Talk:Ithan Creek/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jakec (talk · contribs) 17:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, only a few issues. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The creek is in approved trout waters" is a bit confusing, I assume you mean that the creek is approved trout waters?~~
- Removed "in". ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ref 6 has only 14 pages, yet the listed page numbers are 76, 78, and 80.~~
- I fixed the link. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~AFAICT the reference is unchanged. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - What? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - My mistake. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"According to a report by the Geological Society of Pennsylvania, the exposures 'are not numerous however in the vicinity of Ithan creek'" why not simply say "the exposures are rare in the vicinity of Ithan Creek" or even "According to a report by the Geological Society of Pennsylvania, the exposures are rare in the vicinity of Ithan Creek"?
- Reworded. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~The third paragraph of the geography an geology section does not appear to be supported by any of the listed pages in ref 8.~~
- Fixed the page numbers. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Okay, but from the map, it seems that Chester-Glenlg-Manor is the only soil association in the creek's vicinity.~~

--Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - There is a small amount of Neshaminy soil on the edge of the watershed. I have rephrased. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ref 9 should have page numbers~~
- Added. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1826, an official report stated the following about mills on the creek:" again, why not paraphrase in your own words?
- Its more of a personal preference. I like quoting an actual old document. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Is there any more hydrology information?~~
- I couldn't find anything other than it's not impaired. But then again you are better with that kind of stuff. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had a cursory look myself and didn't see anything obvious. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written
- The prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Verifiable and no original research
- It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- It contains no original research:
Broad in its coverage
- It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail:
Neutral
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each:
Stable
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Images
- Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall
- ~~On hold.~~ Pass