Wikipedia:Featured article review/Paulins Kill/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 6:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC) [1].
Paulins Kill edit
Review section edit
Before I started editing Paulins Kill, there were multiple unsourced paragraphs and sentences. Digging deeper in just half the article, I've tagged multiple cited paragraphs as original research or verification needed. Since this subject matter is outside my scope, please check my work.
This article's major contributions was the result of User:ExplorerCDT, then later one or more of his sockpuppets. Paulins Kill is listed on User:ColonelHenry/Cleanup as a possible WP:CCI. I've added numerous URLs to "Books and printed materials" to aid in this review. « Ryūkotsusei » 20:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Concerns raised while FAR was on hold
|
|---|
@Ryūkotsusei: A fair bit of work has been done on this in the last couple weeks, some of it by me. My impression thus far is that there's nothing heinously wrong aside from general sloppiness, but two sets of eyes are better than one, and (like most articles promoted so long ago) it definitely needed some tuning anyway. Currently there is only one unresolved tag. Would you take another look and see if you can identify anything else that needs work? Thanks for being patient. Maralia (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Procedural note: This FAR was previously put on hold to give editors some time to try addressing issues raised above and on the article's talk page. (While it was on hold, I performed a copyedit and rewrote/re-sourced the Watershed section, so I am recused on this one.) Outstanding concerns at the moment include potential copyright issues mentioned above (although none have been identified thus far), and the verifiability of the Early settlement section, where page numbers were not provided in many book citations. Maralia (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- On talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC. Thanks for the work done on the article, but I've just tried to verify some of the content and of the four sources I checked against the material in the article, only one is clearly supportive. The statement The NJPIRG has ranked the Paulins Kill as the seventh in a collection of rivers and creeks in a Top 30 listing of 'New Jersey waterways to Save' was sourced to a press release now offline. I managed to verify this in a secondary source. However, the claim that the Paulins Kill viaduct was the largest [concrete] viaduct in the world was sourced to an ASCE page on a different bridge, but this source only appears (at least at the present time) to talk about the other bridge. The Paulins Kill viaduct isn't mentioned at all. Some of the history section is sourced to an 1895 book by Chambers, but I could find only one mention of the kill in Chambers on page 18, and it doesn't say much at all. Finally, the material sourced to Schaeffer and Johnson (1907) is not, in my opinion, verifiable. For example: the book was published in 1907 and so it cannot support (as it claims to do) the statements Still, pollution reaches the Paulins Kill from nearby residential developments and farm run-off containing agricultural pesticides and fertilizers. Several farms along the banks of the Paulins Kill produce alfalfa, wheat, corn, hay (and historically, barley, buckwheat and rye). Fruit trees in orchards produce cherries, apples, plums, peaches and pears, while native wild grape vines, and blackberry bushes are also found in the valley. DrKiernan (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAR coordinators: Is anything else needed for sectioning this to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section edit
- Outstanding issues from the review section mostly concern verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well ?? @Ryūkotsusei:, @Maralia:, @DrKiernan:. Enough progress? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Unresolved issues, detailed in the review section. DrKiernan (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per DrK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist as above. I have often wondered if the photo of the angler File:Paulinskill_stillwater_angling.jpg was a self-portrait of the main author. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Still delist as nominator. A lot of printed materials lack page numbers, and span hundreds of pages. « Ryūkotsusei » 20:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delist due to verifiability concerns, especially within the History section but also elsewhere as noted above. DrKiernan, could you tag the specific statements that you noted as failing verification? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.