Talk:Leggetts Creek

GA Review

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

I am going to do a GA Review of this article. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 01:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

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

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

   There are some Wiki-redlinks in the article. Some of their present wording can be adjusted to go to the correct WP article. For instance, in the article (it's Ref 14) it is Geological Survey of Pennsylvania but the article's name is actually Pennsylvania Geological Survey. Please go through and check all the redlinks to see if there is a corresponding WP article under a different name.

   Thanks to @Sir Joseph: for fixing those issues - greatly appreciated. Shearonink (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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:

   Checking references. The main problem is that some references have gone stale.

   @Shearonink: Added archiveurl, can't fix ref 24, the nominator (User:Jakec) left Wikipedia. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

   Thanks Hanif Al Husaini. If you or anyone else is willing to improve the refs here are the known issues:

   Ref 9 requires a subscription/registration and should say so

   External link for Google Maps View isn't completely correct, it needs to be updated.

   Ref 1 needs to be updated & completely correct.

   Ref 24's statement is that the Conservancy received a grant to study the creek, that information can be found elsewhere, like in this newspaper's archives.

   The above issues still need to be corrected. Shearonink (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   Much thanks to @Hanif Al Husaini: & @Sir Joseph: for fixing the majority of the referencing issues. I did do two minor edits to references today that did not alter the meaning or text of this article. Shearonink (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I changed my mind on this issue. Yes, the article is well-written but I just did another read-through and realized that there is no human history. I think the article needs to at least mention some sourced facts like who was Leggett, why is the creek named after him or her, did it ever have a Native american name, did anything historic happen in its watershed - just a few sourced statements along those lines. My previous statement is invalid -please disregard. Shearonink (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   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:

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

   I have noticed that all of the photos are from 1946. Are there any available CC-by-SA or public domain photos that are more recent?

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold pending fixing the referencing issues and adding some bits of sourced human history.

   Please see below Comment. Shearonink (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   This article is on hold for a single item: Pending any interested editor - someone other than myself (because adding an image to the article is a major edit and therefore a clear WP:COI in my opinion) - finding out if there are any recent public domain/CC-BY-SA photos of the Creek or its surrounding area and adding that image to the article. Shearonink (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I have decided to pass this article to GA status. Going forward, I think the major improvements would be to find more recent photos of Leggetts Creek itself and/or photos of the fairly-recent clean-up of the surrounding area. The Recreation section could do with some copyediting and possible updating concerning if the proposed trail has been completed/started/abandoned/etc. Many thanks to the two editors - @Hanif Al Husaini: & @Sir Joseph: - who stepped forward and did some needed copy-editing. Shearonink (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: Shearonink, Jakob/Jakec retired from Wikipedia on 6 September 2016. Regrettably, I doubt that he will be addressing any of the issues you raised in this review, and there doesn't seem to be anyone else interested in doing so. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't given up hope. Have placed notices on various WikiProjects. There's no deadline on these, will try to ping some possibly-interested editors. I did have one editor respond on one of Jakec's GA noms (can't remember which one at the moment), so there's no harm in leaving this review open in the hopes they will turn up. Shearonink (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I want to apologize for my mix-up on my Review of this article. I have no idea what I was thinking when I stated previously up-thread that there is no History about the name, etc. Mea culpa. Moving on. Shearonink (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leggetts 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66gupqQDM?url=http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ to http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Original spelling of Leggett's Creek

If one looks at old documents, the spelling of the creek is Liggett's Creek. An extract from the 1849 report on the Liggett's Gap Railroad uses this spelling several times for the creek and the gap..

References