It may take me a couple days to get through every item on this list. If you disagree with any of my comments, don't hesitate to argue them - I'm willing to be persuaded. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 wikicup.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
"flows through Carbondale Township, Mayfield, and Archbald" - suggest "flows through Carbondale Township, and the boroughs of Mayfield and Archbald"
The third paragraph is very repetitive. Could the information on iron, manganese, and aluminum be combined into one sentence? Alternatively, take out all the first two "No reduction is necessary..." sentences and rewrite the third one to be more inclusive.
"site AC2" ... "site AC1" - where are these located?
The discharge volumes are extremely specific. Surely there's variation due to rains and droughts?
Geography and geology
"The upper reaches of the creek are "pristine" and undisturbed." - who is being quoted?
"A morphological feature known as the Edgerton Slides" - is this River morphology or Geomorphology? What kind of feature is this?
"hemlock-containing ravines" - near as I can tell, hemlock is common across North America and Europe. Is its presence in this watershed worth noting?
"As of the early 2000s, a restoration project ... has been planned ". The source for this is from 2001, and the language seems outdated. Did the plan take effect? Is it still ongoing? Who planned it?
Biology
"The creek is designated as Approved Trout Waters" by whom?
"A "magnificent" stand" - who is being quoted here?
Source 4 is a pdf from 2005. Is it still accurate for less-permanent attributes like the number of mining permits? It's the only source for the Hydrology section, which includes some very specific numbers. If there's nothing newer, the prose should specify the information is from a 2005 report.
Earwig returned only one hit at 13.8%, and most of it is due to common phrases. However, I did note one instance of close paraphrasing. The article says "There is one active surface mining permit in the watershed of Aylesworth Creek. It is known as Silverbrook Anthracite Inc. #35910102", the source says "Currently, there is one active surface mine permit in the watershed, Silverbrook Anthracite Inc. #35910102." I suggest rewriting this as "Silverbrook Anthracite Inc. #35910102 has been the only active surface mining permit in the Aylesworth Creek Watershed."
I made some of the suggested corrections and tagged most of the remaining issues. If you (or another editor) can correct the rest and renominate, please ping me. I'll be happy to review it again. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]