Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek/archive1


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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 16:20, 3 January 2015.

List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek

 * Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk)  01:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because: I haven't had much luck with featured content, but hopefully this will pass. Thanks for considering it. --Jakob (talk)  01:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Prose. I won't pretend to be a good judge of prose, but I did give it a copyedit and I didn't notice any issues with the prose. I also asked someone I know offline, and they liked the prose.
 * Lead. I believe the lead does a fairly good job of introducing the topic and of explaining some basic facts about the tributaries as a whole.
 * Comprehensiveness. I think it goes into a reasonable amount of detail. It is not as long as the somewhat related FL List of tributaries of Larrys Creek, but it's my opinion that that other list is a little too detailed, so the list I'm nominating should be fine. This list could not easily be integrated into the article on Catawissa Creek without unbalancing the article.
 * Structure. The article contains a lead section with basic facts about Catawissa Creek and its tributaries. The next section contains a table of the tributaries of the creek and the subsequent sections contain tables of sub-tributaries. I belive that this structure is fairly intuitive and it is also similar to the structure of the FL List of tributaries of Larrys Creek.
 * Style. I don't know the MOS by heart, but this does meet the specific guidelines at WP:FLCR. There are no redlinks and no major accessibility issues. The majority of the tributaries have pictures and all are CC-BY-SA images taken by me. Captions are impractical since the images are inside tables, but the meaning of the pictures should be obvious.
 * Stability. The list is extremely stable. In fact, there has been only one substantial contributor and two minor copyeditors. No edits to the list have been reverted.


 * Oppose a creek that is not even 50 miles long should not have a sub-article on its tributaries. A road that long should not have a separate article with all the intersections it gets. If this is not a 3.b violation, then it should be AFDed for GNG. Nergaal (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to try it. Personally, in fulfilling Wikipedia's gazeteering functions, I'm not entirely sure this is a GNG violation. Either way, I'm noting that I (with my delegate's hat on) consider this oppose inactionable at FLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hoe can this NOT be easily included in the parent Catawissa Creek article? There are 20 entires here that have way too much information listed here which can be presented in a shortened format there. Nergaal (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support a good list and my issues have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - the list has been well-improved to satisfy the comment I posted above (now collapsed). Glad to support. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

 * I suggest making the image column unsortable: it's not usual to sort by image;
 * Done. --Jakob (talk)  00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Any chance of bundling the five citations in the "Mouth elevation" column?
 * I know it does look a bit ugly, but all of them are needed. The elevation lists only list streams in one county each and four such lists are needed (the National Map is needed since Tomhicken Creek's elevation is slightly off in the elevation table). --Jakob (talk)  00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * the sorting is slightly off in places. "Mouth elevation" shows David run last, even though it's not the longest; distance from mouth: cross run shows up towards the end, even though it contains a dash. (Check the other columns and tables too)
 * Fixed Davis Run, the rest look good. --Jakob (talk)  00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite: "Distance from mouth": Cross Run shows up towards the end, even though it contains a dash. - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now. --Jakob (talk)  00:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of the numbers need to be sorted. 9.10 miles should just be 9.1 (and a number of others too; 08.3 should be just 8.3
 * Fixed 08.3, but 9.10 should stay 9.10, since the source specifically gives it to two decimal places, like it does with the other tributaries. --Jakob (talk)  00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine. It's probably best we retain consistency with all the figures as well. - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

– SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. All good now. A map would have been ideal, to show the location and/or course, but there's nothing obvious on Commons. Maybe have a quick search to see if you can find anything PD, but that doesn't affect my support here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Support I was asked to comment here and find it meets the FLC criteria. I have made some minor copy edits to the article to polish the prose. I am impressed that there are so many images of the tributaries, and added one of Catawissa Creek itself to the lead. I think it would be great if a map could be added - have you tried asking User:Kmusser, who makes beautiful stream maps? Even when a map is added, I would still include a picture of the main stem (Catawissa Creek itself) in the article. The only quibble I have is that the reference links in the three Notes are just URLs and should be formatted like any other web ref in a FL. I am OK with this being different than the Larrys Creek trib list (which I am the main author of), but do think it would be pretty easy to add left and right bank info here (to the list itself), as well as mentioning river mile explicitly (I know it is linked). Nicely done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.