Talk:Powderly Creek/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 20:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Not part of the criteria and thus feel free to ignore: a) Is there any more recent information than "the 2000s"? b) The two long PDFs may be easier to read with pagenumbers given. c) Source #8 may merit a linkfix (also because it's not clear where to search for the information).

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   "The creek is an impaired stream." both in the lead and in the article text is a bit sentence fragment-ey, a problem replicated in the first paragraph of the hydrology section. "Tenths of a mile" is repetitive. "in Powderly Creek either in its upper reaches" seems to be missing a word. "The pH of the creek at this site" - which site? "Powderly Creek experiences measurable flow loss." what is flow loss - are people pumping too much water from it? " but on a considerably larger scale." is comparing two watersheds but it's not clear from the text which is the "larger scale". I am wondering what is "macabre" about a creek flowing through a basin. Should "Office of Surface Mines" be prefixed with a "The"? "It was also owned by the Hudson Coal Company." not clear if the creek or the colliery is meant. "Powderly Creek poses to flooding hazard in Carbondale Township,"?

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   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:

   What is https://www.pacode.com/? It does say "No statutes or acts will be found at this website." Otherwise everything seems to check out.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Seems like everything in the lead is supported by the article text. I notice that the coordinates appear to be unsourced. It looks like the creek turns northwest a little after passing under Lackawanna Avenue and that its mouth is at a slightly higher elevation. Reserving judgment on source #2 and #5 owing to length issues, and on #6 since it demands a login. Might want to specify at which point of the creek the daily manganese load was established. On that source, which pagenumber is the US Route mentioned on? [1] is there a key somewhere for the acronyms?

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   But "recreation" is a bit sparse.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   Are there really no images?

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Sorry, but given how long this has been in limbo I'll fail it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)