Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tributaries of Bowman Creek/archive1

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of tributaries of Bowman Creek edit

Featured list candidates/List of tributaries of Bowman Creek/archive1

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing yet another one of these to FLC, following my other similar successes at FLC. For those who don't know, Bowman Creek is a 26-mile-long tributary of the Susquehanna River in Luzerne and Wyoming Counties, Pennsylvania. It's also a regionally famous trout stream and many of its 26 named tributaries are also very high-quality trout streams. In short, it's a pretty pristine stream system and I was fortunate enough to photograph most of the tributaries during the height of autumn colors. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"It has 26 named tributaries, including 21 direct tributaries and 5 sub-tributaries.[1] These include nineteen runs, six creeks, and one hollow (an unnamed stream named after a named valley that it flows through)." This is confusing. In the first sentence 21+5=26, but "including" implies that there are more than 26. The same applies to the second sentence and I would delete "including" in both. Also if an unnamed stream is named then it is not unnamed.

Changed to It has 26 named tributaries, of which 21 are direct tributaries and 5 are sub-tributaries

"(an unnamed stream named after a named valley that it flows through)." This is contradictory. A stream named a valley is not unnamed. Also the last "named" is unnecessary repetition - if a stream is named after a valley then the valley must have been named. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania stream nomenclature can be strange, but they really are unnamed. To quote the source (see the bottom of the first page), In order to name as many as possible of the nearly 64,000 streams identified in the Straem File, many unnamed streams that flow through named hollows were included as named streams, using the hollow name, e.g. "Dark Hollow".. I've tweaked the text to be a bit less jarring and repetitive. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No source is given for the second half of the first paragraph.

Citations are not really needed, since it only summarizes the tables.

"7.2-and-7.7-mile" I am no expert on Wikipedia rules on dashes but the ones before and after "and" look odd to me.

This is what the {{convert|7.2|and|7.7|mi|km|adj=on}} produces, so I'm assuming that it's correct.

I do not see the necessity for the frequent use of the word "named". It is obviously required in "It has 26 named tributaries", but why is it required afterwards?

It's only used twice after the first usage. I removed one, but it has to stay in A total of ten named streams in the watershed of Bowman Creek are classified by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission as Class A Wild Trout Waters. because there is actually one unnamed stream that's Class A Wild Trout Waters.

"High-Quality Coldwater Fishery" and "Exceptional Value waters". It would be helpful to link these terms or at least explain how they differ. Is the second a grade down from the first?

The first is actually a grade down from the second. In any case, there's nothing to link to, but I've been meaning to make articles on those, so perhaps now would be a good time for me to do so.

I think the higher graded category should be named first, and you should state that High-Quality Coldwater Fishery is a grade down. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done (well, actually I stated that Exceptional Value is a grade up). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No change needed as the problem is not in this article but I got confused following the links for river mile and mouth. Mouth seems clear - it is where the tributary joins the main stream. River mile says it is the distance from the mouth, but mouth in the river mile article links to delta, which is presumably wrong?

That link is rather odd. I fixed it.

Sugar Run is listed as both a tributary and a sub-tributary. To avoid confusion, I would suggest a comment on the fact that two different tributaries have the same name.

The "tributary to" column does explain that Sugar Run (Marsh Creek) is a tributary of Marsh Creek, while Sugar Run (Bowman Creek) is in the main table, so perhaps it's not all that confusing?

There are no references for watershed area and mouth coordinates.

Strange. I must've forgotten to put them in. Done.

Are source coordinates not available?

Not from the GNIS, which only gives one official coordinate. The official coordinates are always near the mouth, hence mouth coordinates.

No change needed but the picture of Bownman Creek appears to show it with much less water than several of its tributaries. Why is this? Time of year?

I think it's just a coincidence, because they were all taken within two days of each other. A lot of the pictures from further downstream show more water.

This looks like a good list but some of it needs referencing to meet FL standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Responded. Awaiting your response to my comments. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrible precedent of encouraging forks that are of no interest to anybody. Nergaal (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't find them interesting, don't come and make a point about how you don't like them. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "featured" part is supposed to represent wikipedia's best work. There are plenty articles of little or no interest, and encouraging forks and working on them does not achieve any of wikipedia's goals. Nergaal (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tributary isn't the same thing as a fork. But seriously, there was enough interest to promote List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek over your complaint, which pretty clearly shows others disagree. Doug Weller (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nergaal is describing this article as a content fork, not describing the tributaries as forks in the river :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I added a link to a map at the bottom of the page, I hope this is ok. If you don't find it useful please delete. Most of the changes I made to the previous list are already made here, so I can't see anything else to add. Very nice article. Support Mattximus (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that link looks nice! --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

The Image columns don't need to be sortable.
~~The reference to "various" pages in ref 2 isn't that helpful. You're almost better off not specifying a page number, as what's there doesn't help the reader find anything at all.~~
Ref 9 needs a fuller access date, with month and day in addition to year. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding point by point:

Fixed.
I've removed it.
Unfortunately, I don't remember the exact date I accessed it, so I have removed the accessdate. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 03:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You only removed the image sorting from the first list; the second still has it. As for the ref access date, if there isn't one, I usually just put the current day, which works fine as long as the link isn't dead. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fixed both. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – After a third look at the list, everything looks good now. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Pres N 03:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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