Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive3

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:40, 28 May 2014 [1].

---

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 30.4-mile Fishing Creek, the largest river in Columbia County, Pennsylvania north of the Susquehanna River. Since the previous FAC, the article has been copyedited by the GOCE, so that should take care of that issue. I have also (as I mentioned in the previous FAC) addressed most of the concerns raised in the first FAC (about a year ago). Well, thanks for commenting and I do hope this passes this time. --Jakob (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Just adding a quick drive-by comment about the lead -- I think the reader would benefit from seeing something about the Native Americans or the first permanent inhabitants near the creek, before jumping into the different industries. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 21:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Jakob (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comments from Mike Cline

The references to "Fishing Creek has a large population of brook trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout" is misleading and not supportable with sources. From sources I can find, Fishing Creek has a small wild (naturally reproducing) population of brook trout (native) in its headwaters and an even smaller population of wild brown trout (non-native) in the headwaters. Most of the river’s trout are "stocked" by either the PA Fish and Game Commission or the Fishing Creek Sportsman Association. The PA Fish and Game Commission identifies Fishing Creek as a "Stocked Stream" not a wild trout stream. The source for the statement: "An 1887 book described Fishing Creek and its tributaries as being 'alive with trout'." Needs a page number (226) and as written mis-characterizes the source some as the source actually says: "The Fishing Creeks and their numerous tributaries were literally alive with trout, if the stories of old residents may be credited." "Were" being the operative word here. By 1887, most of the native brook trout in the northeast were in serious decline and introduced brown and rainbow trout had probably not made serious inroads. I think it is important to identify and distinguish between wild native fish, wild introduced fish and purely stocked fish populations as well as commenting on the decline of native and wild populations.

Here’s a couple of sources to help you get started fixing this section.

[2], [3]

--Mike Cline (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Cline: I have 1) removed the bit about the population being large, 2) added that the fish are stocked, and 3) fixed the "alive with trout" claim. I would also like to thank you for providing me the resources to fix this instead of just dumping comments on this page. --Jakob (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Oppose - the content on trout and fishing is not well explained and not really supportable with the sources listed. This statement in the lead: "The creek is one of the highest-quality trout streams in Pennsylvania. It is known for its trout population, which includes brook, brown and rainbow trout;..." conflicts with the information in the conservation plan and doesn't distinguish between wild, native-non-native and stocked fish. Wild native fish (with very low populations) are pretty much restricted to headwater tributaries and the mainstem relies on heavy stocking to maintain any kind of fishing. The link to the "So Many Fish, So Little Time." book is broken and there are no page numbers to specific content. I can find no evidence elsewhere that claims "Fishing Creek" is one of the "highest-quality" trout streams in PA. In articles like this, it is extremely important not to generalize about fish species and populations when in-fact there is a significant environmental relationship between wild, native and non-native and introduced/stocked populations. I would like to see these issues improved significantly before I would support. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment from Cullen28

I have concerns with the statement "Nomadic Native Americans reached the area near the mouth of Fishing Creek by 8000 B.C. By 3000 to 2000 B.C., some of them went into the Fishing Creek valley during the winter to hunt deer and bears, and returned to the Susquehanna River in the summer. Around this time, trade routes to the Fishing Creek area were created. The area was not permanently inhabited until 1000 B.C. when some Native American villages were built at the mouth of Fishing Creek." This seems to imply that there was something different about the Native American settlement of this particular creek as opposed to other similar creeks of the wider region. Do the research studies focus on Fishing Creek in the period 3000 to 2000 B.C. as opposed to other similar creeks? Or was the pattern of Native American hunting consistent throughout the wider area? I would like the article to justify any extraordinary claims, or not to make them if there is nothing unusual about the Native American usage of this particular creek. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Although I don't think it's really necessary, I've added a sentence explaining when Native Americans arrived in Pennsylvania for reference. --Jakob (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have concerns about us of the book "Discovering Bloomsburg: A Bicentennial History" published by the Bloomsburg Bicentennial Commission according to Google Books, as a reliable source for academic details of Native American settlements of the area. There is no ISBN number nor even a cover image available on Google Books. Is this a promotional effort by local boosters, or is it a book published with the sort of professional editorial control and a reputation for fact checking that we would expect? The reference now says that the publisher was "Haddon Craftsmen" which was located in Bloomsburg right near the mouth of Fishing Creek. My impression is that "Haddon Craftsmen" was a (now defunct) book printing company and not really a publisher. I would expect that all books used as references would have an ISBN number, unless the book was published before 1970. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: The chapter being used was written by Deeanne Wymer, who is a professor in the relevant subject matter. That should clear up the reliable source issue. --Jakob (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Then her authorship should be reflected in the reference. Is William M Ballie the editor then? Please correct accordingly. Does the book have an ISBN number? Please clarify who is the actual publisher. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I've fixed the author/editor name and added what is (presumably) the actual publisher. There does not appear to be an ISBN though. --Jakob (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to promotion of this article to FA. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comments - taking a look now - will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

paralleling - I've not seen this used as a verb like this (although very logical) - my inclination would be "running/flowing parallel". If you have seen it used like this and prefer to keep it in, then ok.

Hemlock Creek is a 7.6-mile (12.2 km)-long tributary of Fishing Creek that passes through Hemlock and Madison Townships in Columbia County. - given this sentence is in the tributaries section, you should remove "tributary of Fishing Creek" from it. Also, if Hemlock Creek and Montour Run are not major, it doesn't explain why they have sentences and several others do not.

Can we link watershed?

Should be linked at first mention in body of text as well as once in lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In 2011, the habitability of upper Fishing Creek and its tributaries were rated on a scale of 1 to 200. - by whom - what scale is this?

Okay - I see it in this source - I still don't see where the rating system comes from but at least it is there. That paper also has some conservation issues worth mentioning and makes a note of lack of trout overall and abundance of algae. Also has some conservation measures listed at end that are worth including. As well as using the term "periodic acidification" which is worth including in the pH section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The green algae species Tetraspora dominates the stretch - the organism named is a genus not a species - easier to just write "The green alga Tetraspora dominates the stretch".

I meant something like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Change plural one back to reduce repetition (works ok in plural). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Responding point by point:

• Paralleling has been changed to running parallel to or flowing parallel to in every location it is used.
• Hemlock Creek and Montour Run have been removed from the list of major tributaries (though they are kept in the list of other tributaries).
• Watershed is linked in the lead section.
• I've added some explanation to the paragraph on habitability ratings.
• The word 'species' has been removed.

--Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 23:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the remaining wording problems with the algae and also added some info on trout populations and conservation. I am confused as to your comment about information on periodic acidification being found here : I could not find the term in that document. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 20:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Pages 13 and 21 and para 3 in the conclusion - CNTRL-F is very useful in these situations.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Casliber: I did use cntrl+F - it's episodic acidification not periodic acidification. Anyway, that information is also in the article now. Thanks for pointing out the exact pages though. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 22:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to mention that watershed is now linked in the body. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 22:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay - I am tentatively supporting on comprehensiveness and prose, but there might be other issues raised. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

ST11

Wow, this is quite a good article. After a read-through, nothing immediately obvious jumped out at me as needing fixing, and thus I currently support. Only thing of issue is ref 37: I'm not sure that the ref provides enough context for the reader to be able to locate the source. Is there any more info you could provide? StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ref 37 fixed, thanks for supporting. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 11:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose from Hamiltonstone. I only read some parts and found a lot of issues, mostly with the quality of prose.

• The third paragraph of the lead contains a level of detail, delivered in a repetitive style, neither appropriate for the lead. We don't need all these concentrations of ranges. I suggest replacing most of that with something along the lines of "water quality in the catchment is variable, as a result of [whatever causes the variation, if we know]. The creek's pH ranges between 4.9 and 8.5, while the concentration of dissolved oxygen ranges from 5 to 17.5 mg per liter. The creek's average discharge is 615 cubic feet per second (17.4 m3/s); its watershed contains gravel, shale and various loams—in particular the Albrights soil series and the Leck Kill soil."
• "commonly run dry in the summer. In dry years, they are dry..." Copyedit to eliminate at least one of the repetitions of "dry".
• "...is of a type known as the Albrights series" apart from being cumbersome prose, it is possibly not technically correct. Are you sure the Albrights series is a type of soil? Soil types in my mind means things like "sandy loam" or "podzol".
• Thereafter, the soils material is presented in an uninteresting and i would have thought overly detailed fashion. It gives little sense of what this means for the catchment - we can't tell much about what the consequence of their presence might be for the Creek, which is the subject of the article.
• The prose still needs work. It is somewhat dull and at times disjointed. For example:

"In most places on Fishing Creek, there is not enough dissolved aluminum to be toxic, although some of its tributaries have aluminum concentrations approaching levels lethal to fish. The only tributary of which contains over 100 μg per liter is East Branch Fishing Creek. Fishing Creek itself and all its other tributaries had dissolved aluminum concentrations of less than 70 μg per liter. This concentration is linked to the thawing of soils; aluminum levels in the creek peak in March and April and drop to almost zero in the summer."

"The only tributary of which..." is not a sentence

The tense changes back and forth between the second, third and fourth sentences.

Only a hydrologically-literature reader is going to understand the link between thawing of soils and the Al levels - I certainly couldn't. How come it is thawing of soil and not simply meltwater? And surely soils aren't frozen in Pennsylvania in April, yet that is when the levels peak?

There should be a more engaging and concise way to write the para, regardless of these specifics, and it might make it more clear. For example, the para says "some tributaries" have levels of Al that approach lethal dose for fish. Yet the very next sentence says only one tributary has levels different to all of the others. So why "some"? Are these not the critical levels for fish that we are talking about? In which case, why are they being raised as specific numbers of significance?

• The short section on dams mentions "Fishing Creek" four times. It also refers to a "212-foot (65 m) concrete dam". My immediate reaction was "holy crap, that is HUGE!". Then it occurred to me that maybe it means 212 feet wide not high. This should be made clear. Regarding comprehensiveness of the article, it should be made clear which if any of these dams is still extant.
• I am generally a fan of comprehensiveness and detail, but I'm not sure that it is really of any interest what dates hottest, coldest, fasteset, slowest etc flows occur on, eg "The lowest water temperature was on January 10, 2011. The highest temperature occurred on August 3, 2006.". I would only include such details (that make the prose less engaging to read" if they can be linked to events of some other significance. For example, it would be both more interesting and relevant if one were able to write "The lowest water temperature was on January 10, 2011, coninciding with America's coldest winder in xx years" (if indeed there are sources to support such statements).
• "The highest density of organisms in the watershed occurs at West Creek, where there are between 600 and almost 900 per m". What kind of organisms? If it includes algae or plankton, these numbers can't possibly be correct.
• " to open a section of Fishing Creek that spans 6,500 feet (1,981.2 m)" - bridges "span" creeks, but i can't understand what creeks span. Is this a reference to a length of the watercourse, or to the breadth of the section of land that is proposed for a reserve? Also, given the rounding of the feet to the nearest hundred, the convert template shouldn't be taking us to within ten centimetres. The section manages to use the word "spans" five times, and I'm not convinced any of those uses is optimal prose or even correct.
• Commas are being used to separate thousands of acres, but not thousands of years.
• The retrieval dates in the references need an overhaul to bring them into a single format.
• Some sources are not adequately referenced, eg current notes 5, 39. They need more details, such as a publisher or an author.

These are not comprehensive comments - i only read some sections. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Jakec's response to Hamiltonstone's comments

Responding point by point:

1. I've replaced that paragraph with the version you suggested.
2. Copyedited.
3. Copyedited.
4. I will have a look at this.
5. Fishing Creek is now only mentioned once in that section. The dam width has been clarified.
6. I think that the ranges and possibly averages should be kept in, but I can remove the dates.
7. It refers to aquatic macroinvertebrates. I've clarified this.
8. Wording tweaked.
9. Fixed.
10. Fixed.

--Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 13:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I've further explained the link between thawing soil and high aluminum concentrations. I've also reworded the paragraph on dissolved aluminum and edited out some of the tedious prose in the soils section. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 11:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Hamiltonstone and Ruhrfisch: Any additional comments? --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 18:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone coming back for another look (excluding the lead, concentrating on substantive text):

• The text problems begin with the first sentence: "Fishing Creek is 30.4 miles (48.9 km) long". Remember the body text should stand in its own right. The first sentence should be something like "Fishing Creek is a 30.4 miles (48.9 km) long tributary of the Susquehanna River in Columbia County, Pennsylvania in the United States". (as per the lead in this case)
• "Coles Creek empties into Fishing Creek from the left". Well that depends where you stand. Is there some sort of convention about which way you face when you talk about rivers? I don't know. Shouldn't this just read from the [compass point]? "In Stillwater, Raven Creek empties into Fishing Creek from the northeast", which occurs later in the section, seems to me the correct approach.
• "passing the Bowman's Bridge". I looked at the citation, which is a map image, and it reads "Bowman Bridge". Why "the" and why the possessive apostrophe?
• Can you give some more thought to how you are deciding when to wikilink tributary creek names? They are all linked in the lead, then none are linked in the "course" section, but then some (though not others) are linked in the tributaries section. In addition, the article links at least one town name (Bloomsburg) in both lead and the section on the creek's course, despite not doing so for tributaries.
• In my view, the tributaries section needs to be completely reformatted. I have been bold and done most of what I think it should look like, but if there's some style guide or convention as to why it is not like that, then please feel free to discuss. But the current format is visually unattractive and a very inefficient way of presenting information.
• Here's where some of the prose problems begin. "The watershed is 85 percent forest and 13 percent farmland. In the upper part of the Fishing Creek watershed, the remaining 2 percent is residential, whereas in the lower part of the watershed, the remaining 2 percent is urban." "watershed" is used three times, and its name is used, when it is probably unnecessary. Here's my attempted fix
• The list of sub-watersheds is essentially repetition of the list of tributaries (which is hardly surprising), and can probably be deleted.
• I've done my best with the prose about the Oxbow.
• The prose in the section on European settlement needs work. Just about every sentence follows the same simple structure, making it repetitive to read, and creating an impression of disjointed facts.
• If we are going to be given dates about lowest highest flows etc, then the reader needs to be told how long the records have been kept.

That's all I've got time for at the moment, sorry. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure it's a good idea to repeat parts of the lead verbatim down in the article, though I did move the length down to the bottom of the course section.
2. wikt:left bank and wikt:right bank are actual terms, but you are right, compass directions are probably clearer, so I've replaced right bank/left bank terminology with those.
3. Corrected, must've been a typo.
4. I've played around with the linking some. All tributaries are linked in the lead and again in the course section. All tributaries in the tributaries section are delinked except for ones that aren't mentioned in the course section.
5. Your fix of the tributaries section looks much better.
6. Thanks. That was helpful. I've also removed one further use of the word "watershed" from that section.
7. I've revamped the subwatershed bit, so it doesn't just repeat the trbutaries list.
8. Great.
9. I've done some extra work on that.
10. It seems that the dates are already in the hydrology section.

--Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 16:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

More from Hamiltonstone. Sorry, but I can't shift my oppose. The prose just needs too much work. Every paragraph I look at, there is something that could be significantly better written. The main problems are: needless repetition of words, particularly the name of whatever is the main subject of each paragraph; lack of variation in sentence structure; and lack of economy in the way things are written about. This last point isn't always easy to explain. Examples:

• "The density of organisms on the main stem of Fishing Creek ranges from slightly over 200 to slightly over 400 organisms per m2" This doesn't need the word organism repeated on the second occasion, because we already know the subject of the sentence.
• "Another soil series in the drainage basin of Fishing Creek is the Leck Kill-Meckesville-Calvin series. The top 8 inches ..." Could read "The Leck Kill-Meckesville-Calvin series begins with 8 inches..."
• "Below this level is a subsoil of reddish-brown silt loam that occurs from 8 to 32 inches (20 to 81 cm) below ground" could read "A subsoil of reddish-brown silt loam then occurs from 8 to 32 inches (20 to 81 cm) below ground".

The other substantive issue I see in the hydrology section is the inclusion of unencyclopedic detail. These are highly specific facts that lack any context to give them significance. Most of the problem ones are the specific dates on which there were peaks in data. For example "The total concentration of phosphates at the gauging station near Bloomsburg between 2002 and 2012 ranged from less than 0.031 mg/L to 0.11 mg/L. The highest concentration occurred on May 19, 2009." Not only is that at least the fourth time we have been told about "the gauging station near Bloomsburg between 2002 and 2012", but there is no benefit for the reader in being told all these highest/lowest concentration dates. They don't mean anything, unless we are given the significance of this information. Was it important for some reason that it was on that date? In contrast the concentration ranges can be appropriate because they characterise the river for the reader.

I acknowledge that you got someone at GOCE to give it a workover, and there are many improvements as a result of User:Baffle gab1978's efforts. But they don't get it into FAC territory, in my view anyway. Maybe after another go. Certainly the article has a lot of the underlying facts and research completed. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments

I was asked to comment here by Jakec. I have had a family member hospitalized and do not have a lot of time. That said here are some quick thoughts (not having had time to carefully reread the whole article yet)

• Commenting on the discussion above, right and left bank is a fairly standard way to describe rivers and their tributaries - I am fine with directions (from the northeast) but would also provide right or left bank information.
• The article has had a lot of work put into it and a copy edit, but I agree that the prose is still clunky in many places (criteria 1a is usually the hardest for most articles to meet at FAC). A few examples follow:
  • (Lead) "In the past few centuries, the Fishing Creek area has been home to many industries, especially mills and dams." How is a mill or a dam an "industry"?
  • (Lead) "The creek is one of the highest-quality trout streams in Pennsylvania. It is known for its trout population, which includes brook, brown and rainbow trout; it contains many other species of fish." Surely there is a way to avoid three uses of trout in two sentences? Also the lead is supposed to be a summary, not just a few details plucked from the body.
  • (Lead) Stray quotation mark at the end of the lead's last sentence
  • (Course) "In southern Fishing Creek Township, about 1.5 to 2 miles (2.4–3.2 km) south of Stillwater, the creek turns and picks up Huntington Creek, then flows past the communities of Zaners, Forks, and Pealertown while in Fishing Creek township.[10]" Does the sentence really need to mention the township twice? Capitalization should be consistent (Township vs township). Another FA criteria is comprehensiveness - river miles are know (and mostly given in the list of tributaries article though it looks like it has some transcription errors). Why not include them here (and in the whole Course section)?
• There are more nice photos of the creek on Commons than are used in the article - at the same time at least one image seems superfluous - not sure what the "Map of Fishing Creek in Fishing Creek township" does for the average reader (and again capitalization issues). More later, I should have some free time this evening. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Appreciate your involvement Ruhrfisch but I think that after remaining open this long without consensus developing, it's time to put this to bed -- perhaps you can continue to offer Jakob some suggestions on the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.