Talk:Saw Mill River/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Jakec (talk · contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I've finished reviewing the article now. It is a nice article and probably not terribly far from GA. My comments are below.

  • For criterion 1A:
    • The use of the word "rising" in the first part of the lead is counter-intuitive: one imagines the river floating into the air. Perhaps "Its source is in an unnamed pond north of Chappaqua and it flows to Getty Square in Yonkers" would be better.
    • "Rising from an unnamed pond north of Chappaqua, it flows to Getty Square in Yonkers, where it empties into the Hudson as that river's southernmost tributary, and it is the only major stream in southern Westchester County to drain into the Hudson instead of Long Island Sound" is a run-on sentence. It should be split into two sentences.
    • Nanny Hagen Brook should be wikilinked in the course section since it seems all the other tributaries are.
    • In some parts of the article, the river is barely mentioned by name. Naming it once every paragraph or two is the norm in the GAs I've written on creeks.
      • I mentioned the river by name in numerous parts of the article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks good now.
    • "This leads to V. Everit Macy Park on the west" - what leads to the park on the west?
      • Amended to "on the river's west". Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I meant, what is doing the leading? Also, I assume you meant "on the river's west side". --Jakob (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Never mind, has been fixed now. --Jakob (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Referring to the river as "Saw Mill" as you do in some places is a bit awkward. "the Saw Mill" is better. It's not a requirement, but my personal opinion is that "the Saw Mill River" would be better still.
      • I can't find a single point where we used just "Saw Mill" in any way that wasn't a modifier (i.e., the names of two adjacent roads). Where the river was mentioned, we always used "the Saw Mill". As for using the stream's full name consistently, well, most stylebooks have sections on "second reference" for a reason. Try reading the text of any of our biographical articles and imagining how it would read if, instead of say, using "Jingleheimer Schmidt" or even just "Schmidt" for regular references to the article's titular subject, the writer had used the full "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt" every ... single ... time. It would get tiring to read, at best. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The river is called simply "Saw Mill" (no article) in the caption of the infobox picture and again in the caption of the Chappaqua Duck Pond picture. --Jakob (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In terms of administrative jurisdiction (from source to mouth)" doesn't need to be in the article. It's evident that the next few sentences list administrative divisions.
  • Left "From source to mouth, but eliminated "in terms of administrative jurisdiction." PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto for "In terms of land use".
    • "From a different direction, European settlers came to the river's headwaters" makes it sound like other settlers weren't European.
    • The paragraph starting with "However, it was not demilitarized" should be merged into the previous paragraph.
    • "The eels also scale a 20-foot (6.1 m) dam before reaching Woodlands Lake" - could be good to explain how if possible. I can't really picture eels climbing up a dam. This isn't highly important though.
    • "ten to 20" should be "10 to 20".
    • [[trout fishing river|trout]] would be better as [[trout]] fishing river.
  • It does not appear to be done. --Jakob (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake. I moved the trout section to the recreation section and fixed the wikilink there. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the river" ends two consecutive sentences in the fauna and flora section.
    • About close paraphrasing: these results are worth looking into, but it doesn't seem too bad.
These all seem coincidental.--ɱ (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --Jakob (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For criterion 1B:
    • Wouldn't that quote box belong near the history section, not up in the course section?
Normally yes, but the quote is a description of the course, and is therefore much more appropriate with the course section.--ɱ (talk) 08:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. --Jakob (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead section is a bit short for an article of this length. More information on history, hydrology, geography, and fauna and flora would be good.
  • I lengthened the lead section. Should there be more citations in it? The information is stated and cited later in the article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. Citations aren't needed in the lead as long as the information is cited in the body. --Jakob (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he was a reliable ally" - the word "reliable" seems like an opinion. If it's a quote from somewhere, it should have quote marks around it.
      • Amended to the more neutral "strong supporter". Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just my two cents: in creek GAs that I've written, the section order is course-hydrology-geology-watershed-history-biology, as opposed to course-watershed-history-hydrology-geology-flora and fauna. Just something to think about.
      • I've done it that way on a lot of other river articles I've done (like, say, Esopus Creek) because the human history is sort of a natural follow-on to the natural history. But there's a point to doing it that way. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The course of a river isn't exactly natural history, is it? --Jakob (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sort of. Depends if the course section talks about different paths the river has taken throughout time such as oxbow lakes. In this case, though, any changing of the course is probably artificial. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've lost track of whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with my comment on the section order. --Jakob (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Honestly, I would just leave it the way it is. Watershed seems to involve the river course and tributaries, then history is the history of the area in the watershed, then hydrology is about the pollution during history, then flora and fauna is about the species and how they react to the hydrology of the river. The recreation section can go in various places, but I put it after history as both are related to human interactions in the watershed. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't mind terribly either way, so since you have a strong opinion, I'll defer to you. --Jakob (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For criterion 2A:
    • Is there a URL for ref 1?
    • You have several citations where the only difference is the page number. You should merge these and use the pages parameter for page numbers.
    • Instead of multiple very similar citations for the course section, have you considered using a source such as The National Map?
      • If we used one big map, yes, there would be fewer overall citations, but the viewer would have to figure out what section to go look at. I don't believe that's adequate citation. Specific links take a reader to the section of the map that supports the assertions in the text without the reader having to take some sort of wild guess. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 58 seems to be broken.
  • The text I see is "Scharf, [=http://books.google.com/books?id=L0I4AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA312 312–314]". --Jakob (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange. I am ending up inside of the pages of the book at a different URL than yours. I'm confused right now. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The refs probably moved around and ref 58 is now ref 59. I fixed ref 59 a day or two ago, so this issue should be fixed.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 01:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For criterion 2B:
    • There is an unreferenced paragraph in the "daylighting" section.
  • I rewrote the paragraph and referenced it better. Some false information happened to be in the article too from a while ago. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 111 supports the passage "Native trees include the pin oak[109] and staghorn sumac.[110] These trees were found along Woodlands Lake, but can be found throughout the entire Hudson Valley.[111]" far better than 109 and 110, so 109 and 110 aren't needed there in my opinion.
  • The part that they are found throughout the Hudson Valley needs to have the USDA and USGS sources in order to say that information. I reordered the references so that the reference order makes more sense. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PointsofNoReturn: The list-defined references format sorts them (on the page Pocantico River) by appearance in the text automatically; there's never any need for any sorting within the edit screen; just as a future heads-up not to worry about that.--ɱ (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. Thanks for the tip. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For criterion 3A:
  • For criterion 3B:
    • There seems to be a lot of content in the course section. I notice that a some of that is information on nearby roads instead of the river itself: perhaps try removing some of it.
      • That gives the river some local context that comes into play later on in the history, hydrology and flooding sections. Better to explain it there where the reader would intuitively go to refer back to it, where it makes sense and fits inline rather than to suddenly have to take some sort of wild digression in those sections explaining that, oh yes, there's this long divided highway paralleling the river that you need to know about to understand this section. (We're not writing about short streams in the backwoods of Pennsylvania, after all). Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough, I suppose. Your reasoning makes sense. --Jakob (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history section goes off on a tangent a lot, especially in the first half. Try to keep it to information relating directly to the river.
      • How the river affected settlement patterns and the conduct of the war is relevant. History is not just about the effect of humanity on the river but the river's effect on the humanity around it. Although I suppose I could trim that detail down a bit, even if it makes for entertaining reading. (better to write more than you need and cut later than the other way around, after all). Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would be great if you could trim the detail some. --Jakob (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Any ideas what should be trimmed? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's hard to give specific examples, but paragraphs about nearby landowners and estates and battles near the river should be shortened. (These are mostly in the 1700s and revolutionary war sections). --Jakob (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I removed one paragraph and shortened a couple others. The rest of the history section seems to be relevant to the area around the river. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues[edit]

I'll copy a list of the remaining issues down here for readability.

  • For criterion 1A:
    • "The eels also scale a 20-foot (6.1 m) dam before reaching Woodlands Lake" - could be good to explain how if possible. I can't really picture eels climbing up a dam. This isn't highly important though.
      • I do not think it is that is too important either. I would rather not touch that sentence. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the river" ends two consecutive sentences in the fauna and flora section.
  • For criterion 2A:
    • You have several citations where the only difference is the page number. You should merge these and use the pages parameter for page numbers. Or you could use templates such as {{sfn}}. If you go with the latter, be sure to read the documentation carefully; some parts are complex. --Jakob (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you talking about the map sources? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'm talking about the book sources. For instance refs 57-61 and 91-93. --Jakob (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PointsofNoReturn: If I had time, I'd revert you and use Template:Rp instead; it shows which page numbers are assigned to which sections, while the way we now have it, it doesn't. (I use it on most of my Briarcliff Manor articles; it works pretty well) Feel free to use that template, otherwise I'll likely change it within the next few days.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 04:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ: Sorry about that. I had no clue how to use that template and am just trying to change the information per the GAN. If you could do it differently, feel free to. What I am doing could just be a temporary solution anyway. I will probably finish the way I started. Feel free to revert me if you wish as long as the reviewer's suggestions are met. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Completely fine. I'll revert now to not muddle any further changes, and I'll re-fix it as soon as tomorrow afternoon.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 05:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Thank you for the help. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the article, it looks like the reference issue was fixed. Thanks ɱ. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem passing this now. --Jakob (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

  • 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saw_Mill_River/GA1&oldid=1136379121"