Talk:Nescopeck Mountain/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 17:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This image[1] doesn't seem to have correct date information on the Commons page.

@FunkMonk: Is this the only issue? 11/11/2013 was presumably the date I snipped the picture from Google Books; the book itself dates to 1883. I prefer not to edit Commons anymore, but if it's necessary for this to pass GA, I'll go in and change it. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a preliminary comment to start on, will review the rest today. It isn't necessariy for passing, but it would be helpful for verification of the copyright. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, the real date should be added to Commons in any circumstance. Also should be mentioned in the caption here, so we know it's an old diagram. FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the caption in the article; it's from an 1883 report, so definitely PD. Hopefully that's sufficient? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see te reviewer of the former nomination suggested some additional sources that could be used, have these been implemented in the meantime? Since this is "only" a GA, it does not have to be as comprehensive as a FA, but if specific sources have been suggested, they should be used. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are already in use or don't mention Nescopeck Mountain though. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is common mountain jargon, but shouldn't "The elevation of Nescopeck Mountain is 1,594 feet (486 m) above sea level" be "Nescopeck Mountain is elevated 1,594 feet (486 m) above sea level,"?

I've actually never heard it stated the second way, and the first sounds more natural to me.

"Nescopeck Township is one township that Nescopeck Mountain goes through in Luzerne County.[6]" This is worded as if this is an arbitrarily chosen township among many?

Reworded.

"being described as "regular and almost unbroken" in an 1832 book." Why do you need to cite a book that old for a statement that simple? Unless it has changed in the meantime.

It was the first/only source with that exact wording.

"John Gosse Freeze's 1888 book A History of Columbia County, Pennsylvania: From the Earliest Times described the ridge as "beautiful and regular in its formation"." Why such an elaborate presentation of the book and author for this book and not the previous one?

Fixed.

"It is considerably steeper and higher on its northern side, at least in the United States Geological Survey quadrangle of Berwick." At least? Why the uncertainty?

The source probably only deals with the Berwick quadrangle.

There is quite a bit of overlinking.
"A creek known as Nescopeck Creek" Should be linked at first mention, not down here. There are other cases here where articles are only linked at second mention.

Linked Nescopeck Creek at first mention.

"flows through this valley. This valley is" A bit repetitive to have "this valley" twice in a row.

Changed to "the valley".

"the peak of Nescopeck Mountain is on rock of the" Consists of rock?
"During an ice age" Which ice age?

I don't think it appears in the source, but I could be wrong.

"of the most recent period of glaciation." Which was?

Wisconsinan Glaciation, but it might by synthesis to say so unless the source also does.

Any fossils known from the formations on the mountain?

I looked on Google Books, but didn't see anything.

I'd expect the etymology to appear much earlier in the History and etymology section, close to the first paragraph where the is already being discussed.

Moved.

"was devoid of trees in the middle" By the middle of the? Until?

Changed to "by the middle of the".

"The mountain is almost completely undeveloped." Which means what?

Meaning that there is a lack of human development on the mountain. I don't think that's particularly unclear.

"to begin spraying the area in May 2015 and June 2015." Long ago now, so I'm sure this can't be the last word on that?

Sadly, no news since 2014.

"An ephemeral/fluctuating pool natural community" Could be explained what this means.

It's apparently a fancy term for a vernal pool. Linked.

I'm sure other animals must live there than amphibians and invertebrates?

Probably in the general area, but who knows if they live in the vernal pool system itself? Either way, it's unlikely the breed there and the source makes no mention of them at all.

"A portion of the Pennsylvania State Game Lands Number 58 is on Nescopeck Mountain" I guess this means hunting occurs on the mountain? SHould be stated explicitly then.

I think it's one of those things that's obvious enough from context, but can't be stated because there isn't a source explicitly saying so.

What does the last paragraph of have to do with recreation? Seems it makes more sense with the other old quotes under Geography.

I guess because it's describing how the mountain is attractive, which isn't really a geographical property. (And the recreation section is short anyway).

"in Pennsylvania, in the United States" Only stated in intro.

???

I mean tit is not stated explicitly this is in Pennsylvania outside the intro, only in "circumstantial" ways (names of books, etc.), but no big deal. Few issues to go, changes look good. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs to be repeated what state it's in. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, there are still two unaddressed points. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: I forgot to mention that I already removed a few links and changed the bit about the peak of Nescopeck Mountain. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. This script[2] shows me there are quite a lot of duplicate links left. I'd recommend installing that. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Removed a few more, but I think the rest of the links are not unreasonable. Can this be passed now, or are there other concerns? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are three more, including vernal pool, but they will probably be fixed by others over time. So yes, I will pass this now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk, Jakec, and Nikkimaria: Why has this nomination passed, despite there being four book-length sources cited a total of six times with no page numbers indicated? Verifiability is a GA criterion and that policy says: "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, why ask me? I would say it shouldn't have passed, but I didn't have anything to do with it. I suggest you pursue GAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Because you tagged those missing page numbers on 3 January 2015. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, just went back and found that but you beat me to a revision. My answer's the same, though: GAR would be the best next step. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess didn't notice it because I've only seen in-text maintenance tags before, not tags only visible in the references. I didn't know this type of tag even existed, so I have simply overlooked them, since I did not know what to look for (also, small red text doesn't register well to me). But I'm sure the nominator can quickly add the page numbers, GAR is premature just minutes after it has passed when it should be an easy fix and has just been brought up on the talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in addition to those four sources, there are PDFs (up to almost 300 pages long) with no page numbers given. Furthermore, some sources cited multiple times on different pages are ill-formatted (White, 1883) and its impossible to tell which page an individual citation refers to. I hoped this had been a minor issue that could have been easily fixed by the nominator or reviewer, but it looks bigger than that. I await for these to be fixed, and failing that, will nominate this at GAR.

A reviewer should know what to look for, and I'd assume that it isn't possible to conduct a thorough review without also taking a look at the References section. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you that this is not a FAC, the criteria are not as strict when it comes citation formatting, and the "mistakes to avoid" guideline[3] specifically mentions "Requiring page numbers where these are not essential." Whatever that means is probably debatable, but I take it to mean that page numbers are not as important at GAN as at FAC. Also: "Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)" But of course, there should never be maintenance tags in a GA, which is what I regret not noticing. In any case, though I have reviewed many GANs, this is the first time I see tags like these that are hidden at the end of individual references. So I'll at least know what to look for now, but I think in-article maintenance tags are a much better option. Jakec should fix these issues as soon as possible, which I'm sure he will. But considering the guidelines I cited above, GAR would probably lead to those tags being removed as unnecessary for GA quality, rather than the article being delisted. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, you are right about one thing: those page needed tags should not be where they are right now (see documentation at Template:Page needed; they also break formatting in CS1 templates). Depending on the citation style, maintenance templates can however appear in the References section.

"Requiring page numbers where these are not essential" means that page numbers are only required when an inline citation is necessitated; the guideline alludes to WP:MINREF.

As for "Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations", my concern was not a formality. My problem was the citation White, 1883, which is not formatted according to any of the styles linked in the relevant section of MOS: WP:FNNR. There are correct ways to use either short or long citations without losing information about which page number is invoked whenever the citation is used. The way it's currently done in the article confuses these two styles by trying to avoid repeating the full bibliographical details, but failing to separate the citations based on the invoked page. One never knows which of the three pages are referred to. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see an example of how these tags are supposed to look? Also, I think those "mistakes to avoid" guidelines are so vaguely worded that they leave too much room for interpretation. Nothing there really indicates which of our interpretations are "correct". My interpretation takes them at "face value", whereas yours requires a few further steps beyond the actual text. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although Google Books has a very nice feature that highlights all mentions of "Nescopeck Mountain" (which greatly aids in verification), I've added the page numbers for the remaining books as a formality. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jakec. I've tagged the remaining citations that either don't give a page number, or give give multiple page numbers where the citation should be split. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not all that difficult to check each individual page, since the page numbers are all given. The citation style used here is one that's gotten articles through GA and even FL with no problems before now. The information in the PDFs can be fairly easily verified by doing a search for "Nescopeck Mountain" (via cntrl+F). Again, this is not an FA, and articles don't have to be perfect, just decent. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the pages already given, I think this discussion about specific formatting is now beyond the scope of a GA review, and should be continued on the article talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]