characterization study that same year. (DEP BRP summary). I would be very surprised if it was not the DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) that did the commissioning so I chaged it to "and the Pennsylvania DEP commissioned... Similarly "Pennsylvania concluded" is based on Subsequent facility radiological surveys also resulted in the Commonwealth’s conclusion that PPI had to be relocated in order to achieve final termination of the NRC license for legacy contamination. (same source) so I changed it to "the state government concluded". The last one is based on Upon PPI’s bankruptcy, day-to-day control of the site fell to the Commonwealth.'' DEP held the nuclear site license after PermaGrain but DCNR controlled the land, so I changed it to "which was now under the control of Pennsylvania's government." Are these clearer now? Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Contamination and cleanup
 * "...covered with dirt." In BritEng usage, "covered with dirt" simply means "very dirty". If something is deliberately covered with soil or earth, to hide it, we would probably say "covered with earth". Is American English flexible enough to allow this?
 * Yes, changed to earth in both cases and in one where dirt was used by itself in the same sense. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Piper complex and boot camp
 * "The industrial complex covers about 100 acres (40 ha) on Quehanna Highway..." Can an area of 100 acres be on a highway? Adjoining, perhaps?
 * This might be AmEng, changed it to The industrial complex covers about 100 acre bisected by Quehanna Highway.... Adjoing to me would imply the complex was on one side of the highway, but it is on both sides. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Repetition: "a military-style program that offers education programs" - perhaps the second could be "schemes" or "projects"?
 * I tried "opportunities for education" - does this work for you? Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to quibble, but describing the boot camp program as "voluntary", when the alternative is prison, is stretching things a bit.
 * I removed "voluntary" - I believe the offer is made to the person, but he or she has to decide to enter the boot camp or not. While there is choice involved, it is not really voluntary. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tornado zone
 * The curse of the convert template: "100-mile (161 km) long storm front". The word "long" applies to the distance, not the storm front. Without the conversion you'd say: "100-mile-long storm front" As it is, you have to say: "a storm front 100 miles (161 km) long".
 * The sentence was removed when the section was pared down per Geometry guy's suggestion, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "...damaged or destroyed some outbuildings..." Suggest delete "some"
 * Removed, thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Flora
 * I'm trying to think of a way you can avoid saying "in addition", which occurs twice in the final paragraph. I find its use rather stilted. The first instance could become: "Besides forest fires..." etc., the second could be "As well as..." Maybe you could change at least one?
 * Used your wording, thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Recreation
 * "Before Curtiss-Wright took over the area in 1955, Quehanna was considered "some of the best hunting land in the state". Does such a common wording really warrant quotation marks? In any case we should be told by whom it was so considered.
 * It is a direct quote from Stranahan's excellent book, so I had to use quotes. It now reads Susan Stranahan's Susquehanna: River of Dreams reports that before Curtiss-Wright took over the area in 1955, Quehanna was considered "some of the best hunting land in the state". Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The long list of animals includes a few that are unfamiliar to us ill-informed Europeans, e.g. coyote, raccoon. Could these be linked?
 * They are all linked in fauna I believe, but I have added links for coyote and raccoon. I once saw a raccoon displayed in a German zoo, which I found very funny. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As always the pictures are a delight. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your kind words, careful reading, and comments. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 11:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Support: I am happy that you have answered all my points. Excuse me if I don't strike, just take them as satisfied. (I would have registered this support three hours ago if it hadn't been for the Wikipedia meltdown.) Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. A fascinating read! I found and fixed one broken link, but otherwise this looks okay. I have a few queries and comments, numbered for ease of reference. (I find broken up discussions hard to follow.)


 * The first sentence is a bit hard to read, with its three "in"s and two "Elk"s. Can a wordsmith find a better way to put it together? I see that Brianboulton has done so nicely. His suggestion could be made into a single sentence with a semicolon.
 * Thanks for your edits and comments and kind words. I have combined the two sentences with a semicolon per your suggestion above. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the lead, why "surface area" (which is not, strictly, the same thing as "area")?
 * As noted above, this was Auntieruth55's sentence. Since it now has two reviewers who have issues with it, I removed Manhattan from the lead and removed surface from the area in the article body. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Conservationists such as Joseph Rothrock became concerned..." Is this covered by the first source (Owlett)? The second source does not attribute the concerns to Rothrock, or refer to him as a conservationist.
 * Thanks for catching this, Owlett goes into a bit more detail on Rothrock, but Thorpe is the better source here, so I added that as a ref. Rothrock took a magic lantern slide show on conservation and the forests around Pennsylvania with a horse and wagon for almost 20 years before he was appointed head of forestry. We owe him a great debt. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of non-US readers, "Commonwealth" should be wikilinked or clarified.
 * Good catch, thanks. I linked it to Commonwealth (U.S. state) and added of Pennsylvania on the first usage. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest "nuclear-powered lighthouse" in place of "atomic powered lighthouse", and "nuclear reactors" in place of "atomic power units".
 * I changed it to "nuclear-powered lighthouse". However, since the units in question were radioisotope thermoelectric generators, and not actual nuclear reactors (miniature reactors were made too, just not at Quehanna). So I changed "atomic power units" to "nuclear-power units". Now I am not sure if the hyphen is not needed, if you have a better idea, please suggest it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "radioisotope thermoelectric generators"? Geometry guy 22:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to your suggestion and moved link from later use to here, thanks. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Strontium is chemically very similar to calcium..." could be made more precise by noting that both are alkaline earth metals (group 2 in the periodic table); this is a more helpful wikilink than "cation" and a link to strontium would help too. Similarly, it might be helpful to link to beta decay in the following sentence, as this is how strontium-90 does its damage inside the body.
 * Thanks, I changed it to: Strontium is chemically very similar to calcium (both are alkaline earth metals) and can be absorbed by the body, where it is chiefly incorporated into bones. Strontium-90 decays by beta decay and has a half-life of over 28 years; when it is in the body, its radioactivity can lead to bone cancer and leukemia. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "29 years" per the source. Apologies for being lazy and not looking for a source for 3SF. Geometry guy 21:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Capitalization should be consistent throughout the article.
 * I know I'm touching on something contentious here, but the MOS favours lower case common names for flora and fauna, and, as always, the emphasis is on internal consistency within the article. I realise that other guidelines say other things, but these mainly concern naming conventions for articles, and conventions within WikiProjects on particular taxonomic groups (e.g. birds). The capital letters in this general-interest article are very distracting, at times confusing ("Elk" may suggest the county, not the animal), and not consistent.
 * Well, this is following one of the option in the MOS on Animals, plants, and other organisms, In articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups, a consistent style of capitalization should be used for species names. This could involve the use of:... then the second option is title case for common names of species throughout, and lower case for common names of groups of species (the Golden Eagle is a relatively large eagle; see WP:BIRDS). So if it is a species name, it is capitalized, and if it is a genus name or something less specific, it is not. I just checked all the Elk - county, state forest, and animal. It does follow the MOS and the model of the other Pennsylvania state park FAs. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, if it is an adjective (elk herd) then I guess it is not the species being named. I am tired and calling it a night here - have some PRs I promised for Friday to work on. Thanks, and any clarification appreciated. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems like a lot of hassle to me, and with what tangible benefit? Wikipedia guidelines should be read with the interests of the reader in mind (aka improving the encyclopedia). Surely the needs of the general reader should not be sacrificed in favour of a special interest group, or the sensibilities of a minority of Wikipedia editors? Geometry guy 08:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I will change them all but it will take me some time. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * archy would be proud, I believe they are all now lower case except for names starting with "American" or "European". Please let me know if I should change those too, thanks. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts: the article reads so much more cleanly now! I've checked for consistency, and not found a single inconsistency. If in the future you, or other editors, prefer to capitalize species in this or other articles, you can probably argue that expressions such as "Elk herd" are noun phrases or compound nouns, hence keep the capitalization. Geometry guy 21:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Species of the radioactive kind :) are not capitalized, nor are chemical elements and compounds.
 * I believe I have caught and fixed all of these now, thanks. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "History" vs "Protected area and reclamation". A section break is certainly helpful here, but the way it is done is less than ideal. The two lonely sentences at the start of "Protected area and reclamation" don't fit well together or add much to the article; they seem, ironically, to be trying to connect the sections together. Also the latter section still concerns the history, only post-wilderness area designation.
 * We just changed this right before the FAC nomination. I have changed it back and removed the two sentence mini-introduction, thanks. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "the company hired to do the work was on its fourth name..." is inaccurate and slightly pointed; also it may be useful to give the name of Scientech D&D here, the company bought by Envirocare, as the former company is mentioned later.
 * Thanks for pointing this out. My intent was to keep the focus more on the cleanup and avoid all the name changes in an article that is not the history of Scientech or EnergySolutions. According to the source used here, NES (name #1) gets the contract in 1998, in 1999 they changed their name to Scientech, LLC. In 2006 their D&D division was purchased by Envirocare (then known as Scientech D&D, which to me is a different name), and in 2006 the name was changed to EnergySolutions. I would appreciate any suggestions on how to reword this - I struggled with it at the time and am not clear now. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the section and used the three names (NES, Scientech, and EnergySolutions) and tried to make it less pointy. Hopefull it is better - thanks. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is better - possibly still slightly misleading, but in a harmless way. Geometry guy 11:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Strontium-90" has a half-life of over 28 years" also seems a bit pointed to me, and perhaps out-of-place here: is there an opportunity to refer to the half-life earlier?
 * Moved it to the health issues sentences, where it is paired with beta decay and seems to make more sense. Good call and thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "which is believed due to radioactivity in the concrete and soil below the facility migrating or leaching back to the surface." Wrong tense, and doesn't seem to quite reflect what happened according to the source (an investigation with this conclusion).
 * Re-read the BRP, NRC, and ORISE reports and rewrote it - is this better? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Much - the use of attribution and quotation here was a good choice. Geometry guy 19:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "In addition to the reactor site, there are many legacies of the industrial past in Quehanna Wild Area." Unnecessary sentence? Also this subsection is essentially historical, and may be better presented as such.
 * Sentence removed, section is part of History now. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "...accepts both male and female inmates." This is still true, so the present tense is not wrong, but rephrasing it in the past tense might fit better with the rest of the paragraph.
 * Changed it to The minimum security program for non-violent, first-time offenders has accepted both male and female inmates from the start. Better? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this provides more information at no extra cost! Geometry guy 11:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hammersley Wild Area... is the largest Pennsylvania wild area without a road." Is this really relevant?
 * Removed all the Hammersley material - two sentences and two refs. The idea was that despite its large size, there is a larger roadless area in the state. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Despite efforts to restrict use, some environmentalists criticize..." This breaks up the discussion of the wild area and state forest system. Might it better be placed at the end of the subsection?
 * Moved it to the end of the Wild area section per your suggestion. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Tornado zone". Hmmm... one tornado does not a tornado zone make, although I appreciate the humour! This section should be shorter, in summary style, with 1985_United_States_–_Canadian_tornado_outbreak as the main article.
 * Actually, it's labeled as "tornado zone" on some of the hiking maps, for what it's worth. It's not tornado alley, but the area of tornado damage. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would calling the section "1985 tornado" or just "Tornado" work? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That might help, or you can begin the section by explaining what the tornado zone is. However, the main issues are that the link to the tornado article should be clearer, and that irrelevant detail is pruned. Geometry guy 21:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have trimmed it and changed the name to "1985 tornado". I added a few bits (identified Greg Forbes from the newspaper source, added the CCC-lodge at Parker Dam the tornado hit, the total cost of damage and that in the Moshannon State Forest, and the mention of Tornado Zone on the map). Not sure that last bit is enough to keep the "Tornado zone" name though. I also am not sure I am indenting correctly, sorry for the extra work. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better. Don't worry about the indenting, but (for information) all you have to do is copy the previous editors syntax, then decide if you want to add an indent, bullet, or number. My preference here for some bullets to be indented further is my problem (although I have not yet sought psychiatric help for it :). Geometry guy 21:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "...the odds of meteorological conditions producing such tornadoes this far north and east are 1 in 75,000". I do not know what this means, and I suspect that the source does not know what it means either. Such information is better sourced to meteorological organizations.
 * I tired but did not find this online on any official NEW or NOAA website, so I removed it. If there is a better ref, perhaps it could be added back in. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good decision. For the statistic to make sense a time-frame is needed, and there are plenty of other ways to demonstrate how exceptional this tornado outbreak was. Geometry guy 21:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Native Americans used White Birch wood to make horns..." This paragraph seems a bit digressive here.
 * Just to clarify, is your suggestion that it be moved or removed or something else? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be either be removed, moved and integrated into the history section, or reworded/trimmed to focus on the flora (e.g. conservation issues). Geometry guy 11:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it with regret. I read the whole article again and did not really see a place to move it to. I also worry that it was partly about the use of the birches in industry, but as far as the sources I have read say, these birches have grown for 90 years or more. I am open to adding it back if someone has a clearer idea about where to include it. I also removed the two book refs which were no longer used. I think I have now addressed all of Geometry guy's points here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the panorama of the Kunes Camp at the end. I wonder if the earlier image of the same location is needed.
 * Replaced it with another image, thanks Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all for now. Geometry guy 19:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments bis. In terms of unstruck queries and comments, the resolution of (8) looks okay to me, but the views of other reviewers would be helpful. For (9), I would suggest something like "the company hired to do the work had changed its name, and the division responsible, Scientech D&D, had been purchased by a company now known as EnergySolutions", but other editors may have better ideas. The main issue, though, is that suggestions of irresponsibility, insolvency and incompetence are not in the source: we should leave the reader to deduce this for themselves. (16) on the tornado zone will also be clearer when other reviewers comment. Other queries can be addressed above. I spotted another three minor things on the latest read-through.
 * I will work on the company names and paring down the tornado section. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Five Nations of the Iroquois". Would it be better to pipe the whole phrase to the Iroquois link?
 * I piped the whole phrase. My only concern is that the Iroquois later became the "Six Nations of the Iroquois", but that is not relevant here, so I think it is OK. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Penn State, which is about an hour south of Quehanna, intended to use the facility for research and training, and had its own nuclear reactor." This confuses the location with the institution, personifying a place, and the final clause is disconnected. Would a rephrase along the lines "Penn State, located about an hour south of Quehanna, had its own reactor, but intended to use the Quehanna facility for research and training," work?
 * I used your phrase, thanks Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "PermaGrain's bankruptcy abandoned about 100,000 curies of cobalt-60 at the reactor facility..." personifies a bankruptcy. I'm thinking of rephrase along the lines of "left about... abandoned at..."
 * Changed it to When PermaGrain went bankrupt about 100,000 curies of cobalt-60 were abandoned at the reactor facility, ... Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all for now. Geometry guy 21:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a lovely piece of work about a very interesting place. All my queries have been addressed, and editors with much more experience (and better attention to detail than I) have carefully reviewed the article. Many congratulations to Ruhrfisch and co on such excellent work. I'm sorry that my queries generated extra work and caused delays. I know the article is likely too late for 01/04/10, but I'm in awe of the fabulous effort that brought it to FA standard in so little time. Geometry guy 22:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support, kind words, and all your careful reading and comments. It turns out that Raul had already chosen an article for April 1 before we nominated this, but we were unaware at the time. Maybe in 2011. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw that before starting my review, but wanted to help anyway, and it has been a pleasure to do so. Geometry guy 22:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - meets FAC criteria, well written and an interesting read. Dincher (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words and support, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments by Finetooth: I read this today for the first time, and it's fascinating and well-done. Here is a list of nitpicks. I'd have fixed at least some of these myself, but I'm heeding the "do not edit" tag at the top of the article page.


 * Map: "Sinnemahoning" is misspelled; it's missing the "e".
 * I changed the map first thing - is it a WP:BYC issue? Or is there still an error? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks fine now. I thought I hit Control-R on the first round but might have goofed. Finetooth (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lumber era: "Businesses purchased vast tracts of land and built splash dams on the creeks; these dams controlled water into small streams that would otherwise be unable to carry logs and rafts." - Should that be "in" small streams rather than "into"?


 * "For example, in 1871 a single splash dam on the Bennett Branch of Sinnemahoning Creek could release enough water to produce a wave 2 feet (0.61 m)" - Round to 0.6 m?


 * "Nine companies operated logging railroads in what became Mosahannon State Forest..." - Should be Moshannon.


 * "The Caledonia Pike ran east-west from Bellefonte to Smethport... " - En dash rather than hyphen for east–west.


 * State forests: "The Association has operated several stations to reduce the acidity Mosquito Creek and its tributaries, with technical assistance from the Pennsylvania State University." - Missing word, "of" between "acidity" and "Mosquito Creek"?


 * Atoms for Peace: "Atoms for Peace "made funding accessible to to anyone who had the imagination, if not the ability, to harness the atom's power for peaceful purposes". - Double "to" probably not in the original.


 * "Wright warned Penn State "that the radiation involved in Martin's operations would be 'extremely high'"... ". Add a no-break code between the single and double quotes?
 * I added a bit more of the quotation from Stranahan here which also solved the problem. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reactor facility: "In order to approve the move to the new site, the NRC required PermaGrain to provide an inventory of all their cobalt-60 sources, dispose of a bent source, and dispose of any other sources not mechanically certified." - What does "bent source" mean?
 * This is my understanding only (not explicitly based on sources). I believe the cobalt-60 was in sealed metal tubes / cylinders (one was cut open by accident) and that they used the water pool from the reactor for the irradiator. My guess is that the cobalt-60 sources were somehow dropped / lowered via long pipes. A bent source would not work. Ruhrfisch  <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would "damaged" be better than "bent"? Less likely to lead to further questions about the shape and nature of the source? Finetooth (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I used damaged. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tornado zone: Caption: "Looking west on the Quehanna Highway at the Clearfield-Caermon county line, where the 1985 tornado crossed the road." - En dash for the county border? Remove terminal period from sentence fragment.


 * "In the ensuing years, the forest has reclaimed most of the destruction, but the regrowth is obviously younger than the surrounding habitat." - Rephrase to avoid saying "obviously"? Maybe "In the ensuing years, the forest, though younger and smaller than the surrounding woods, has partly recovered."
 * Used your wording, thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fauna: "By 1912, after the forests had been clearcut, Quehanna was covered by a "vast expanses of brush, created when the root systems of cut-off trees sprouted up through the discarded tops and limbs of the logged forest"." - Delete "a" before the quote?


 * Recreation: "The main hiking trail on the Quehanna platea is the Quehanna Trail, a 75-mile (121 km) loop trail that passes through the wild area and Moshannon and Elk State Forests." - Spelling, "plateau".


 * Panorama caption: Remove terminal period.


 * References: Date formatting in citation 2 should be flipped to m-d-y.


 * Sources. Date formatting for first Fergus entry should be m-d-y. The second Fergus entry is slightly malformed. The Taber entry has one too many periods after "Inc." and needs a p. instead of a pp. --Finetooth (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have fixed all of these, thanks for your careful reading especially the map (eek). I tried to explain the bent source and replied to a few others above. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm changing my "Comments" to "Support". All of my concerns have been addressed except the spelling (which I know you will fix) of Sinnemahoning on the map and perhaps substituting "damaged" for "bent". Very impressive article about a strange place. Finetooth (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support and kind words - I have changed the map and bent (see above). Thanks too for fixing the dashes, and the helpful comments. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

yinz are all very fast (yinz is sw Pennsylvania). Thanks for all the reading and comments. I've been watching, but trying to stay out of Ruhrfisch's way. This article was great fun to work on. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support and nit pick generally excellent but as well as butterflies like great spangled fritillary, monarch, and red-spotted purple, as well as black, eastern tiger, and spicebush swallowtails. seems to have a surplus "as well" <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  07:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support, kind words, and catching that; the sentence has been tweaked. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * what makes http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=517 a reliable source?
 * Thanks for checking. It is a website sponsored by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission and two other state agencies, the federal National Endowment for the Humanities and U.S. Department of Education, several public television stations, some Pennsylvania State University groups, and a few other Pennsylvania soiceites. It also cites its sources at the bottom of the web page, for this page it is: (Joe Kosack, The Pennsylvania Game Commission, 1895-1995: 100 Years of Wildlife, Conservation (Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Game Commission, 1995).). Is this OK? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a Pennsylvania Game Commission history online to use instead and have swapped out the ref. Assume this is OK as there are several other things published by the Pennsylvania Game Commission already used as refs in the article. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.