A fact from Messers Run appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 November 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
"It is difficult to access the stream as most of it is several hundred meters from any road."
How is that not neutral? --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Sources
Some factual details are not consistently referenced for example, "watershed of Messers Run has an area of 5.98 square miles"
It is referenced. Look again. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Factually Unsound (Referenced article from 1997/R. Moase, T. Copeland, R. Wnuk, R. Mulberger (1997), PA Fish and Boat Commission Comments and Recommendations), hinting that statistics from 1997 still hold in 2015. Should either find another sources to substantiate the section 'Biology' or remove the section
No. For one thing, there is no more recent data. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Images and Grammar
Overly factual article with too many details that dates back to 1997
L:Articles aren't supposed to be factual now? --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Lack of images and visually unappealing to anyone reading the article
Can't be helped, unless someone wants to blunder through the woods and look for it. As far as I know, there are no decent road crossings. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Other comments
Should improve these areas or else the article would be deemed to be irrelevant to readers wanting current day information
Let's try this again
Review was sub-par to the point of trolling, and has been abandoned for about a fortnight. I'm just going to commandeer it rather than send the article back for a second run through GAN.
GRAPPLEX 14:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I have moved it slightly, but it is still needed as a source for the length, which I do not believe fits anywhere but the lead. I think that the manual of style neither requires nor forbids citations in the lead.
It doesn't forbid them but generally the point is to use them for something likely to be challenged, in addition to using them in the article body as well. It's fine to keep it there, but what should be addressed is having information in the lead that isn't present elsewhere—shoehorn it in if you must, but the lead of an article shouldn't contain unique information not repeated in its body.
GRAPPLEX 14:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Grapple X: Okay. I have stuck it into the course section. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 15:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is linked several times in the body, link only on first non-lead use.
Done.
"Surveyed one time by" -> I would just say "surveyed by".
Done.
Consider linking the township names in the lead.
Done.
There are a few one-line paragraphs, these are to be avoided where possible. Integrate the information into a larger paragraph, or re-distribute the larger paragraphs to add text to the one-liners.
Done.
You do use unit conversions through most of the article but the "Biology" section is lacking in the same.
Done.
Overall the text is fine, it's dry but to the point and works well.
Fine, everything is cited and the sources used are of good quality. Consider adding publishing information for the book sources, though; they seem to be from university presses and this would be worth presenting.
Added the Pottsville Formation picture and one picture of a brook trout (the creek's trout have been more extensively studied than its white suckers) I have in the past been hesitant add these kinds of pictures, as they might mislead readers into thinking that they actually come from Messers Run. However, the captions I used may rectify this, and rocks and fish do look pretty much alike. However, I don't think a picture of a random war memorial helps the reader understand the stream, so I did not add the war memorial picture.
I tweaked the captions a little; I felt it was better say where they were from rather than were they were not, but it's still clear they're examples of something like, not from, the river.
GRAPPLEX 15:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Nothing too major to work on, placing this on hold for however long it takes to address anything raised.
GRAPPLEX 14:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Grapple X: Thanks for picking up the review. I have responded to all your comments. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 14:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)reply
This all seems tickety-boo after the changes have been actioned. I'm happy to pass this.
GRAPPLEX 15:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Messers Run. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
A fact from Messers Run appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 November 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
"It is difficult to access the stream as most of it is several hundred meters from any road."
How is that not neutral? --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Sources
Some factual details are not consistently referenced for example, "watershed of Messers Run has an area of 5.98 square miles"
It is referenced. Look again. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Factually Unsound (Referenced article from 1997/R. Moase, T. Copeland, R. Wnuk, R. Mulberger (1997), PA Fish and Boat Commission Comments and Recommendations), hinting that statistics from 1997 still hold in 2015. Should either find another sources to substantiate the section 'Biology' or remove the section
No. For one thing, there is no more recent data. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Images and Grammar
Overly factual article with too many details that dates back to 1997
L:Articles aren't supposed to be factual now? --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Lack of images and visually unappealing to anyone reading the article
Can't be helped, unless someone wants to blunder through the woods and look for it. As far as I know, there are no decent road crossings. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Other comments
Should improve these areas or else the article would be deemed to be irrelevant to readers wanting current day information
Let's try this again
Review was sub-par to the point of trolling, and has been abandoned for about a fortnight. I'm just going to commandeer it rather than send the article back for a second run through GAN.
GRAPPLEX 14:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I have moved it slightly, but it is still needed as a source for the length, which I do not believe fits anywhere but the lead. I think that the manual of style neither requires nor forbids citations in the lead.
It doesn't forbid them but generally the point is to use them for something likely to be challenged, in addition to using them in the article body as well. It's fine to keep it there, but what should be addressed is having information in the lead that isn't present elsewhere—shoehorn it in if you must, but the lead of an article shouldn't contain unique information not repeated in its body.
GRAPPLEX 14:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Grapple X: Okay. I have stuck it into the course section. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 15:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is linked several times in the body, link only on first non-lead use.
Done.
"Surveyed one time by" -> I would just say "surveyed by".
Done.
Consider linking the township names in the lead.
Done.
There are a few one-line paragraphs, these are to be avoided where possible. Integrate the information into a larger paragraph, or re-distribute the larger paragraphs to add text to the one-liners.
Done.
You do use unit conversions through most of the article but the "Biology" section is lacking in the same.
Done.
Overall the text is fine, it's dry but to the point and works well.
Fine, everything is cited and the sources used are of good quality. Consider adding publishing information for the book sources, though; they seem to be from university presses and this would be worth presenting.
Added the Pottsville Formation picture and one picture of a brook trout (the creek's trout have been more extensively studied than its white suckers) I have in the past been hesitant add these kinds of pictures, as they might mislead readers into thinking that they actually come from Messers Run. However, the captions I used may rectify this, and rocks and fish do look pretty much alike. However, I don't think a picture of a random war memorial helps the reader understand the stream, so I did not add the war memorial picture.
I tweaked the captions a little; I felt it was better say where they were from rather than were they were not, but it's still clear they're examples of something like, not from, the river.
GRAPPLEX 15:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Nothing too major to work on, placing this on hold for however long it takes to address anything raised.
GRAPPLEX 14:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Grapple X: Thanks for picking up the review. I have responded to all your comments. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec 14:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)reply
This all seems tickety-boo after the changes have been actioned. I'm happy to pass this.
GRAPPLEX 15:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Messers Run. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.