# Talk:Black Creek (Susquehanna River tributary)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black Creek (Susquehanna River)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: LeftAire (talk · contribs) 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC) and Wugapodes (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I suppose I shall review this article, since I have a little knowledge about the Susquehanna from the last review. I'll likely start reviewing it soon after reading sometime later today (hopefully tomorrow), but if something comes up, I might not get around to it until the weekend. Hopefully that isn't the case, but I figured to let you know in advance. Thanks for reading! LeftAire (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Few questions while reading...

I trust what you type for the location of the river, yet I am unable to find it from the link provided. Using the name 'Black Creek' was obviously a bad idea, but typing Conyngham Township didn't seem to work either. Just a minor quibble...
Try typing "Black Creek, PA" (this Black Creek should be D on the map). --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 13:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jakec:It worked! LeftAire (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Kind of akin to the previous statement of article access. Anywhere where I can find the Newport source online? I could not obtain it through GoogleBooks...LeftAire (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's impossible to find Newport's book online. I did try. The only way to access is to borrow it from the USGS library in Reston, Virginia (you can probably get it from a library closer to you via an inter-library loan). WP:SOURCEACCESS says this is okay, though doing some fact-checking couldn't hurt. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 13:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I do trust that you used the source properly, but I just wanted to make sure for the sake of verification. I'm still relatively new to the process of GA reviewing, and I kinda want to set a good precedent with more experienced users about how serious I take the process. I've requested access of the book via WP:RX. Given the speed that the information has been requested, I feel that I should get a response soon. LeftAire (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I meant to type this yesterday, but my browser strangely crashed midway. The last sentence of the Geography section seems a bit redundant. Perhaps delete everything after drift in the second sentence.
I've looked at that sentence and read it over in my mind, and to me it seems like it would be slightly choppy without those last three words. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 18:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'm curious as to the Biology section and the information provided. Were you not able to find a list of fish species? Like I said, just curious...LeftAire (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
It probably doesn't have any fish inhabiting it. Fish do tend to prefer clean mountain streams, not underground trickles of mine water. Yet for some reason it has a chapter 93 designation. Very odd. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 18:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Ooh, well, I learned something new today (something else, better said). That is odd, considering its labeling....LeftAire (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jakec, LeftAire isn't able to complete the review so I'm going to be taking over for them. I'm going to read the article, and I'll be back with my review soon! Wugapodes (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


### Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Comments
Black Creek accumulates drift to some degree as it flows along its course. What does "drift" mean?

quadrangle of Shickshinny. However, its source is in the quadrangle of Nanticoke What is a "quadrangle" in this sense?


### Results
On Hold for 7 days. It is a very good article overall but I feel like there are some instances of jargon that need to be cleaned up before I'll pass it. As a general thing to think about as you improve this article, it is very technical for a topic that I feel should involve more than just the technical aspects of the river. For example, a large amount of the article is dedicated to its geology which is definitely important, but I feel like there is more to this creek than the minerals dissolved in it. I may be wrong, and that's okay, if it's not something that can be done, it can't be done, but it's something to keep in mind so that if opportunities do present themselves, you capitalize on them. Another thing is that the article could use photos to illustrate the article. To be quite honest, the section on the course of the river was very confusing as a layman, and I didn't understand it until I actually found the creek on a map. I strongly suggest finding an image of the course of the river (perhaps by openstreetmaps since derivative works of that are free?) to aid in comprehension. If there are any images of the coal deposits you spoke of on commons, or the shafts, even a generic picture of what a shaft is would be helpful for someone who isn't familiar with Pennsylvania coal mining and culture. This is a very comprehensive article that I learned a lot from, and I think that it can continue to be improved if the resources and information are out there. Clarify  those two terms I pointed out so I can list it and then keep up the good work! Wugapodes (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Thanks for the review. I've provided links explaining the specific terms you linked above; were there any others? As far as the content of the article goes, I do believe I am using all available sources, but feel free to link me to anything I might be missing. I've added a map of the course from The National Map, but this creek is almost impossible to photograph. There's only one road that crosses it, and the creek appears to be underground at that point. The only other place from which the creek can be accessed is the Mocanaqua Loop Trail, and I didn't notice a creek crossing the trail when I was there in May. I did see a tiny dry ditch, which might have been it, though.... If it's not too much trouble, would you be able to do a fact-check and see that I haven't made any glaring mistakes with the article? --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 02:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jakec: Awesome, I'll list it. And yeah, like I said, there probably aren't many other sources and pictures are probably hard to come by. You don't have to add any, but if you come across some in the future while doing other research, think about putting them in here. Wugapodes (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC) PS, you're telling me that whole creek just disappears? So cool!

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Black Creek (Susquehanna River). 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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66gupqQDM?url=http%3A%2F%2Fviewer.nationalmap.gov%2Fviewer%2F to http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)