# Talk:Neepaulakating Creek

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neepaulakating Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jakec (talk · contribs) 17:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this one. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 17:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


### Comments
I'm a bit puzzled by all the quotations: can't you rewrite them in your own words? It seems that at least a third of the article is quoted from somewhere.
Fixed with Reply: This is a question of writing style and how I chose to address the content. I have removed a few sets of quotations. I think my statements of these facts comports with criteria "1a.the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct" The relevant policies are WP:PARAPHASE and MOS:QUOTE...with particular reliance on WP:LIMITED in that "There is no reasonable alternative way of expressing the idea, and since ideas are not subject to copyright the term is also not protected" and "the article merely presents standard facts for a topic like this in standard sequence. The article does not copy any creative words or phrases, similes or metaphors". JackTheVicar (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Quotefarms generally aren't encyclopedic writing. It seems to look a lot better now, but even with the remaining ones, I can think of ways to rephrase them. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 17:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
implying that this a quote farm is frankly insulting. If you have ways to rephrase, I'm open to suggestion, but I believe my previous comments stand and suffice. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not mean to be insulting, but I have gone ahead and rephrased many of the quotes. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 02:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The sentences 'According to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), the watershed consists of "gently sloping agricultural farm fields, wooded forests, wetlands, low-density residential development and older individually built homes. Thus, the predominant land uses in the Watershed include forest and woodland, agriculture and urban development."' don't really make sense together. "Watershed" is also capitalized for no apparent reason.
Fixed - I don't see the capitalized Watershed, so I must have addressed it. I removed the second sentence since it was reduplicative. JackTheVicar (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
"Along with the Clove Brook and West Branch Papakating Creek, Neepaulakating Creek is one the tributaries that form the 60.6 square miles (157 km2) watershed of Papakating Creek, a major tributary of the Wallkill River." makes it sound is if those three are the only tributaries of Papakating Creek, which probably isn't the case for such a large stream.
Reply: Sadly, there are only three named tributaries--there are quick unnamed 100-yard feeder streams for the Papakating and for its three tributaries, but maps and documents only identify three "tributaries". There are no other significant tributaries. At that point the Papakating watershed is a rather narrow valley and dominated by the Papakating and its West Branch--all of the three tributaries flow into the PC from the west. Other nearby streams to the east of PC tend to be directly tributaries of the Wallkill (like the Wildcat Brook) because they are separated by a slight ridge or hill. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, yes. Thinking back on it, it's not entirely implausible that a 60-square-mile watershed could have only three named tributaries. Striking my comment. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 17:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
'It's topography is "ranges from gently rolling in the east to strongly sloping in the west."' doesn't make grammatical sense; also "it's" should be "its".
Fixed - is removed, it's -> its. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
"Friends of Lake Neepaulin" doesn't need quotes around it.
Fixed - scare quotes removed. JackTheVicar (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The "Course and watershed" section ought to be split into a course section, a hydrology section (chemical hydrology information would go in there), a geography/geology section, a watershed section.
Reply: I would agree with you if two situations were present: (1) this wasn't a small stream that is barely a more than 6-12" deep for its entire run and (2) if there actually were information on hydrology for this particular stream available. Surprisingly, there is little, except for two NJDEP reports--one largely a copy of the other--on the Papakating watershed that devote one sentence to "phosophorus loading" possibly stemming from this stream and Clove Brook. As for Geology, I could discuss the Papakating Watershed, but nothing specific to this stream--and any interpretation of stratigraphy maps and resources regarding the wider region might run afoul of WP:SYNTH. I do plan to expand the Papakating Creek article and think (a) there are more resources for such content and (b) there a larger exposition on course, watershed, hydrology, geology content would be more appropriate. Further, as MOS eschews short sections--MOS:PARAGRAPHS says "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading", it would be inadvisable per the MOS layout guidelines vis-à-vis their application for GA evaluation to start creating short sections. I would venture to say the current combination of this information in one section, given the lack of resources to support expansion and given the nature of the article and its subject, is entirely appropriate. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a big deal, but galleries are frowned upon, so the images in this article's gallery should be integrated into the text if possible.
Reply: I fail to see how this usage conflicts with any of the statements in MOS:IMAGES or WP:GALLERY or any statement that a gallery is not permissible. Several FAs and GAs have galleries. The only thing that is expressly frowned upon that I see in the policies is that "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged". In fact, the images are illustrative of the river's course, are carefully selected, and add to a greater understanding of the subject. This article is only partly gallery, and a majority text so I don't see a cause for frowning. JackTheVicar (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Like I said, it's not such a big deal, though I do think it may look slightly better if those images are inline. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 17:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's actionable, per my earlier comments. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Google Maps (refs 4 and 5) sometimes disagrees with The National Map over where a creek begins. If there's a discrepancy between the two, I'd go with the latter, as Google Maps is at least partially created by pseudoanonymous contributors.
Reply: refs 1 and 3 discuss the location headwaters and its mouth, and both are USGS file documents--so your fear of discrepancy is unwarranted. GoogleMaps, as a source, is chiefly used to discuss its proximity to roads and political geography, not landform geography. The use of the National Map isn't used as a comparison--just to provide an easier format for looking at this information since quite frankly even as someone well acquainted with topo maps and other geography formats, the national map website is difficult to use. As far as information regarding landforms and bodies of water, Google Maps relies on USGS database inputs and that is churned by Google I think automatically (i.e. without human input)--so there ought not be a discrepancy on facts--unless a pseudoanonymous someone put the location of a pizza parlour near the stream in the wrong place. JackTheVicar (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 17:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
"gently sloping agricultural farm fields, wooded forests, wetlands, low-density residential development and older individually built homes." actually describes the watershed of Papakating Creek, not Neepaulakating Creek.
Reply: Yes, since the source is about the Papakating Creek watershed and Neepaulakating Creek is part of that watershed, quoting a description of that watershed would be appropriate, would you agree? I apologize but there are no documents specifically limited to the Neepaulakating Creek watershed--if there was a factual statement of how it differed from the general character of the watershed of which it was a part, it would be salient to note, but as there is no remarkable difference a description of the whole would apply in exploring the part--and there is a logical nexus established in that paragraph that NC is part of PC watershed, PC watershed is described as this. JackTheVicar (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid that would be a bit synthy, unless I'm missing something. For example, say that watershed A is 25 percent forest. Now consider sub-watershed B, which makes up 25 percent of watershed A. You're saying that B is 25 percent forest, but if you think about it for a moment, B could be all forest, no forest, or anywhere in between. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 17:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree, the article text does not cast that assumption or implication. The nature of the context is entirely clear. I reiterate my comments above, and would welcome a second opinion on this. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it runs afoul of WP:SYNTH, though I will say it's not exactly clear cut you're talking about the Papakating Creek watershed there. I'd suggest instead of "The watershed is located in the Kittatinny Valley which is underlain..." you say "The Papakating Creek watershed is locaated in..." to be more clear. Wugapodes (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Fixed added suggested revision to further clarify. JackTheVicar (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is extremely short for GA and is missing a lot of information. I'm guessing it's possible to find lots more if you look deeply enough. Information on hydrology, geography/geology, and biology are all missing, for instance.
Reply: Last I checked, there's no size requirement for a GA or FA. Indeed, the shortest FA is 8,500kB (see WP:RECORDS). The only requirements that encourage size are for comprehensiveness--criteria 3a and 3b. I refer you to the footnote (no. 6) on Criterion 3a at WP:WIAGA which states: "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." If resources were available on hydrology and biology, I'd include them, but I am constrained by WP:OR (in its first sentence: precluding "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist") and other policies to avoid creating content to fill gaps just for the sake of it where there no external third-party sources that cover that content. As I stated elsewhere, this might be more appropriate for a larger article on Papakating Creek, but given what is known and published about this particular stream, the article is a comprehensive summary of available information on this particular stream--which can be confirmed through a google search (where all available information is within the first 20-30 results). JackTheVicar (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It's true that there are some articles that could make GA at 5,000 characters of prose. Had it been very well-balanced and covered the major facets, I would not have raised an objection on length alone. However, as I mentioned, there are certain major areas that are not discussed or barely discussed. Information on the elevation and USGS quadrangles is one thing you can add. I did have a look on Google and I'm not seeing much more information on this particular article. Perhaps there is not enough information available for GA (that doesn't mean that this article isn't valuable; the more stream articles the better), but I wouldn't consider nominating something like Kingsbury Brook for GA even though it does contain all the verifiable information there is. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 17:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't invent or create information to compensate where none avails itself. USGS quad is listed in footnote 2. Elevation is in the infobox. That suffices in my estmation. Further, you don't substantiate your claims of being out of balance with the facts available or any policy establishing a size requirement. The GA requirements are that the major aspects are covered, given available information, which I would venture is rather balanced given the insignificance of the subject in that the major aspects are covered. This isn't the mighty Mississippi. Your statement that some articles are undeserving of GA status based on a nonexistent size requirement or for abiding by WP:OR is frankly insulting--especially when the footnote cited above about the GA criteria's comprehensiveness standard specifically welcomes smaller articles. I would welcome a second opinion on this matter. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
If there's information in the lead, it should also be in the body. Also, readers are not going to look at the footnotes, so they are a poor place for encyclopedic content. Finally, I am not suggesting that you make things up out of thin air, or attempting to impose a length requirement, but I am suggesting that this particular topic may not have enough information to become a GA. As I explained above, not every article can be GA. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 02:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll incorporate elevation. I do not think I need to state NC is on a particular USGS quadrangle map in the body. I have used the map is a reference, and imho it is an inconsequential detail. I will do no more than treat it as such in a footnote because I don't believe its mention in the body is needed. That is entirely appropriate for inconsequential detail. There is no hydrology information, therefore no hydrology section or content. There are no geological resources specifically discussing this creek's watershed. The watershed is of this creek is part of the papakating creek watershed and kittatinny valley, there are sources for those two as a region--but neither of those two regions' geological resources mention this particular creek beyond passing mentions and none explain its particular geology. Since it is unremarkable given the region it is a part of, my treatment of the topic in a general statement about the papakating watershed is imho sufficient. I am not going to interpret geological texts and maps to fabricate some just satisfy your expectations--that would run afoul of WP:OR. There are geological resources on the Papakating watershed but I'm not going to interpolate them for Neepaulakating--which is mentioned just as as tributary in a watershed document, nothing more--because that would run afoul of WP:OR. I strongly disagree with your statement that not every article can be a GA and again find your smug claim of such grossly insulting...every article that meets the GA criteria can...even if it's a well written and properly formatted stub that meets the requirements. I have covered every major aspect of this insignificant stream based on all the reliably-sourced information available--which a google search on the creek will reveal that I have exhausted all existing sources. To go beyond what is written in the sources available would be violative of other GA criteria, particularly WP:OR compliance. I refer you once again to the footnote (no. 6) on Criterion 3a at WP:WIAGA which states: "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail...". If you continue to say I need to add more where there is no more, you are ignoring the application of the GA criteria to the article itself and demanding a personal standard of completeness above that--one that is not required by the criteria. We have only the criteria and the relevant policies that gird it--especially WP:OR--and not the whims and unsustainable demands imposed by some gatekeeping martinet above policies and guidelines. Maybe you should reread WP:WIAGA and revise your personal tastes to conform to what the criteria require instead of what you personally expect. I request a second opinion. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
fixed - elevation information added in body. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Jakec :: I think I addressed your concerns above. Please do let me know. JackTheVicar (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Jakec :: I disagree with some of your comments above and replied accordingly. I request a second opinion if you desire to insist on some of them, as indicated above. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
You may try that if you wish. WikiProject Rivers may be also able to offer some guidance. Personally, I would let it slide if the article omitted only one major facet, as opposed to three or four. But we shall see. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 02:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I reviewed the WikiProject suggestions when writing the article. Some sections suggested by the project are not applicable to this article and rightly omitted (i.e. no "economy" section because this stream isn't connected to anything commercial or economical besides a residential development). I mention geology on a general regional basis as there are no sources saying anything specific. Ultimately, the only facet missing you seem to demand is a discussion of hydrology information which (a) does not exist and (b) which is unlikely to ever exist given the insignificance of this creek. Given that only one facet is missing, I fail to see any remaining criteria-anchored rationale that precludes promotion. JackTheVicar (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not just hydrology (I wouldn't have been so firm if that had been the case), but geology/geography, watershed, and biology/ecology as well. Regardless, nobody is going to provide a second opinion unless you ask on an actual noticeboard, like WT:GAN. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 15:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject Rivers suggests adding natural history information (biology, ecology) if it's distinctive. This isn't. The wildlife is typical for New Jersey...I don't need to list squirrels, bears, deer, maple trees, or potbellied guidos who moved up from Bergen County who are too cheap to go sunbathe at Seaside. If it's not distinctive, it's not really necessary. Geology: it's in there (i added Martinsburg Formation to dark shale, etc....big deveolpment!!!!). Watershed: it's in there. Makes me wonder if you read the article or my comments regarding the lack of information vis-à-vis WP:OR. You want more than exists to fit your idea of what a river article ought to be...above what the GA criteria demands and for a humble stream that isn't the Amazon. I refer you to two points from WP:RGA 1. The review should not be influenced by beliefs about how the article could be made "perfect", by how the reviewer would have written the article, 2. The article may, and sometimes should, go into detail, but it is not required to be comprehensive. And this line from the discussion of criteria 3a at WP:GACN : Point (a) means that the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be "addressed" in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects.
JackTheVicar (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


### Second opinion requested
on the criteria 3a and 3b discussion above, as it relates to smaller articles and a reviewer's expectation of "completeness". JackTheVicar (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


### Checklist
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. Fail


### Second Opinion by User:Wugapodes
I don't see a problem with the article. MY thoughts, in order of unstruck out comments above:

There doesn't seem to be any quotes anymore so I'm not sure it's exactly a WP:QUOTEFARM (though maybe it was before I got here).
You are right; this was what the article looked like before the review. I must've forgotten to strike it out. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 13:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Reasoning for "Course and watershed" not being split is reasonable so I'd let it stay as is.
Yes, that would be fine. This suggestion was mainly meant to be followed if the article had been expanded. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 13:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
MOS:Images doesn't say anything about Galleries except maybe making a commons category rather than include them on the page, but it's far from prescriptive.
Fine. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 13:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I responeded up top to the point about the watershed.
I had assumed that the nominator was attempting to draw conclusions about the nature of the Neepaulakating Creek from a source discussing the Papakating Creek watershed. If it's clarified that the text is describing the latter watershed, then I agree that this is not SYNTH, though it may be straying into 3b territory. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 13:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Jakec if you're going to claim that's an abuse of 3b, I think you're splitting hairs and straying toward passive-aggressive pointy-ness. JackTheVicar (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Quadrangles are a minor detail not falling underneath criteria 3. So if it wasn't mentioned, I don't think it needs to be mentioned. For example, if I'm reading about a river, I want to know where it is, where it goes, what feeds it and where it feeds into, and any history on it. Beyond that is even better, but wouldn't fall under "main topics". That being said, if it's in the lead (and the infobox is in the lead), it should be in the body. But, since it doesn't need to be included at all, I'd mark that change as optional for passage.
Now, about that long discussion. First, I'm 100% fine with short articles. And honestly, I think most of this is covered by WP:What the Good article criteria are not: "Point (a) means that the 'main aspects' of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be 'addressed' in the article...Mistakes to avoid...Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources."(emphasis added) The author has said the information doesn't exist, we can't require it be included. And to be completely honest, information on the watershed it is a part of, the course, and the history of the creek is pretty broad. As a layperson, that's literally the only things I can think of needing to be included about a creek.
So, in light of all that, I strongly recommend listing the article. Feel free to ask me any questions or for clarification. Wugapodes (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

As I keep explaining, I have no objection to short articles (evidence). My comments regarding the matter would be the same if there were 15,000 characters of prose on course and history and virtually none on hydrology, geography, and biology. The difference between Solsbury Hill and this? The Solsbury Hill article contains all the information that I would expect to see in an article about a hill. The article we are discussing here does not.
Having written about a third of Wikipedia's GAs on streams, I'm speaking as a bit more than a layperson (though not an expert since I have no formal education in geography). The sections (geography, watershed, wildlife) I've mentioned are things that I would expect to see in any comprehensive article on a stream. So, yes, there is a lot more that needs to be included. The article doesn't even discuss these things a little bit; about the only content on those matters is about Papakating Creek, not this creek.
"..things that I would expect to see in any comprehensive article on a stream." First, a GA does not even need to be close to comprehensive. Second, are those criteria based upon what reliable sources say, or your own ideals of what a "stream article" should be? An important part of reviewing Good Articles, particularly in your own field, is separating out what you would have done from what the criteria actually require. How you would have wrote the article can be a very good way of helping the article improve, but if it's not strictly under the criteria, it shouldn't influence the passage or failure. I genuinely do not think that what you raised as objections fall under "main" points, particularly since none of the 14 sources believe them to be important enough to talk about. Wugapodes (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
You can pass it if you like, I don't particularly care. I was merely responding to your claim that the article contained all the information that one could expect to see in a stream article. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 19:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not mine to pass. The decision is ultimately yours. A second opinion was asked for, I gave my opinion. If you really want to not pass it, that's entirely your right as the reviewer. Either way, you should be the one to do it. Wugapodes (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Taking what you're saying to the logical extreme, if an article consisting of "X Creek is a stream in Blahland." and a reference to a map were nominated for GA, we would be obligated to promote it just because the map is the only source that mentions X Creek. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 13:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Jakec I think you really need to reread WP:RGA and WP:GACN. You're a little lost in the world of "I would write the article this way" and "this is how I think the article should be perfect" which are both how you are not supposed to review GANs. Your argument to the absurd (one referenced sentence = GA-eligible article...faulty since it doesn't address major aspects), as well as your appeal to authority (claiming "I've written a third of creek GAs") and false comparison (a hill and a creek are apples and oranges)--logical fallacies--is histrionic and melodramatic and is not pertinent to the case at bar. If that's your continued position, you're letting your personal preferences and demands interfere with an objective assessment of the article's merits under the GAC and maybe a new reviewer would be better. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, the mentions of the USGS quadrangle map is in a footnote that is cited a few times throughout the article. The elevation specifically was in the infobox and has since been incorporated into the body as well. I apologise that my statement above wasn't entirely clear to those two specific situations. JackTheVicar (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Jakec so given your ambivalence above (You can pass it if you like, I don't particularly care.[1]), are you going to complete this review or should I assume you've picked up your toys and gone home? JackTheVicar (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


### Uninvolved editor's intervention
The proper way to ask for a second opinion is in the Instructions. I'm glad this issue seems to be working out; I'll wrap up the request on the discussion page. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom :: After mentioning that I'd welcome it above, followed the instructions on the talk page changing the status parameter from on hold to 2nd opinion. The reviewer (who is now seems to be a little passive-aggressive now that he's been disagreed with) suggested that no one would see it if it weren't posting on WT:GAN and I posted there as well to cover that possibility. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry; you're right, I see you had done exactly that. I dropped in because I thought the situation was unresolved.
Since you brought up passive-aggressive, I hope you take in stride my comment that I see that type of attitude mostly coming from you. Words like "frankly insulting" and then "grossly insulting" may describe what you believe the situation to be, but also can be taken as a shot across the bow in a battle you are willing to wage. And there was the "toys" comment. Don't get me wrong, I agree with your request for a second opinion for the reasons you gave, and you were otherwise respectful above, I only suggest watching your words a bit. Again, I'm glad this issue seems to be working out. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
any combativeness I've displayed has been appropriate given a reviewer that seems to trump applying the GA criteria with his own personal preferences of what an article ought to be--something that the second opinion sought to call out and that needs to be corrected lest he impose on other articles demanding above the GAC. Further characterising an article as a quotefarm when it wasn't is insultingly dismissive instead of focusing on solutions as a reviewer ought.JackTheVicar (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
If it's at all comforting, I have been in complete agreement with you on those points while reading the review. Jakec did a great job otherwise and I'm so glad Wugapodes was able to help out.
BTW, I recently found myself getting the same note about quotes. Like you, I imagine, I had thought the quotes more authentically presented the facts. And like you, I'm guessing, I only just realized they're not as great as I had thought they were; they interrupt the flow of reading a little bit, don't they? I decided to keep them only when the quote is truly important to hear in the person's own words. Just so you know someone else just went through this same bit of discovery! Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Prhartcom :: the reviewer, Jakec hasn't been back to this review in a week--while doing other things on wikipedia (extensively) over the past week that evince he is purposefully ignoring his obligation to complete the review. The second opinion editor said he encouraged the article's promotion based on GA criteria. I have no doubt a new reviewer would agree. Jakec's  disappearance I consider akin to a child's tantrum...no one agreed with him so by disappearing he disrespects the process (as I said above--picked up his toys and gone home"). If Jakec would like to state he is not returning and stop this charade of wasting other people's time by going indignantly silent, I'd appreciate it. Can you intervene? If he chooses not to return, he ought to be punished for it, and I would then ask the second opinion editor to consider taking on the review. JackTheVicar (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
For whatever reason, it seems forbidden to hand over the review to another person (if you look closely, you'll note that I attempted above to do just that). One one hand, I do not wish to ignore consensus and fail this article. On the other hand, I will not take an action that I believe to be detrimental to Wikipedia--such as promoting an article when I am unconvinced that it meets the criteria. Thus, there are two choices. One is to withdraw this nomination and immediately renominate. In some weeks, another reviewer will come and pass it after doing nothing but checking the grammar. Another option is to keep up the incivility and borderline personal attacks against me until I grow weary of it and pass the article. What is not an option is to have me "punished". You cannot force an editor to make any particular action (with the exception of explaining admin actions, which obviously doesn't apply here). You can take this to ANI and try to get me blocked if you so desire, just be aware that your own incivility here will likely be scrutinized and criticized. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 13:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, of course, Jakob, there are no punitive actions appropriate for you or anyone regarding this matter (no sanctions or anything close to it either). Rather, you deserve respect for your role as reviewer as any reviewer does, and especially for your experience with this type of article. As an uninvolved editor, I can tell you I see the improvements made to the article that came from your suggestions, which are of course appreciated by the community, and I believe the nominator JackTheVicar would agree wholeheartedly. The only question to be resolved here is the matter of actually passing or failing this article according to the GA Criteria. It is agreed also, that the two options you state above are pretty much the only two choices regarding this.
Let us look for a moment at what I believe is your primary objection: That the article is missing important information that should otherwise be in such an article. As you are a subject matter expert on this and as I believe the nominator is also, I imagine you are quite correct. It also appears the nominator agrees with you—this information is indeed missing. Let us now examine two things: Does this missing information exist in reliable sources anywhere that can be researched, incorporated, and referenced? From what I am reading above, the answer appears to be: no. Now, is it important according to the GA Criteria that this information be included in a GA-level article? (Not all articles can be made GA, we all know; some absolutely cannot.) From what I am reading above and from my own interpretation of the situation, the answer appears to be: no. As you already agree, absolute comprehensiveness is not a criteria for GA-level articles. What I see happening here is: judgement on whether or not the article should be made GA is being based on the reviewer's own criteria. That is not reviewing based on GA criteria. Therefore Jakob, may I ask you: Is my interpretation of the situation fairly accurate, and if so, should you put aside your own criteria and defer solely to the GA criteria? And when you do, does this mean that you have decided to pass the article according to the GA criteria? Please remember that, despite any tempers that might have flared, all of us here absolutely respect your role as reviewer and absolutely defer to you for this decision.
If my humble analysis does not seem so accurate to you, then this means you have decided to fail the article according to the GA criteria. I have had a few articles fail myself; it only means the nominator must try to improve the article and try again with a new reviewer. Fortunately, there seems to be an alternate reviewer close at hand: Wugapodes, if it were necessary, would you be willing to take over as reviewer for GA2? If so, the nominator should then immediately re-nominate the article and the alternate reviewer should immediately commit to review it. It would indeed be fortunate if the usual weeks or months of waiting would not be necessary.
In either case, I believe my involvement here should draw to a close. Cheers to all for their efforts to improve Wikipedia! Prhartcom (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Prhartcom: I will admit that the GA criteria can be somewhat subjective (at least in my opinion, they are subjective). It's true, of course, that an good article need not be comprehensive, but it should at least cover most of the facets. This particular article covers the creek's course and its history excellently, but makes virtually no mention of anything else. If you look closely, much of the first paragraph's second section doesn't discuss the geography and watershed of Neepaulakating Creek, but rather the geography and watershed of Papakating Creek. I believe I mentioned this somewhere above, but it got lost in the sound and fury. Had there been less serious omissions (say, it lacked a discussion of hydrology or geography or watershed, instead of all three) I would have passed it long ago. But as it stands, the article contains just half the content that anyone researching the topic would likely expect.
Now, on to the matter of my own criteria vs. the GA criteria. I am not intentionally using my own criteria over the GA criteria. I do admit to using my own interpretation of the GA criteria, albeit apparently an unpopular interpretation. I don't see any issue with this; as criterion 3a is fairly subjective and non-technical, I suspect that every reviewer interprets it differently. I think that if Wugapodes has the time and interest to carry out GA2 in a timely manner, then the best course of action would be to fail this and let him take over. This would basically be a de facto handing over of the review to him. Perhaps he may even have some suggestions for this article that I missed.
I'll wait a few hours to let people say what they have to say (or not) and then close this. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 17:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Prhartcom and Jakec: I'm glad the situation is wrapping up. While I don't want the nomination to languish among the other GA noms, I'm not confident that I should be the one to do the second review as, having given a second opinion, I don't think I'm an "uninvolved" editor at this point. I'd be willing to ask some other people in the GA cup (I'm sure they'd love the points) if they'd be willing to take this up as a priority. If I can't get someone in a couple days, I'll iar and take it on, but I'd rather try to find someone first. In the mean time, I think, Jakec, you should follow your gut and fail the article and JackTheVicar or someone else can renominate the article at their leisure. Wugapodes (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea that was herein proposed by Wugapodes. JackTheVicar (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


### Outside input
@Wugapodes: asked me to take a look at the article with a GA review in mind and said there was a disagreement over whether the article met the GA standard of being comprehensive. I'm afraid I don't have experience with similar articles and cannot reasonably judge myself, but I will say that many GA reviewers have differing or subtle opinions on the acceptability of really short articles. There are cases where there is only enough source material for a short article and it can meet GA standard if there's at least enough source material for the article to feel "complete". 
I took a look at Featured Articles from Wikiproject Rivers. Many of them have sections on wildlife/plants, parks/recreation, and geology. Are there sources available to add some of this type of information?  CorporateM (Talk) 08:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks CorporateM for taking a look and wading into the drama mire. Sadly I have exhausted all sources online and in print. There's no information on any distinctive wildlife (it's rather typical for NJ and the eastern US in terms of plants and animals) the only recreation is a manmade lake community I mentioned, and the geology doesn't stand out from the Kittatinny Valley and Papakating Creek watershed which I briefly describe. I would think that if there were something distinctive, it would have been written about and I'd have a reason to put it in. Like 7 miles away there's a hill of volcanic material...a rare spot in NJ...thats mentioned in Papakating watershed papers...but its not this creek's watershed. This article even I know isn't FA worthy. FA does have a comprehensiveness requirement, where GA doesnt. If more information were out there to use, I'd have it in there. But based on what is available about this creek, all of any material is covered and there's no more ore to mine at this time. JackTheVicar (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, CorporateM. The comments of Jakob above say the article covers the creek's course and its history excellently, but there are no sources covering the creek's hydrology, geography, and watershed.
Wugapodes, if it turns out CorporateM is unsure about this, I for one believe it would be okay for you to do the reviewing. Prhartcom (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
If CorporateM doesn't want to take it on, and you all think that it's fine for me to review the article, then I'll do so once it's renominated. But that's for CorporateM to decide most immediately. Wugapodes (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. I did a quick Google (not as satisfactory as being able to visit local libraries, etc, but it can indicate what is available), and found these: [2], [3], [4]. The pdf has information in line with what the reviewer has been requesting, which may help solve this conundrum. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

SilkTork, the .pdf document you cite is footnote 10 in the article. It deals with the Papakating Creek watershed and only mentions the Neepaulakating for one sentence in 54 pages. The report is largely on issues in Frankford Township, this creek is in Wantage. I'll review the two newspaper articles, but I think the recreation issues on Lake Neepaulin have changed since the one article was written. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll do the paperwork to put this nomination to bed, but feel free to continue discussion here or on the main talk page until if/when the second nomination is done. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 00:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The nominator has confirmed that they feel the sources have been exhausted. A reviewer did a search to see if they could find additional sources, and the sources were already used and/or exhausted. So I feel this is a good round  of double-checking that seems to confirm that the page is just appropriately short in this case. I support passing it as GA. CorporateM (Talk) 04:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I renominated the article last night. If anyone wants to jump in, I'd be obliged. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neepaulakating Creek/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 19:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Since no one seems to have a problem with me doing the review, I'll take it on.


### 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
So most of my comments are located at the [[../GA1]] page. For the most part I think that the article is rather good, however, when reading it again the second paragraph of "Course and watershed" seemed a little to ambiguous. For example "Its topography ranges from..." is unclear as it can (and does) refer to Papakating creek, but, as "it" throughout the rest of the article refers to Neepaulakating creek, it can cause confusion.
Fixed. I think I've clarified that paragraph between the work today and some emendations I've made during GA1. Do let me know if it is sufficiently clear and unambiguous. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Further, the last two sentences could stand to be improved: "Developed lake communities with large goose populations along Neepaulakating Creek and the nearby Clove Brook contribute phosphorus to Papakating Creek. The phosphorus may originate from the runoff of fertilizer applications on residential lawns and agricultural operations." I think combining them into one sentence would be better, as well as stating up front the phosphorous content and then the causes would be more logical and make for better prose.
Fixed. I originally wrote this passage in a form like it now appears, however, the reviewer Jakec changed it to the text you asked to have rewritten thinking misguidedly that it was "better"--much to my chagrin--and I sheepishly didn't look back at it. I think it's much clearer. JackTheVicar (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
These comments about images are optional for GA but still something to think about. First, I think a map of the course would really help the article from the standpoint of a layman. Second, while there's no guidelines against galleries, I've never found them to be a particularly compelling addition. Keep it or don't, but give some thought to a commons category over a gallery.
Reply - I don't think many Wikipedia readers actually go to Commons to go through pictures (I know as a longtime Wikipedia user, I don't—I can count the number of times I have done so while reading an article in the last two years on both hands), so I'm a little inclined to stick with the gallery. I tend to err on the side of the notion that a few photos in a gallery can be rather effective. If the article were able to be longer, I'd incorporate them within the text (as I'm planning to do for my rewrite of Papakating Creek. As for the map, I wholeheartedly agree. I reached out to a few Maps/Graphics people a few days ago and am aiming to get that together in the next few days. A map is definitely one element I intend to add once one can be drawn up and a must for me moving forward. I'll address the other two issues later tonight, presently on a deadline to translate some Middle English for an IRL project. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


### Results
On hold pending the first two changes to clarify the second paragraph. Once that's done it's good to go. Wugapodes (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Wugapodes... I'm currently finishing up an offwiki IRL translation project that's held me up from doing much the last day or two. I will take some time Wednesday or Thursday (at the latest) to address your concerns above. Thanks for taking on the review and for your patience. JackTheVicar (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I just closed a review after 30 days of no activity, so I tend to work at a glacial pace. Wugapodes (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Wugapodes I think I've addressed your concerns above after a brief delay (I apologize again for the inconvenience). I almost forgot about it yesterday and today when I came back onwiki to polish up Malcolm Guite before I released it out of my sandbox. You mentioned above some issues you might have brought up in GA1--I've looked through the wall of text there and I think I've covered them (but might be missing something hiding in there), so please do let me know if I've neglected to notice any outstanding or insufficiently address issues from there. Many thanks. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
You addressed those already. It was more for others who look at the review to know why this was a short review (because most of my issues were already covered previously). You're good.
Listed Overall, I think it satisfies all the GA criteria. It seems that the sources are rather exhausted, so I doubt it can be expanded much more, but there's almost always to improve the prose, and a peer review might help. Keep up the good work! Wugapodes (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)