Talk:Aylesworth Creek

Aylesworth Creek was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 26, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aylesworth Creek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aylesworth Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 19:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take me a couple days to get through every item on this list. If you disagree with any of my comments, don't hesitate to argue them - I'm willing to be persuaded. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 wikicup.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
"flows through Carbondale Township, Mayfield, and Archbald" - suggest "flows through Carbondale Township, and the boroughs of Mayfield and Archbald"

link Moosic Mountains, Interbedding, and Fishery

"The former is a former water supply reservoir" - suggest replacing the second use of former with a synonym to avoid repetition.

Course
"the creek turn southwest" - turns?

"Edgerton Reservoir" and "Aylesworth Creek Lake" are redlinked in this section but not the lead.

" it does have several unnamed tributaries, which are known as..." - who knows them as this? Surely not the locals.

Hydrology
"Aylesworth Creek is designated" by whom?

"unnamed tributary UNT 28567" - The Course section says there are only three tributaries, and the none of the names provided do not match this one.

link pH and Seep (hydrology)

The third paragraph is very repetitive. Could the information on iron, manganese, and aluminum be combined into one sentence? Alternatively, take out all the first two "No reduction is necessary..." sentences and rewrite the third one to be more inclusive.

"site AC2" ... "site AC1" - where are these located?

The discharge volumes are extremely specific. Surely there's variation due to rains and droughts?

Geography and geology
"The upper reaches of the creek are "pristine" and undisturbed." - who is being quoted?

"A morphological feature known as the Edgerton Slides" - is this River morphology or Geomorphology? What kind of feature is this?

"hemlock-containing ravines" - near as I can tell, hemlock is common across North America and Europe. Is its presence in this watershed worth noting?

Watershed
link Waymart, Pennsylvania

History and recreation
"As of the early 2000s, a restoration project ... has been planned ". The source for this is from 2001, and the language seems outdated. Did the plan take effect? Is it still ongoing? Who planned it?

Biology
"The creek is designated as Approved Trout Waters" by whom?

"A "magnificent" stand" - who is being quoted here?

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:
Source 4 is a pdf from 2005. Is it still accurate for less-permanent attributes like the number of mining permits? It's the only source for the Hydrology section, which includes some very specific numbers. If there's nothing newer, the prose should specify the information is from a 2005 report.

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig returned only one hit at 13.8%, and most of it is due to common phrases. However, I did note one instance of close paraphrasing. The article says "There is one active surface mining permit in the watershed of Aylesworth Creek. It is known as Silverbrook Anthracite Inc. #35910102", the source says "Currently, there is one active surface mine permit in the watershed, Silverbrook Anthracite Inc. #35910102." I suggest rewriting this as "Silverbrook Anthracite Inc. #35910102 has been the only active surface mining permit in the Aylesworth Creek Watershed."
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Why no images? I think a free use photo or a map would improve the article, but absence of once will not sink the GA nom.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Review on hold pending responses. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakob Coles: the 7 day hold period is nearing an end. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made some of the suggested corrections and tagged most of the remaining issues. If you (or another editor) can correct the rest and renominate, please ping me. I'll be happy to review it again. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]