Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/White Deer Hole Creek

White Deer Hole Creek
White Deer Hole Creek has had a peer review (which is here). The peer review found no major problems and the suggestions for improvement have all been addressed. The article follows most of the recommendations of WikiProject Rivers (although there is no list of tributaries, as the creek has only one named tributary). This article also follows the model of Larrys Creek, which is a similar stream and a featured article.

This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback from many and have received positive comments. White Deer Hole Creek is a relatively small, but quite interesting stream and I believe the article does it justice. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch 15:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - A marvelous article! My only complaint would be the over-linking of unnecessary terms. Please look closely at each term linked and see if it adds anything to the understanding of the text. There are many common words linked that should be unlinked. In addition, some terms are linked a number of times in the text, they should only be linked once. Otherwise, congratulations on a great article! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Terrific article, many details. I also agree with these things that could be fixed, but the article seems good enough to be featured. Hello32020 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks for your support and kind words. I did the final copyedits on a paper printout of the "printable version", which does not show wikilinks, so I will go through and remove duplicates links and try to remove those to unnecessary terms. Ruhrfisch 21:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good job with further editing, removed comment. Hello32020 03:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't had time to read it all yet, but can you shorten the very long caption on the introductory image? It makes a very busy visual presentation.  Also, quotes don't need to be in italics (see WP:QUOTE), and can you fix your second footnote - There's an extra bracket, and an overly long linked article title.  Sandy (Talk) 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks very much. I have shortened the caption and fixed the italicized quotations. I will fix the extra bracket in the second footnote. The full title of the book in print really is that long (it was published in 1892 - the web version does not give the full title). I really like using the full title, but will shorten it if that is what is required. I have started to remove duplicate wikilinks already, but to carefully do all of these things will take me a few hours at least. Ruhrfisch 22:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Sandy (Talk) 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The article is terrific! It seems to cover all the bases and tell you everything there is know about White Deer Hole Creek. I grew up on the other side of the mountain from the creek and never even knew its name. This just goes to show you what can happen when someone takes in interest in a creek. Articles like this should go a long way to helping preserve the wild streams of Pennsylvania. Dincher 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, excellent. Everyking 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks for all the support and praise. I believe I have now addressed all the issues raised above. I removed 51 duplicate or non-essential wikilinks from the article and fixed a couple of disambiguation links that had snuck in there along the way. I also fixed the extra bracket in the second footnote, but left my beloved very long title (for now at least). Ruhrfisch 02:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Its very comprehensive, I'm in favor. I like to see some of the more obscure articles being featured. RideABicycle 03:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Excellent work.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support As a member of the rivers project myself (I think I am, anyway), this is everything we want our articles to be. Shame we're better at doing it with a very minor tributary of a major river than the major rivers themselves (Then again, geographically this was within the scope of what one editor could research and accomplish. Extraordinary work). I do have some suggestions — minor copy errors, some image suggestions, but IMO they are not and should not be fatal to featured status, which this article has achieved. I will instead share them on the talk page later. Daniel Case 18:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks again for the support and praise, it is always nice to have one's work appreciated. I had a useful question on my talk page about the Name section which I copied to the the article's talk page. I would be glad to try and respond to other questions or suggestions here or there. FYI, my eventual plan is to get all six major creeks in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania (plus one or two of Pine Creek's tributaries) up to FA status, then work on the West Branch Susquehanna River. I started with Larrys Creek because it is small and all in one county, then moved to White Deer Hole Creek as it is also small. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 18:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Beautifully written article. I'm amazed that there is so much interesting to write on a previously unknown to me tributary. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. But I would still like to see the word 'watershed' linked to whatever is its proper use from the watershed disambiguation page. - Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks for the support and praise. I have re-linked the first "watershed" to drainage basin. There is also a link to this in the infobox (from "basin"), so I had removed the duplicate link earlier in this FAC, as requested above. Ruhrfisch 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Object—1a. Here are examples from the lead that indicate that the whole article needs surgery.
 * Remove "located" from the opening sentence: it's redundant. People do this all the time, and I'm unsure why.
 * Why are "forest" and "agriculture" blued out? We do speak English. But wait, there are more. This is turning into a dictionary. Please delink these nuisance blueings.
 * The western part of the creek is in the Tiadaghton State Forest and has very high water quality." Two ideas that sit uncomfortably in the same sentence. Try a semicolon with some kind of causal factor? Or recast.
 * "The watershed has opportunities for canoeing"—The watershed goes canoeing?
 * "small scale lumbering"—What's "scale lumbering"? Hyphenate "small-scale".
 * "In the Second World War a TNT plant was built in the watershed, which later became a federal prison." Why be vague when you could easily google for the year it became a prison ...?
 * "In the 21st century, most development is in the eastern end,"—"has been"? Are you referring to development since 2000? Can a more precise time span be used than a whole century? Why not just remove the opening phrase? Recast to get rid of the hated "located"? "Most development has been in the eastern end [?particularly since ???], comprising two unincorporated villages, a hamlet, and most of the farms (primarily Amish)." Tony 02:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks for your constructive criticisms. I will do my best to clean things up, but it will take me some time (I need to get some sleep soon). I will print it out again and get a fresh red pen. Ruhrfisch 04:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC) I have now edited just the lead to hopefully address the points you raised. The starting date for the prison was given in the article. I have reread your suggestions for meeting 1a and the criterion itself. Neither mentions the number of blue links (that I could see) - could you please direct me to the policy on this? I will work on the rest of the article, but hope the lead is now satisfactory. Thanks again and good night, Ruhrfisch 05:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that Tony's concerns are more about wikilinking common terms like pond, right bank and left bank, paths, bunkers, etc. See Only make links relevant to the context Gzkn 10:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much - I had thought right and left bank OK to link to in an article on a stream, but will work on this and Tony's other points. I appreciate all the feedback and help, Ruhrfisch 15:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Update and Questions I have removed all wikilinks to common words except for the names of plants, animals, fish, and birds. If you think I should delink these I will, but at least some are useful links i.e. hemlock in PA is really tsuga. Please let me know what to do. There are a few duplicate wikilinks left, all in the infobox first then put back in by other editors at their first occurrence in the text (Clinton and Union Counties, Pennsylvania, perhaps some townships). If you want, I will remove them from the infobox and leave them in the text. Again please tell me what to do. Finally, I have removed 1 kb from the article in redundancies and have hopefully cleared up any remaining trouble spots. I will ask some other editors to look this over for copyediting, but please, if you are better at this than I, let me know of problems and I will do my best to resolve them. Thanks and I look forward to any feedback on these edits, Ruhrfisch 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you overdid the delinking a bit. If we insist on referencing even the most innocuous assertions of fact (and I remember Uncle G pointing out somewhere that even things like, say, a well-known foreign capital cannot be presumed to be commonly known, we ought to allow more linking than WP:CONTEXT (a page which admits it's in constant conflict with WP:BTW) would seem to suggest, at least as interpreted by Tony. "Unincorporated" should definitely be linked in this context IMO. And I would add, too, that he should have been more civil in his phrasing. If you're going to brashly assert "the whole article needs surgery", cite examples from the whole article, not just the intro. When I object to an FAC without reading the whole thing through, I usually try to say as much (nor do I consider mildly troublesome prose in the intro to merit a blunt "Object". Better to just say you have concerns you want to address. Daniel Case 02:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on this a bit, why delink all the outdoor sports in the intro? They're certainly context-relevant. Also consider that people (wikipedians or not) don't always click on links because they don't understand something and need further explanation. They might have an interest in the subject and want to see what the actual article looks like. Maybe, just maybe, that will convince them to become active editors. Especially if this article makes it to the main page, as I expect it to someday. Daniel Case 02:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Thanks very much, I will add back in the sports and unincorporated wikilinks. If other editors want them out, please say so. I have used wikilinks as a way of explaining more if a reader is interested. I know a lot about Ohio, where villages are incorporated municipalities (population under 5000), and Pennsylvania, where they are unincorporated and part of townships (which are municipalities), so I always try to make it clear what the PA situation is and think the wikilinks help clarify this. I similarly had "white" (for the deer) in the Farley quote linked to albino. I just want to have the best article possible and help make Wikipedia better and appreciate all help in reaching this goal. Ruhrfisch 03:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I used to live in Ohio, too, and like NY where I live now, there are just three types of municipalities: cities, villages and towns (townships in Ohio). But when I saw "Village", I thought, aren't small communities in PA called boroughs? The link does help. Daniel Case 05:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Villages in PA are marked with a sign by the Pennsylvania Dept of Transportation (i.e. "Village of Elimsport"), but even smaller communities (i.e. Spring Garden) are not, so I called Spring Garden a hamlet. Ruhrfisch 13:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Response Your points about the wikilinks are very valid in my opinion. It doesn't hurt to wikilink turkey (just as an example) even though most people reading the article probably already know what a turkey is. It seems to me that at least part of the purpose for wikilinks is to provide more information, not just a definition. Tony's comments seemed to be pretty harsh and would have set me off.Dincher 04:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)