# Talk:Roaring Brook (Lackawanna River tributary)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roaring Brook (Lackawanna River)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 09:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this for a review. Miyagawa (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, lets get the review underway.
Images: All licences are fine.
Lead: Link Drainage basin to watershed
Done.
Also Moosic Mountains, even though it is a stub; and the Pocono Mountains
Done.
Course: See if you can break that large first paragraph into two, it'll make it easier to read.
Done.
I'd also just remove the carriage return from the single sentence (current) second paragraph and just have it be at the end of the new second paragraph
Fixed.
Hydrology: "The concentration of fluoride in Roaring Brook at Scranton was once measured to" - can we be anymore specific about when? Even if it's just a decade.
That means that it was measured one time; the date's given in the previous paragraph.
The final two paragraphs both start with "The peak annual discharge" - is there a way of changing one or the other to remove the repetition?
Reworded.
Geography, geology, and climate: You should move "Horace Hollister's 1885 History of the Lackawanna Valley described Roaring Brook as being "the noisiest tributary of the Lackawanna"." up to the other comments by Hollister - it looks out of place down towards the bottom of this section.
Done.
Watershed: If you're going to link Drainage basin in the article body, it should be up near the top when watershed is first mentioned.
I don't know. I don't think there's anything wrong with spacing out he links a little.
Merge the final two paragraphs since the last one is a single sentence.
Done.
Biography: Any chance of being a bit more specific with your linkage in "Wolves, bears, wildcats, and panthers" as I'm doubtful that all members of those families are found there.
The article doesn't imply that either, and there's nothing more specific to be said. Most readers probably won't care about the exact species anyway.
Notes: Can we get a cite for the note?
Nested references would appear to break the note.
Citations: There's quite a few instances of listing an organisation as an author - could you edit these and change those to publishers as they're not a specific individual(s) who wrote the text.
No, oftentimes the organization literally is the author; there isn't a single individual or even several credited with writing it.
Cite #13: Is the publisher the National Dam Inspection Program? If so, remove that from the title of the citation and place in a publisher field.
No, part of the title.
Cite #20: Publisher/Location details? Old books like that tend to have them printed on the bottom of the first page with text.
Done.
Cite #21 through 23: Need to be filled out with full source information, and in the case of the Life one, the article information.
Better.
Ok, placing this one on hold. Ping me back when you've had a chance to look or need more than 7 days. Miyagawa (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Pinging @Miyagawa:. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 00:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Great, happy to promote on that basis. Miyagawa (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)