Talk:Wildcat Creek (Lackawanna River tributary)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wildcat Creek (Lackawanna River). 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66gupqQDM?url=http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ to http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wildcat Creek (Lackawanna River tributary)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) 06:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Indeed they are. However, the History/rec section is a confusing chronological jumble. Serious sentence shuffling is indicated.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The norm for WP articles is first the History section, then whatever. I cannot recall ever seeing History relegated to the fifth spot. Otherwise OK.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	In elegant style.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	With the exception of two news articles, sources are of governmental and academic origin.
	2c. it contains no original research.	With the exception of two news articles, sources are of governmental and academic origin.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	With the exception of two news articles, sources are of governmental and academic origin. Public documents cannot be plagiarized.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Excellent lead. An explanation-if available-of the hydrology datum would be helpful.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	What can be controversial about a creek?
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No images. An article about a geographic feature cries out for a map.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images. An article about a geographic feature cries out for a map.
	7. Overall assessment.	HOLD for corrections. Further commentary: This is an awesome example of digging into the dross of government documents and spinning some gold. Good work! The problems I wrote above should not be too difficult to address. As the template doesn't seem to offer a comment option, please reply below.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)