Featured articleWhite Deer Hole Creek is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 13, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 10, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Untitled

[edit]

Any and all feedback appreciated. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA Comments

[edit]

Just from one editor to another, congratulations on an article largely written by yourself. I'm almost to that level of Wikipedia fluency with my creations, but I still tend to get rocky FA nominations up to a certain point. --Zeality 05:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on "Name" section

[edit]

Note: I have copied the relevant parts of this discussion from the talk pages for myself and MacGyverMagic. Ruhrfisch 17:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1787, Caleb Farley settled on White Deer Hole Creek with his family (including his four year old son John), and built a mill on the creek by 1789."

You usually "settle in" an area. Besides, should you call it by name if Caleb is supposed to be second possible source of the name as suggested in the first paragraph of the section? Also, I can't quite imagine a mill built on a creek. They float like a bunch of rocks :) Could you clarify how this paragraph about Caleb links to the previous one?

Also, perhaps you should say "two etymologies have been suggested" instead of "are given". - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I will change it to "two etymologies have been suggested" and agree that you "settle in" an area.
Perhaps it is an older (archaic?) usage, but people can also "settle on" various bodies of water (in the sense that they settle on the banks of the creek, river, on the shore of a bay, etc.). Meginness (published in 1892 and one reference for the Farley story) uses "settled on White Deer Creek" and a search on Google with "settled on" in quotes and "creek" found many instances of this usage. The same is true for a "mill on a creek" (and one could argue that a water powered mill is at least partly in / on the water itself, though definitely not floating as you pointed out). See also the title of George Eliot's novel The Mill on the Floss (where the Floss is a fictional river). Since it can be confusing, I will change the sentence in question to "settled on the banks of White Deer Hole Creek". I prefer to keep "built a mill on the creek" as that seems to be the preferred usage (and saying "on the banks of" twice would be awkward).
As for the relation between the two paragraphs, they are two different sources that give two different reasons for the name. My interpretation of WP:NOR is that I am not supposed to make a connection between them in the article, unless it is verifiable elsewhere (and it is not that I have found - Donehoo does not mention Meginness, and Meginness does not mention the Lenape name). What I tried to make clear by citing Donehoo's map names is that the earliest map name (1755) is the slightly garbled Lenape words for White Deer Hole Creek. A more corrupted version and its translation are on a slightly later map (1759), and by 1770 "White Deer hole" is the name on maps for good. The land was only opened to non-Native American settlers in 1768 (Treaty of Fort Stanwix) and the earliest settlers are 1769 or 1770, about the same time as the map with the modern name. We don't know a lot about the first settlers as they were all chased out and their homes burnt (and some killed) in the Big Runaway of 1778 and again in the Little Runaway of 1779. The Farley family arrives in 1787, 17 or 18 years after the first settlers, 32 years after the first mention of the Lenape name.
84 or so years later, John Farley talked about his life and related the story of someone killing a white deer near the hole where his father Caleb built the mill. The full quoatation is: "I was four years old when my father came here in 1787. We had plenty of red deer at that time. They could be seen every day when we stepped out of our cabins and went along through the valley or over the mountains. I never saw any white deer here, but a white deer is said to have been killed at an early day in a low hole or pond of water that once existed where my father built his mill, and that was the only white deer ever known in this valley." I think it is worth noting that Farley does not say who killed the deer - it could be a settler or a Native American (so could he perhaps be referring to a Lenape tradition passed down through the previous settlers?).
Sorry to be so long winded. I will make the changes and also put this on the article's talk page. Please ask if there are more questions you have. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 17:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Having worked on the article so long I tend to get a bit myopic - thanks very much for pointing out my failure to make the relation of Farley's story to the name clear (especially when I didn't get it the first time you told me). I have edited the section in question and hope it is clearer and more understandable. If it is any consolation, my spouse (who is a native speaker of English) did not know the usage "settled on a creek" when I asked. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 22:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My edits, and some questions

[edit]

As I said at FAC, this article is there. But that doesn't mean it can't be improved.

I printed it out and went through it with a red pen. I just got finished implementing my improvements, and here's a brief summary of the general things I did. Mainly these are things to keep in mind for future fascinating articles about minor tributaries of the Susquehanna.

Now, to two things that I couldn't address:

Once again, great article that does so many things right (You deserve especial praise, and perhaps a barnstar, for producing an FA with no redlinks whatsoever. Given the local peculiarity of some of the linked articles, that's no mean feat). Daniel Case 20:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes after FA

[edit]

After a lot of looking and prompted by Daniel Case's question, I found and added discharge data, as well as two more references on discharge. Ruhrfisch 22:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Problem with Name section

[edit]

The article says that "John's father Caleb built a mill on the creek by 1789." John's father was, however, actually names John Farley (this older John is one of my ancestors). The source that is given for the information (http://www.usgennet.org/usa/pa/county/lycoming/history/Chapter-39.html) actually agrees with this (it indicates that John's father was John, and that John built the mill).

Also, see ftp://ftp.rootsweb.com/pub/usgenweb/pa/lycoming/history/local/whitedeer.txt, which is a transcription of an article appearing in the "Lycoming Gazette and West Branch Bulletin" in 1870. It contains part of an interview with John Farley (which is what is alluded to in the other source). John says that he "came here into this valley with my father, John Farley, in 1787."

Caleb Farley was a brother of the older John, and actually did come to White Deer Hole Valley (either with John or a few years later). KarlderGroße (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor math problem

[edit]

The first sentence of the "Watershed" section says, "The White Deer Hole Creek watershed is in Clinton (0.08%), Lycoming (4.40%), and Union (3.67%) counties." Shouldn't they add up to 100 percent? Finetooth (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what must be the correct figures slightly further down (in the third paragraph of the same section). Finetooth (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have struggled with how to clearly present this information - what is meant is that the White Deer Hole Creek watershed that is in Clinton County is 0.08% of Clinton County, 4.40% of Lycoming Co. is in it, and 3.67% of all of Union County is in it. If you have an idea for how to express this more clearly, I would like to hear it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about "The White Deer Hole Creek watershed consists of 0.08 percent of the surface of Clinton County, 4.40 percent of the surface of Lycoming County, and 3.67 percent of the surface of Union County"? Finetooth (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea, but would you be OK with "surface area" or even just "area" instead of just "surface"? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Either would be fine. Perhaps plain "area" is best. This brings a peculiar thought to mind. In a place with a great deal of vertical relief, the actual surface would be much bigger than the land's length times its width. I wonder if topographers have a name for that other measurement, a land's surface as opposed to its simple geometric area? Finetooth (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will change it just plain area, thanks. My guess is that there are several specialist terms (although I don't know them). Rivers have River miles (distance from where a tributary enters the main stem to the mouth of the main stem) for example. They also have relief ratio and meander ratio (see meander). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

I found this creek on Reading Howell's 1792 Map Of The State Of Pennsylvania. Would it be worth mentioning or linking to this map in the article? According to the host, the images are available under cc-by-sa, so we should even be able to upload them to commons. –Sarregouset (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the copyright; I'll work at uploading it. And thanks for mentioning your revert, as I was going to question you. Perhaps I didn't use the best wording, but that sentence really confused me. Would 'flow through' be more suitable than 'originate'? Also, that was not the only change I made, as I noted in my edit summary. The list of animal names at the end of the article alternates between singular and plural forms, and it seems 'squirrel' (and 'hawk', I just noticed) should be capitalized for consistency. –Sarregouset (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I use popups and previewed the changes you made but did not look at it as a full diff. In the process I only saw the first part and missed all of your later plural edits, sorry. I am fine with flow through. Although this article is FA, updating parts of it is on my short term list of things to do - there was a CCC camp west of Elimsport that built many of the forest roads and paths in the watershed (need to add this and the ref), I need to update the Infobox to a Geobox, and I was going to be consistent about species names being capitalized but other plant and animal names not being capitalized (so White-tailed deer but trout). Please feel free to tweak the description of the gap tribs and pluralize names. Sorry for the confusion, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that's what happened, but I'm glad we resolved it. I put my changes back; right now all the names are capitalized, but you're right non-species names could be lowercase if it's consistent. By the way, I'm having trouble uploading the map, as it's 160 MB right now, so it won't be up tonight. I'll have to crop to the area we're interested in. –Sarregouset (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hopefully I can do my cleanups in the next week or less. Yes please upload the map or a section of it, Commons has a size limit of 20 MB, IIRC. The article already mentions Scull's map and a few others (in Donehoo's book) in the Name section. I like the map - could it be an External link and in Commons? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

Finetooth comments: I tried to be thorough and treated this article pretty much the same as one coming to Peer Review. Excellent article, wonderful photos. I believe it taught me a new trick or two to apply to Tryon Creek, which is far less than half-baked at the moment.

Lead

Name

Course

Geology

Watershed

Water quality and pollution

Recreation

Lycoming County boundaries

Early inhabitants

Lumber and Logging Railroad

Ordinance plant to federal prison and game lands"

References

I hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for additional content

[edit]

Hi. I'd like to suggest that this article has a section covering the creek's ecological interest. There is some mention of this scattered across other sections (e.g. it's attractiveness to Trout, and the game species found in the area) but the article would merit a section covering this subject as a whole. SP-KP (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that is a good idea and I will work on it after the article is off the Main Page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. state

[edit]

I removed "the U.S. state of" calling it "gratuitous overlinking". I was reverted with "... restore link to U.S. State. I believe that it needs to be mentioned. not all know where PA is". Now we have a compromise "delink US state, but leave it in as many outside the US are not as familiar with the states".

We certainly don't need to go back to linking U.S. State as it merely qualifies Pennsylvania, which itself is linked (two words after) and (naturally) links to U.S. State, and, more importantly, has next to nothing to do with this article. When I saw sentence complete with the link to U.S. State it immediately struck me as having been twisted for the mere purpose of adding this useless link. It's not uncommon for things on WP to be twisted around links. So I deleted the lot.

Now it's back, unlinked, since many outside are not so familiar with the states & might not know where Pennsylvania is. Fair enough, some of us non-Americans might not know that Pennsylvania is a US state. Are those who don't really that significant a proportion? Can they not just click on Pennsylvania? I'm glad that U.S. State is again unlinked but I still doubt the use in having it there at all. JIMp talk·cont 18:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived both in and outside of the US. From my experiences outside of the US, there are some people who just aren't that familiar with US states, and I think to provide context to the reader one should identify not just the state/province/territory, but also the country for any article. Since your user page says you speak fluent Strine, I once saw someone confuse something in South Wales with New South Wales (as there was no indication that it was in the UK). I would be OK with White Deer Hole Creek is a 20.5-mile (33.0 km) tributary of the West Branch Susquehanna River in Clinton, Lycoming and Union counties in Pennsylvania in the United States. too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that bit should stay, as it provides context to those who are unfamiliar with U.S. states. I'd prefer it were linked, as well. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US state, if mentioned at all, should certainly not be linked (per WP:CONTEXT) since the topics of these articles are so distinct. I'm happy enough with the current compromise but do prefer your suggestion, Ruhrfisch.

White Deer Hole Creek is a 20.5-mile (33.0 km) tributary of the West Branch Susquehanna River in Clinton, Lycoming and Union counties in Pennsylvania in the United States.

Whilst it is good to know which country it's in, the fact that Pennsylvania happens to be a state is off topic. Though, might the above be a little wordy? How about this?

White Deer Hole Creek is a 20.5-mile (33.0 km) tributary of the West Branch Susquehanna River in Clinton, Lycoming and Union counties, Pennsylvania, USA.

JIMp talk·cont 20:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection is that the article originally said something like "...in Pennsylvania in the United States." (back in 2006 when US was wikilinked too) and "US state of Pennsylvania" was a way of giving the country (US) with less characters. I need to think about which version I prefer - "Pennsylvania, USA" seems too choppy to me. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked and the original wording was "...in Pennsylvania in the United States." which was changed to the current version by the time it reached FAC. I am OK with the current version (US state) or with the original version (in the United States), but think "Pennsylvania, USA" sounds odd. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that readability doesn't simply increase with the reduction of number of characters: i.e. reducing the number of characters is not in itself necessarily a good thing. I wonder whether the underlying motive for the introduction of U.S. state wasn't to work this link in. Anyhow, I'd argue that ... in Pennsylvania in the United States ... is easier to swallow than ... in the US state of Pennsylvania ... (with its little tit-bit of irrelevant trivia tangled in there).

So, ditching the US state bit we've got a few different possible versions. Some perhaps choppy, others perhaps wordy. What if we listed them?

  1. ... in Clinton, Lycoming and Union counties in Pennsylvania in the United States.
  2. ... in Clinton, Lycoming and Union counties in Pennsylvania, USA.
  3. ... in Clinton, Lycoming and Union counties, Pennsylvania, USA.

I'd suggested number 3 but if this is choppy and odd, how about number 2? Is this still choppy or odd? Do you see what I mean when I say number 1 is wordy: count the number if ins in the phrase. JIMp talk·cont 22:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these three options. My preference among these three is #1. The "Pennsylvania, USA" part just sounds odd to me, and in American English. I also really don't have a problem with "in the US State of Pennsylvania" (option zero?) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay ...

0. ... in Clinton, Lycoming and Union counties in the US State of Pennsylvania.

... well, it does have fewer ins. If "Pennsylvania, USA" sounds odd in American English (I wouldn't know), it's numbers 0 or 1. JIMp talk·cont 07:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on White Deer Hole Creek. 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: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on White Deer Hole Creek. 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: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on White Deer Hole Creek. 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: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FA concerns

[edit]

I'm looking at this older featured article as part of WP:URFA/2020, a drive to spur improvements in older featured articles.

This one's not in bad shape, but some updates and a few improvements to the referencing are needed. If improvements don't occur, a featured article review may be necessary, although hopefully that can be avoided. I can help a little bit on this if there's going to be a concerted effort, but I just am not very familiar with where to find sources for this specific topic. Hog Farm Talk 03:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Name and Course sections, and am working on the rest of the article. I found a source for the watershed area covered by forests, urban development, etc. I am still looking for population by watershed. I have found several sources to update the water quality information, but need to figure out how best to present it (I need to make it clearer how different parts of the creek have different water qualities). Any feedback on changes so far is welcome, - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look back in soon - life has been a bit hectic for me but is finally slowing down for the first time since May. Hog Farm Talk 03:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've also been quite busy, but should have more time to work on this starting next week. I've tried to reply to individual concerns above. - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hopefully this coming week I can get some more updates made. - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch Hog Farm is quite busy during tax season, so I offered to try to see this one through. I see you haven't been able to edit here since 20 November. When you have time, can you backtrack through HF's list above, and indicate under each item what is done? Once you're through that, pls ping me and I will give it a read-through. All the bst, and I hope you are well, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, good to hear from you. Sorry, I was waiting to hear from Hog Farm and then got busy IRL. I will indicate what is done and what can be fixed this coming weekend. I am doing well, thanks. Hope you are too, - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]