Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Lock Haven, Pennsylvania/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Lock Haven, Pennsylvania

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it ready for FAC. I don't think it should be hard to review because it's already been vetted closely by User:Dincher and has been worked over several times over the past two years by me, mostly, with lots of help in the way of photography and a map by User:Ruhrfisch, who also supplied helpful information and advice. Nevertheless, it will be my first FA try with a city article on which I've done most of the research and writing. I'd like to catch any remaining problems before FAC.

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by doncram Reads well, looks good. I noticed the mention of 3 NRHP historic sites in the lede, but then had trouble finding them in the article. The archeological site is mentioned in the history section as being an archeological site (linked to article archeological site located in Memorial Park (which actually links to the article about the site, but which I assumed was an article about the park instead). Then I am pretty sure there is no mention of the other 2 NRHPs in the history section. I couldn't figure out from the TOC where they would be covered. Eventually found all 3 covered in the Arts and Culture section. Perhaps they should be covered in the history section or the Arts and Culture section should be renamed? BTW i noticed the DYK for Water Street District the other day, and read this article, so then was primed to notice "Lock Haven" on the PR requests list. Keep up the good work! doncram (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions and kind words. Your observations are keen, and I'll work on making these connections more clear. Finetooth (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: meticulous work, leaving me only with a series of nitpicks and minor prose suggestions:-

  • Lead
    • The first paragraph reads somewhat inelegantly. The problem phrases are "in and the county seat of" and "of and is included in", and there is perhaps a comma too many. These factors interfere with the prose flow. My suggestion: "The city of Lock Haven is the county seat of Clinton County, in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. Located near the confluence of the West Branch Susquehanna River and Bald Eagle Creek, it is the principal city of the Lock Haven, Pennsylvania micropolitan statistical area, itself part of the..."
    • There's a slight grammar problem in the last sentence, with an ambiguity around "its". I've tried rewording; the best I can offer is "While industry remains important to the city, about a third of the workforce is employed in education, health care, or social services." For consideration.
  • Pre European history: The sentence beginning: "Memorial Park Site 36Cn164..." deals with a much later period than the sentences either side of it. Is it in the right sequence?
    • No. Reverse chronological order is better. I revised the second half of the paragraph to maintain a logical order. I also removed the final sentence, which included a fairly dramatic claim supported by only one source. It's credentials as an RS might reasonably be questioned. Finetooth (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eighteenth century
    • "Four Indian paths ... led to or from the island..." First, is "Indian paths" a recognised description? Secondly, what is the difference between a path leading "to" or "from" somewhere? And thirdly, er... as islands are by definition surrounded by water, I'm curious to know how paths can lead to (or from) them.
    • Did the British buy land "through" or "after" the treaty? Should the treaty be described as the "first Treaty of Fort Stanwix" as there was another?
      • The money amount was part of the treaty but less important than the shift in boundaries. I changed this to read, "With the signing of the first Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, the British gained control from the Iroquois of lands south of the West Branch."
  • Nineteenth century
    • The paragraph begins: "Lock Haven prospered...", but I can't see, from your narrative, when the place was actually established as a settlement. The previous section only refers to "the future site of Lock Haven"
      • Good catch. I put this in the infobox but not in the main text. I changed the sentence to say, "Laid out as a town in 1833, incorporated as a borough in 1840 and as a city in 1870, Lock Haven prospered in the 19th century largely because of timber and transportation." I added a citation to support the three date claims. Finetooth (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the lumber industry was in full swing". It's the quote marks around an unmemorable (cliché?) phrase that are slightly bothersome. Why not just say that the lumber industry was well established?
    • "The West Branch Canal opened in 1834 and soon ran 73 miles (117 km)..." I'm not sure what "soon" is doing here. (It's a bit of a stylistic habit - I noticed a few other "soons" going through).
    • "A rapid increase in Lock Haven's population followed the opening of the canal." Could we have some base figure from which this increase occurred?
    • "On the strength of the railroad's potential value to the city, local residents invested heavily in housing, building large homes between 1854 and 1856." Needs to be "had" invested, to make chronological sense.
    • "...in about 1885, when about 1.9 million logs..." Avoidable close repetition.
  • Twentieth century
    • A bit of a comma overload here: "The Lock Haven Electric Railway, managed by the Lock Haven Traction Company and, after 1900, the Susquehanna Traction Company, ran passenger trolleys between Lock Haven and Mill Hall, about 3 miles (5 km) to the west." Couldn't this be: "The Lock Haven Electric Railway, managed by the Lock Haven Traction Company and after 1900 by the Susquehanna Traction Company, ran passenger trolleys between Lock Haven and Mill Hall, about 3 miles (5 km) to the west."
    • Redundant wording here: "...expanded to include several additions, among them an engineering building and an office building." "Expanded" implies additions, therefore: "...expanded to include an engineering building and an office building." (later) ...or better, perhaps, "to include engimeering and office buildings".
  • Floods
  • Geography and climate: no particular issues
  • Demographics
    • What is the definition of a "household" as distinct from a "family". Is it the presence of children? Point not wholly clarified by paragraph 3
      • This is a good question. I think a bot added these sections to virtually every U.S. city article, and I've modified the bot work somewhat in this and a couple of other articles by creating full citations instead of the embedded template-generated citations. The stats are a bit eye-glazing but may be useful. However, I had not thought much about the definitions of the embedded terms until recently. The Census Bureau has an online glossary of terms, and I've added a footnote citing the definitions in this glossary for "family" and "household". Finetooth (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There were 3,565 housing units at an average density of 1,419.9/sq mi (548.4/km2)." I'm not sure I understand what this means.
      • It's a possibly over-precise measure of housing density. It would be useful to someone who wants to compare the housing density of one city with another. As I thought about these questions, I decided to round a lot of the numbers for ease of reading. Does this help? Should I round even more? Finetooth (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most readers will not know what a "median" is, therefore link required.
    • "versus" is a rather competitive term; in this case, "compared with" might be better.
  • Economy: "...the rate had declined..."
  • Arts, culture...: Can you explain the nature of "subscriptions" among the library resources?
  • Parks and recreation: The sentence about winning the Little League in 1948 would be better placed in the previous paragraph, where Little League is first mentioned.
  • Government: This section should deal with the city's government. It's stretching things, I think, to include the US congressman, and surely US Senators Specter and Casey can't be considered as part of the government of Lock Haven? (except in the same sense that Barack Obama (Dem) is President of the United States)
    • I removed the data about federal office-holders. I had added the county, state, and federal data in response to a general suggestion in an earlier review about the need for more government info. Your point about the president made me rethink this. The lower levels are less well-known and theoretically more responsive to local issues. Finetooth (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infrastructure
    • William T. Piper Airport: If no commercial, charter, or freight services are available at this airport, what does that leave? Can you summarise in a few words what it is used for?
    • Last paragraph: is this information really part of the city's "infrastructure"? Might it better be placed in te "Twentieth century section as part of the city's history?
  • Notable residents: no comment (Sloan is the only one to ring a bell)

I hope you found these comments and suggestions helpful. I shall watch the article's progress with interest. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is very helpful indeed. The rest of today and much of tomorrow will be filled with visitors and house guests, so I'll be pretty much off-line until late tomorrow. Then I'll look more closely at each of your suggestions and respond more fully. Thank you for taking the time to do this. Finetooth (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have responded in some way to all of the above. In most cases, I adopted your suggestions. In the case of the population in 1833, I'm not sure. In the case of the hurricane rainfall amounts and dates, I think everything relevant is already there. In the case of the Demographics stats, I added definitions in a footnote and did quite a bit of rounding to make the eye-glazing stats more easily readable. Your suggestions were most helpful, and any other comments will be welcome. Finetooth (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara

Geography and climate

  • I know the Weather Channel provides record temps as well as the averages, so why not add those too.
    • They are included in the paragraph above the chart. Finetooth (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking of the record for each individual month. I'm also thinking that adding the Köppen climate classification of Lock Haven would be useful (which I could add, if you like). ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for pointing that out. I had been looking at other FA city articles and saw that many use the simpler chart. However, Boston and Erie, both FA, use the bigger chart. I've added the monthly record highs and lows to the Lock Haven chart, and I also added some more precip data from the meteorologist at Penn State. If you add up the monthly rainfall averages from the Weather Channel, you won't get exactly the same total as the one from Penn State. I'm pretty sure the discrepancy comes from the differing periods of record. If I could figure out the Weather Channel's period of record, I'd add that too. And, yes, please add the Köppen classification if you have an RS for it. Much obliged. Finetooth (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

  • "Two of the city's employers, Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania and Lock Haven Hospital, were among the seven biggest employers in Clinton County." — "are" instead of "were" (both are still among the county's largest employers, are they not?); If both are among the county's largest, wouldn't that make them also the largest employers in the city?
    • Good points. I have changed to read, "The city's biggest employers, Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania and Lock Haven Hospital, are among the seven biggest employers in Clinton County." Finetooth (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arts, culture,...

  • You mention a student-run television station, but are there any network stations? What channels can be recieved by persons without cable or satellite TV?
    • The Express TV listings here show that "all" is the answer to the network question, but this seems to be so nearly universal in the U.S. that an actual list seems unnecessary. I don't know how to find the answer to the second question, but I think it also may fall into the category of unnecessary detail. I see other TV station listings for Lock Haven that look like this: "DW24BH 530 TX TV - Lock Haven, PA" in the list here. These look like translators (TX) or signal boosters, and I didn't think they were worth mentioning. Do you think I should add them?
  • I wouldn't include the frequencies of the radio stations. I found it confusing to read.
    • I agree. In my desire to be comprehensive, I sometimes add too much. I have removed the frequencies. Thanks for adding the links to the station articles. Finetooth (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a side note, is that 97.7 FM a third station or a secondary frequency of one of the the two mentioned?
      • Very good catch. That fragment slipped through a much earlier delete of stations in the area but not in Lock Haven. A station operating at that frequency is licensed to Mill Hall. Another station is based in Avis, and Jersey Shore has one. At some point, I decided this was all too much and not truly relevant to a Lock Haven article. It's another sort of "how much is too much" question. Finetooth (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments now...won't be around at all tomorrow. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 03:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful comments. I'm working my way through the suggestions from the top of this review to the bottom and shall address them all in due course. Any further comments will be welcome. Finetooth (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to the ones you've posted so far. If you spot anything else, or if you have further comments on my replies above, please let me know. All advice is welcome. Finetooth (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Very good chance of being the 2nd featured PA city. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 01:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Placing the census populations into {{Historical populations}} might be a good idea (it automatically calculates percent change between each year). I was also able to find the populations for each census, starting in 1850, which I could add to fill the gaps. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I seem to be too fried to figure out how to transfer the citations from my hand-made table into that template. Each entry needs its own citation since most do not come from the Census Bureau. Finetooth (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it helps, I did confirm the current numbers with those of the Census Bureau. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not know how to do that when I created the table, and I still don't know how to easily find census data for, say, 1870. If we replace my citations with a single one to the Census Bureau, will that citation make it easy for any reader to verify the numbers? I think it's a problem when bot-generated census templates (not this one but the ones usually embedded in the city demographics sections of Wikipedia articles) don't actually direct a reader to a page that supports the claims. In other words, it's not helpful to direct the reader to the Census Bureau main page or something equally general. Probably only an unusual reader will want to verify every stat, but my interpretation of WP:V is that we need to make it possible and, hopefully, convenient for such a reader to do so. Is it possible to do that with this template? Finetooth (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>*Thanks a bunch for that census link, which I will use. As for changing the table, it doesn't seem to me that the version that calculates the exact percent change would reveal any trends not apparent from a quick glance at the existing table. I'm reluctant to spend the time making the change for so little gain. Finetooth (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind about the table after sleeping on it (the idea not the table). I'm going to use the template you suggested and add as much as I can with a citation that I think will be OK, the one to the census index you kindly provided above. I've downloaded enough of the PDFs at that site to satisfy myself that it makes the claims verifiable; in addition, they could be verified by visiting a library and looking up the printed versions as you did. If you could add the missing data that you've looked up and that I haven't, that would be very helpful. Thanks for bearing with me while I wrestled with this. Finetooth (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch. Looks great. Saved me a lot of trouble too. :-) Finetooth (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

  • I will start by commenting on the Indian Paths and the Great Island, as Brianboulton asked some good questions about them. The usual reference book is "Indian Paths of Pennsylvania" by Wallace, so it is a standard name (I have also seen "Indian trails" used). I checked every mention of "Great Island" in Wallace's book and while it always says things like "from the Great Island (Lock Haven) on the West Branch of the Susquehanna" (Bald Eagle Creek Path) or "it followed the West Branch of the Susquehanna to the Great Island (Lock Haven)" (Great Island Path), it does not explicitly say that they forded or otherwise crossed the river to the island. Wallace's book does not usually mention how or exactly where rivers or creeks are crossed though. Each of the maps for the paths show a symbol for an Indian village on the Great Island itself, as it does for each village along a path. Some of the maps are on the web - see here for The Great Island Path map or here for The Great Shamokin Path. I also looked in Donehoo's "A History of the INdian Villages and Place Names in Pennsylvania" and in the entry for the Great Island (Big Island) it says "This island, which contains about 300 acres, was a favorite gathering place for the Indians from a very early time. Being directly on the line of trails leading into the Seneca domain, as well as on the trail from Shamokin and Wyoming to the Ohio, it was used as a stopping place and a meeting place by Delaware, Shawnee, and Iroquois." (page 12). So yes, it seems as if the paths led to the island itself. More later, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot to look at Meginness' "History of Lycoming County" - there is an online link here, where it says of the Great Island Path that it ran "over the mountain into Nippenose valley, through which it passed to the head thereof, then over the bills and through a ravine in Bald Eagle mountain to the river, where there was a fording to Great Island." So yes, at least one of the paths (and I would bet all of them) actually crossed the river to the island. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is most helpful. I had not seen the on-line maps or thought to check Meginness. Since the river divides to go around the island, a ford over the half-river at some point sounds possible. You've done an awful lot to bring this article along, and I don't think I would have considered nominating at FAC without your map and photos. Would you like to co-nom at FAC when the time comes (mid-December or so)? I'd like that a lot. Finetooth (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, what a kind and generous offer. Thank you. I am not so sure I have contributed enough to be a co-nom, but if you want to add me to the nom, I guess I would not object. I will make more review comments shortly. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very glad you said "yes". I'll be working on User:Niagara's suggestions tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More comments. Pretty much nitpicks. Seems very good to me.

  • Would it make sense to add wikilinks to the articles on the three NRHP sites to the lead? The museum link would be hardest to add as it would follow Victorian-era, which is already linked (so there would be two links in a row with no divider).
  • Would it help to add dates for the Middle Archaic period in ... and represent every major prehistoric period from the Middle Archaic to the Late Woodland period (500 to 1000 CE).[4] as it is, it reads as if the Middle Archaic started in 599 CE
    • The more I looked, the more I found that the time spans are approximate and somewhat arbitrary. The Schuldenrein source for the names of the cultures at the Memorial Park Site doesn't give the dates for each culture. To solve the problem, I added a separate sentence identifying the relevant cultural periods according to the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. Someone will notice that the Woodland period article gives different dates, but its dates are not supported by reliable sources. Finetooth (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be clearer to add that what became Lock Haven was part of the land acquired in the second treaty of Fort Stanwix? The second Treaty of Fort Stanwix, between the Iroquois and the United States, transferred all remaining Indian territory in Pennsylvania [including what became Lock Haven] to the state in 1784 except for a triangular tract near the modern city of Erie.[9]
    • I added LH to the mix, but I used two sentences to avoid one with too many clauses. (Brian would see it. I'd never get away with it.)  :-) To make the sentences work, I left out the size of the Erie Triangle (which didn't matter to Lock Haven) and didn't mention Erie, the city. I think clicking on the wikilink to the triangle article is probably enough. Finetooth (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it is mentioned in the Floods section, but would it help to mention the destruction or closing of the canal very briefly either at the end of the 19th century section (perhaps after After that, production steadily declined throughout the state, including Lock Haven.[15]) or at the beginning of the 20th century section (As older forms of transportation such as the canal boat disappeared,...)?
  • Is the date for closure of the log boom known?
    • It was demolished on June 1, 1899. I have been assuming that that was the closing date, but it's possible that it was rebuilt and closed later. I'll have to put this question in my medium-term to-do list along with Brian's question about early population numbers. Finetooth (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure it is needed, but would it help to add that the 1996 flood followed the Blizzard of 1996?
  • Demographics - I know you rounded some - is this an error? Seems odd that both are the same sets of numbers The population density was about 3,600 people per square mile (1,400/km2). There were roughly 3,600 housing units at an average density of about 1,400 units per square mile (500 units per km2).
    • I decided that the rounding was a bad idea and restored the original bot-generated stats. I've been struggling for months to find elegant ways to avoid the bot-generated templates supporting the bot-generated stats. The bot templates make non-conforming citations, and this runs counter to my desire for consistency. However, I think I've finally found the urls and data that actually support the claims. I doubt that anyone is crazy enough to check all of the claims against the sources, but I think I've now made it possible. Thinking about this stuff led me to try rounding as well, but that way lies madness. Finetooth (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No other comments - I added a link. I am not so sure I contributed enough to this, but if you think so... Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, bike-path link, and continuing helpful suggestions. I believe I have addressed everything in some way, though the log-boom date question is unresolved. Do you think I should add a reference to the "fording" in Meginness, or would this be overdoing it? Finetooth (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) You are very welcome. I do not think a ref to Meginness is needed unless someone questions the other refs. I found a better source for the prehistoric Indians and have one more can of worms to open ;-) The source is

  • Daniel K. Richter (2002). "Chapter 1. The First Pennsylvanians". In Randall M. Miller, William A. Pencak (ed.). Pennsylvania: A History of the Commonwealth. The Pennsylvania State University and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. pp. 3–46. ISBN 0271022132. There is a website for the book here

On page 4 there is a nice, consistent table: Paleo Indians start at 10,600 BC; Early Archaic starts 8,000 BC; Middle Archaic starts 6,500 BC; Late Archaic starts 3,000 BC; Early Woodland starts 1000 BC; Middle Woodland starts 0 AD; Late Woodland starts 900 AD; first contact with Europeans is given as 1500 to 1600 AD (for the state).

The can of worms is my realization that Clinton County was formed in 1839, after Lock Haven was founded in 1833. I think this should at least be mentioned. The worms really start wiggling depending on how much additional detail you want to go into. This PHMC source says Lock Haven did not become the county seat until 1844. This is probably worth mentioning, but I am not sure what was the seat before this. It also mentions Flemington and Allison Twp were part of Lock Haven briefly in the 19th century - not sure if this is worth mentioning at all. I also know from previous work that the Wayne Twp info is incorrect here (it was incorporated as part of Lycoming County, not Northumberland County). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good catch. I will consider what to do about the county seat complications and see what else I can find. Finetooth (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I like the PHMC county pages but have learned that they sometimes have errors (and often these errors come from Frederick A. Godcharles' book). I did some digging in
    • and found that Lock Haven was chosen as the county seat when the county was organized in 1839 and that the first purpose-built courthouse was in 1844 (see Chapter CV: The City of Lock Haven page 527), but there was a meeting in the courthouse in Lock Haven in January 1840 (see Chapter CI: Organization, Civil List, etc. page 490) (often an inn would serve as the courthouse, though it does not say what this courthouse was). I think it is less wormy than I thought. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK read some more and the first courthouse was "Barker's Inn" on Water Street. This is on page 527 also. The book is on the Penn State Library website and is viewable one page at a time. I see the link I gave above is to an earlier page - sorry. There is a navigation window on the left side and clicking on the proper page will take you there. I think saying something like "Lock Haven was chosen as the county seat when Clinton County was organized in 1839; the new county's territory was taken from Lycoming and Centre counties." might work. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was bold and added OCLC numbers in place of "No ISBN". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Super on both counts, and I thank you. I had not thought to add the OCLC numbers, and I probably would not have found the Linn book. As you may have seen, I've now added snowfall stats to the climate section and LH-specific flood-crest stats to the flood section, and Niagara has added the missing census numbers. Finetooth (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 17:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Lock_Haven,_Pennsylvania/archive1&oldid=1136449365"