Talk:Little Wapwallopen Creek/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 02:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Might just as well take this one while we're at it. I wonder why these have remained unreviewed for so long. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
• Seems a lot of conversions are needed for this one too, cubic feet, milligrams, liters, etc...

• Done.

• for several tenths of a mile" Could need some kind of conversion.

• I think even metric users have a rough sense of how far a mile is; conversions are more for exact measurements.

I have absolutely no idea how long a mile is, so there ya go. I think it could be mentioned at first instance where mile is used without a number. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Could still be explained briefly as (a mile is x km). FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• "for a few miles" Why so vague? Also hard to give a conversion... There are many such vague estimates throughout.

• If I did that, the course section would be completely cluttered with numbers, something which I try to avoid when possible. It'd also be very difficult to map out dozens of tiny segments like that.

• Anything else? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, will continue soon, I was awaiting your responses. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Its valley broadens" What is meant by valley here?

• Um, its valley? The one that it flows through?

• Several place names are linked in the intro, but not in the article body.

• I wasn't aware that they had to be, especially if they show up so close to the lead.

"but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead."[1] FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Okay.... --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• "The stream is not considered to be impaired." And this means what?

• "Impaired" isn't a particularly rare word, or one with multiple meanings. It means what it says.

But what does it mean in this context? Again, might not be obvious for most readers. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

No different from what it would mean in any other context. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

So if I have to guess (which we don't want our readers to do), it means that the strength of its flow isn't diminished? But then again, compared to what? And why is it not "considered" impaired, is it a subjective statement? FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• "was once measured to be" Why the vagueness with the date here? Why even say "once"? You do this a bunch of times.

• That means that it was measured one time, not that it was measured at some unspecified time. As explained in every second paragraph, the measurements date back to the 1970s.

• "the 100 year floodplain" What is that? I see you link something similar further below, but it should be linked at first occurrence. There are also other terms that are only linked at second occurrence.

• I'd prefer to not have two different links adjacent to each other, making them look like one (if it's at all possible).

• "The creek also once flooded to a depth of" Why no mention of the year here, when you mention it for the other flooding?

• For some inexplicable reason, no date is provided in the source, otherwise I would have mentioned one.

• Since you mention a lot of bridges under history, could perhaps be nice to show one of them?

• Unfortunately, there are no pictures currently available, and most of them would probably be incredibly boring anyway.

• "at river mile 4.40" Seems this could need some kind of conversion? Seems it would be "river kilometer".

• Altered.

• "It is approximately 17 miles (27 km) long " Only mentioned in intro.

• But it's cited, and there's no other place where it would really belong.

• "and is not considered to be impaired." You state this twice in the intro.

• Removed one.

• "ranges from slightly acidic" You only mentions acidic in the intro.

• Not sure what you mean.

• Jakob, I suspect this is a WP:LEAD issue: any significant information mentioned in the lead should also appear in the body of the article, since the lead is a summary of the article contents. In this case, you don't specifically mention acidity or alkalinity in the body of the article—just giving a pH range is not the same—and you should. (If you meant something else, FunkMonk, then by all means say so, though in that event there will be two things to do rather than one.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly what I mean. Same issue with the length of the creek. FunkMonk (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

But the pH scale is basic high-school chemistry (if not middle-school), not something particularly obscure. It should go without saying that 6-7 is "slightly acidic" and 7-8 is "slightly basic". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The point is that it isn't mentioned outside the intro, not that you have to explain what it means. FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The point is that it is mentioned in the hydrology section. 6.3 is slightly acidic. 7.4 is slightly basic. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The layreader may not know which amount means it is acidic and vice versa. Wikipedia is not written for experts. As for the length, it should be mentioned in the article body as well, the intro should not have any unique info. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I take it you weren't paying attention when I said "basic high-school chemistry". Or are high-schoolers now "experts"? Anyway, the link pH should make it obvious to anyone who doesn't know. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Just saw BlueMoonset's edit and it looks satisfactory to me. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was requesting all along. Now we only need to add the length to the article body, explaining what impaired means in this context, and how long a mile is. FunkMonk (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

All of these, I feel, would result in the article going onto distracting tangents. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is it a tangent to mention, at the beginning or the end of the Course section, that the total length was X miles? A stream's length is basic information, not a tangent, and cannot be calculated based on the description in that section. I don't understand where the 17.5 miles number comes from, however; perhaps you could explain that? FN4, which is used to source the "not impaired" statement, has four entries for Little Wapwallopen Creek, each giving a different size for it: 1.57 miles, 9.56 miles, 11.45 miles, and 23.10 miles—the last number is larger than what the article gives. What's up with that? Also, all four have a status of "good"—"water quality conditions fully support all water uses"—for the creek's listed "designated use": "aquatic life". Rather than use a technical term like "impaired", why not say that it is considered in good shape for that use/those uses? Also, the source is giving this data as of 2006, so the article should make that clear rather than just make a blanket statement: something could have happened in the intervening ten years to change that status. (I don't understand the bit about "how long a mile is" unless it's something other than 5280 feet long or there's something particularly unusual in measuring the length of a creek.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't written for experts, you need to make the article accessible for layreaders. As for the mile length, BlueMoonset, it is because the word is thrown around in the beginning of the article, which has little meaning for non-imperials. FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Good point, FunkMonk, about miles being used almost exclusively in places (for example, the Course section is described in miles). I don't believe that you need to actually state that one mile is approximately 1.6km, but more conversions are clearly needed. There are also some odd conversions: the Source elevation is between 1,200 and 1,220 feet, but both numbers are translated as 370m ("between 370 and 370m"), which is clearly not accurate as the two distances differ by over 6m. Jakob, there is a bit more work to be done... BlueMoonset (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I did tweak the strange conversion issues by getting some more precise figures. There's already a miles/kilometers conversion in the first sentence of the article. I have stated my opinion on the other matters. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The other matter (stating the length of the creek in the article body) is not up for discussion, per the MOS: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles."[2] The length of the creek seems rather significant. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, if it's "not up for discussion", then I guess we have reached the end of this discussion... --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I'll ask BlueMoonset for an opinion, and list this for a formal "second opinion. No reason why rejection to fix such a small issue should prevent it from passing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

Since FunkMonk asked for my opinion, I'm going to note some concerns I have.

• The failure to reiterate the stream's length in the body of the article is incomprehensible to me. The Course section would be an ideal place for it, and it wouldn't be a tangent. However:

• The discrepancy between the various assertions of distance between the article's intro/infobox and the Course section is worrying. The following statements would seem to be contradictory:

• The creek is said to be approximately 17 miles.
• Tributaries subsection: Nuangola Outlet joins Little Wapwallopen Creek 14.55 miles above its mouth.
• Course section: from its source, Little Wapwallopen Creek flows several tenths of a mile, a few miles, and then a few tenths of a mile; the meeting with Nuangola Outlet occurs during or after this final few tenths.
• At a minimum (conservatively assuming a few is only "three"), adding 14.55 plus 3 plus several tenths plus a few tenths gives well over 18 miles—and it could be considerably larger than that, given the vagueness of "a few miles"; this is too much of a disagreement with the 17 mile figure.
• The above needs to be reconciled.

• It looks like it's actually somewhere between a mile and a mile and a half (roughly). I've changed the article (which has also helped with the conversion issue).

• I still haven't had any response to my query about the various values in the US EPA report (FN4) which gives varying lengths up to 23.10 miles while reporting on the creek; this last number is larger than 17. (Not quite sure why I typed "17.5" in that query, since the article says "17"; I apologize for any confusion.) Jakob, you've done many dozens of these articles and sourced this report many times; please explain what these mileage numbers mean. (If they're noting a distance from the creek's mouth, then we have a problem.)

• I would assume that those numbers are also counting various unnamed tributaries and the like. The numbering is a bit strange, and doesn't always seem to correspond exactly to creek length.

• A minor thing I noticed while trying to figure out the lengths above is that in "Course", there's at least one word missing after "Andy Pond"; this needs fixing.

• Fixed.

• Also in Course: even if numbers aren't used, there are a couple of places where an alternate measurement could be inserted. Several tenths of a mile could be "(about a kilometer)", if several is in the five-to-seven range, for example; "a few miles" could be "several kilometers", or "a few tenths of a mile" could be about half (or two-thirds) of a kilometer, depending. Even a couple of these would go a long way toward giving readers a few signposts.

• See above.

• About "impaired": what the source says is "Status: Good". I don't understand the insistence on a double negative (not impaired) rather than using a simple positive statement, but for me it isn't a deal-breaker, even though I would prefer the positive, since the two main statuses are "Good" and "Impaired". What I would insist on is that this assessment be dated: the stream was in good shape for its designated use (Aquatic Life) as of 2006; ten years later we have no idea what it's current state might be, and using Wikipedia's voice to make an unqualified claim (effectively that this is its present condition) is not appropriate.

• I think "impaired" is the only official term, and "good" is somewhat vague anyway. Added "as of", though I don't know if it's necessary or not.

While it may seem like a few minor things, I don't understand Jakob's refusal to include some of the very straightforward fixes that have been requested by FunkMonk. These are generally along the lines of what I ended up doing for acid/basic, which had been strongly resisted for a while, with a new post even as I made that edit. Frankly, if it were me and the refusal persists, I'd (regretfully) fail the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel I should second BlueMoonset here. I have reviewed four of Jakec's articles, all on creeks, and I raised some similar issues which met with some refusal from him. I thought he should know better about geography articles, but the Course section in these articles does appear a bit too vague to my eyes. Another point is that I did not go deep into checking the sources as BlueMoonset has, so if there are discrepancies here then there may be some in other articles as well. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it's a shame if it should be failed for such minor issues, when the rest is quite fine. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@FunkMonk, BlueMoonset, and Jakec: has there been any progress on this nomination? Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 15:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I would still like to see the length stated in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That would cause it to appear three times in a single screen of text! --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

That is the norm for Wikipedia articles; there is not supposed to be unique info in the intro. The intro is nothing but a summary of the article body. I don't understand why this is so hard to do. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The watershed of 39.5 square miles is mentioned in the intro, the infobox, and the body of the article. The creek's length of approximately 17 miles is clearly as important, and should also be in all three places. WP:LEAD is very clear on the need for the information to appear in the body; if Jakob is so dead set against three times in a single screen—which is certainly not the case on my laptop, where I can only see two, and also wouldn't be on mobile devices—then he can always pull it from the infobox in favor of the lead, though it's not what I would recommend, and others may object to it.

With regard to the issues I listed, Jakob has done an okay job with them, though I have to confess that his statement that I think "impaired" is the only official term does not inspire confidence (the word "think", primarily), given the use of "Good" and "Impaired" on the official listings being sourced. I'd also like him to recheck the Course description of the creek: if one instance of a "few miles" turned out to be between a mile and a mile and a half, or around 2 kilometers (half or less of the original value), then other values may be similarly off. (I'm assuming that the Course was assembled by examining the sourced online map and estimating distances by eye based on some sort of key.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the length should be mentioned in all three places. I don't know enough about bodies of water to talk about the "not impaired" vs "good" issue. I guess my question is if there's any way I can help finish off this review? Would a second third opinion be useful? Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 19:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it will help sway the opinion of the nominator. Better than failing, at least. Or me adding it myself... FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If the request for second opinion issue has now been addressed as it is still being requested on the nom page, then perhaps someone could update the nom page which is still requesting a second opinion since last month. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk, this review has now been open for 101 days. It's past time to wrap it up one way or the other. To be blunt, failing is not the end of the world; the article can always be nominated again once the rest of the raised issues have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, if someone other than the nominator would add the length, I'd pass this. I think that would be the best solution. But yeah, I've never tried a situation like this, nominator waits for six months for a reivew, then refuses to make a tiny change which is in full accord with the MOS? FunkMonk (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Done now. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to quote an inappropriate (yet relevant to my emotions) line from Pulp Fiction, but I'll just say I now think the article is good enough for GA, and will pass. FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)