Wikipedia:Peer review/List of named waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park/archive1

List of named waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park
This peer review discussion has been closed. We've listed this article for peer review because it is part of our continuing series of articles on Pennsylvania state parks. The original goal was to submit this to WP:FLC - it now has so much additional material that it might be a candidate for WP:FAC (so please weigh in on FAC vs FLC if you have an opinion). There are still a few things left to do for the article: alt text is needed on most images (would "a waterfall in a scenic wild setting" work for all?), the image map needs a few more links, and there are some duplicate refs that need to be combined. Other than that we have done about as much as we can here and would like some other editors' imput on the article. Thanks to all who helped pick the images used, and thanks in advance for any feedback, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "a waterfall in a scenic wild setting" works for me. Dincher (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Much as I love the idea, the problem is that these are checked in FAC or FLC. Sigh. I have started working on the alt text. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Short comment: Wow, is this lavish or what? The shade of Cecil B. De Mille is green with envy. As it stands this could not be accepted as a List - far too much text. But—and this is a serious suggestion—had you thought of creating both a featured article and a featured list from this magnificent material? I'm sure it could be done. Please think about it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments. We are planning on getting Ricketts Glen State Park up to FA and much of this info would be used there. Dincher (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My thanks too - it is an amazing park and there is a fair amount of material that is not included here - for just one example, there are two more rock formations in the park (to the north of the waterfalls) that will be added to the Geology section in the main park article. We tried to keep the focus here on the waterfalls, but there is a 13,050 acre park around them. The problem is that I am not sure how to split the article. I can see the list, but what would the other article (FA) look like? Just on the waterfalls? Then a second main article on the whole park? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Terrific list, comprehensive, beautifully illustrated, filled with interesting detail. I like the addition of the film clip, and I'm thinking about how I might try something like that in a future article. The detail about the name origin of each waterfall is a nice touch. I made some minor proofing changes but encountered no serious problems with the prose. I think the Y-shaped nature of Kitchen Creek and the Falls Trail could be made more clear (or maybe I'm just missing something that's right there in front of me), and I think the map would be more useful to readers if it were at the top rather the bottom, although moving it might cause a layout nightmare. Not sure. Here are my thoughts in more detail:
 * Thanks, I moved the map to the lead and put the video clip first in Geology - looks OK to me, but would like to know what others think. The Falls Trail is a triangle-shaped loop (it includes the connector trail in the north, the Highland Trail) plus the 1.8 mile stretch between Waters Meet and Route 118. Will try to make this clearer, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the map at the top of the article. It is an excellent resource and it makes more sense to have it at the top. Dincher (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Geology
 * "The headwaters of Kitchen Creek are on the dissected plateau, and it drops approximately 1,000 feet (300 m) in 2.25 miles (3.62 km) as it flows down the steep escarpment of the Allegheny Front." - The "it" in the second clause seems slightly ambiguous, although "flows" adds clarity later in the sentence, but perhaps re-casting would make the meaning even more clear. Suggestion: "The headwaters of Kitchen Creek are on the dissected plateau, from which the stream drops approximately 1,000 feet (300 m) in 2.25 miles (3.62 km) as it flows down the steep escarpment of the Allegheny Front."
 * Made the change, thanks for the suggestion. Dincher (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Would it be helpful to add the end point of the drop? Is it the mouth?
 * I don't know where the end point is, but it's a good suggestion. We should define this. Dincher (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC
 * It is based on this sentence on page 6 here "The elevation drop within the Glens area is approximately 1,000 feet in a distance of 2.25 miles." I checked on USGS GNIS and both Lake Leigh and Lake Rose are at about 2200 feet, so the drop from them to Adams Falls (1214 ft) is essentially 1000 feet. The distance from Lake Leigh to PA 118 / Adams via the trail is about 3 miles though, and 3.2 miles for Lake Rose to 118 / Adams. Most of this is above Waters Meet - the steeper glen is the drop from Lake Leigh to Wyandot, which is about 600 feet in about 1 mile. I will try and make this clearer. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I checked the direct distance using latitude and longitude and it is 2.94 miles from Lake Leih to Adams Falls. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I added a note with cahnges in elevation overall and within the glens. Also trying to remove the last vetiges of list-y-ness. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 06:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "The rocks exposed in the park were formed between 340 and 370 million years ago... " - Geologists often seem to use the reverse of normal order for "million years ago" expressions. I'm not sure they always do or that it's necessary, but would "between 370 and 340 million years ago" be better?
 * made the switch to 370-340 Dincher (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "was fairly stable for its flow when it had a much smaller drainage basin, like Phillips Creek still does" - Would "as" be better than "like"?
 * as is better. Dincher (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Formations and falls
 * "Wedding cake falls descend in a series of small steps... " - Perhaps "Wedding-cake falls" when the phrase is being used as an adjective?
 * Made the change. Dincher (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I also hyphenated bridal-veil as an adjective. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 06:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

History
 * "Ricketts also named the tallest waterfall and the glen it is in Ganoga." - This sentence reads strangely because "the glen it is in Ganoga" looks like an independent clause. Suggestion: "Ricketts also used the name Ganoga for the tallest waterfall and the glen it flows through."
 * Made the change. Dincher (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "In 1889 Ricketts hired Matt Hirlinger and five other men to build the trails along the waterfalls." - Perhaps "build trails along the streams"?
 * Made the change. Dincher (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "with three park employees carrying materials in on foot to stabilize the trail, fix steps, cut down on erosion" - Tighten slightly by replacing "cut down on" with "reduce"?
 * Made the change. Dincher (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Overview
 * "Kitchen Creek flows through three glens in the park, which the lists are organized by:" - The clause beginning with "which" seems to modify "park". Maybe "Kitchen Creek flows through the park's three glens, which the lists are organized by:" would be slightly better.
 * Changed. Dincher (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "This is also the order that the falls would be encountered in for each glen while hiking north along the creek on the Falls Trail." - Suggestion: "This is also the order in which a hiker would encounter the falls while traveling north along the creek on the Falls Trail."
 * and changed. Dincher (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Glen Leigh
 * " The Falls Trail by both of these northernmost waterfalls had be rebuilt in the early 2000's." - "Were" rather than "had be"?
 * "had be" is a typo, should be "had been" had been seems better than were to me. Dincher (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a typo, but I think "had to be" was meant and sounds better to me. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Had to be it shall be. Dincher (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Huron Falls has a 90 degree turn as it slides down sandstone from the Huntley Mountain Formation." - Hyphen in 90-degree?
 * added the hypen Dincher (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In the "Height" column in all three lists, "feet" is abbreviated as "ft", and in the "Elevation" column it is spelled out as "feet". I wasn't sure whether this was deliberate (for layout reasons) or accidental.
 * changed all of them from ft. to feet. Dincher (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Map
 * This is a terrific map. As I worked my way through the article, I yearned for a map and was pleased, but a little surprised, to find it at the bottom of the article. I think it would be more helpful if it appeared at the top rather than the bottom. It makes a lot of relationships clear at a single glance.
 * Shingle Cabin Brook does not seem to have a working link. Ganoga Lake and Kitchen Creek are redlinks.
 * Thanks, I need to write a Ganoga Lake article, and one on Kitchen Creek too. I think Shingle Cabin Brook could be a subsection of the Kitchen Creek article. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

References
 * Instead of "no author" as in citation 21, would "Staff" be better?
 * I know that for years and years the Sun-Gazette never included the name of the writer in the newspaper. I don't know why. They didn't make the change until sometime in the 1990s. I think leaving it blank would be better than including staff. I won't make any change at this point. Dincher (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it, thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Works cited
 * In the Donehoo listing, maybe delete "Dr." and "ed." since Wikipedia generally doesn't include academic titles and since "ed." repeats "Edition"?
 * made suggested changes. Dincher (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

General
 * I don't think the text makes clear where the Falls Trail begins and ends. Confusion might arise because of the fork in the trail above Waters Meet. Would it be helpful to explain that the Falls Trail is Y-shaped, like the three glens, if that is the case? A Y-shaped trail is unusual, I think; so is naming two forks and the mainstem of a stream the same thing, Kitchen Creek, although I ran into a somewhat similar complication with the "headwaters complex" of Tryon Creek. Would it be helpful to identify the two forks of Kitchen Creek by adding descriptors; i.e., the Ganoga Glen fork and the Glen Leigh fork? This clarification might appear in the "Overview" section and be echoed in the lead.
 * I like that. The Ganoga Glen fork was once known as the Pond Branch (as it came from Long Pond, now Ganoga Lake). The Glen Leigh fork was once known as the East Branch or the Sickler Branch of Kitchen Creek. The problem is I can't find these as official names on USGS GNIS or the PA Gazetteer of Streams. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They are most helpful - thanks very much. We will work on your points next, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you very much. I should be able to address them today. Dincher (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made the changes that I felt comfortable changing. Dincher (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Our original intent was to submit this to WP:FLC. Brianboulton pointed out that there was too much text for it to go to FLC above, so I asked (who has been one of the FLC directors to take a look). He agreed splitting it would help in passing FLC. On the off chance that it might be so text-y that it could pass WP:FAC with some imbedded lists, I asked to take a look, but have not yet heard back. Anyway, unless I am mistaken / surprised (and it can go as is to FAC), it seems we need to think about splitting it up. There are two possibilities that occur to me. The first and easiest is to make some sort of Waterfalls at Ricketts Glen State Park article out of the top part (History and Geology) and leave brief summaries of that material in the list. The second would be to make this into three article, one on the history of the park, one on the Geology, and one the list. This would then be useful with the main park article. My chief concern with this approach is that the Geology would be too dependent on one source. What do others think? I wish we did not have to split it at all, sigh. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Splitting this article?


 * I'd wait to hear from Sandy first. If she says "not likely" for FAC, I'd lean toward the simplest and easiest split. Another alternative might be to use all of the History and Geology in the park article and to drop the idea of three articles. I haven't read the park article yet, so I don't really know if the merge option is truly feasible or desirable. Finetooth (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. One problem is that the park article is still in need of a lot of work, but I know that Geology there would need to be expanded considerably (there are two more rock formations within the park on the Allegheny Plateau to discuss, plus a lookout to the west of the falls which poked out of the glacier 20,000 years ago). This History does not mention the lumber ghost town of Ricketts, or the ice industry on Bowman Creek (east of the falls) or the railroads or much on the lumber industry or the North Mountain Fishing Club or the new park HQ in the 2000s. This article focuses mostly on the waterfalls and some of the level of detail is probably too much for the general park article. I will wait on Sandy. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Waiting to hear from Sandy is what we're going to need to do for now. I don't like the idea of making three articles. I think working with this list to make it FL and the state park article to make it an FA is the best bet. Some information might need to be trimmed from here for FL purposes. That info can always be merged into Ricketts Glen State Park. My hope is that this particular piece will be judged as a Featured Article. Dincher (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy was not sure what to do beyond submit it to FAC or FLC and see what happens - see here. Here is the link to my question to the Rambling Man. Should I ask at talk FAC? Would it make sense to ask Brian if he has any more specific ideas on the split? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would make sense to ask Brian. Dincher (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked at the FAC talk page, here. See what happens. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) WT:FAC was all in favor of submitting it there (FAC) and renaming it so I moved it to Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park and did a quick check of all uses of the word "list" in the article to fix the obvious changes. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their help with this, I am closing the PR to take this to FAC. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)