Talk:Muncy Creek

Muncy Creek has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 9, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Muncy Creek appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 August 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the discharge of Muncy Creek at Muncy can be a thousand times higher than the average discharge of the creek at Sonestown?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Muncy Creek.

Wikipedia

Pennsylvania Low‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Muncy Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The lead doesn't seem to cover the article as a whole, many sections don't appear to get a look-in. It's far too short for an article of this size.
Avoid single-sentence paragraphs.

Should be gone. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent with the use of conversions, e.g. you convert everything the infobox but not later, e.g. in the Hydrology and Watershed sections which are mix-and-match, etc etc.
Use the {{convert}} template to give sensible results, i.e. "(690 to 690 m)" is not helpful at all.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"a short distance" and "Shortly afterwards" and "receiving very short tributaries" - these aren't quantified in any way, what is "short" in this context?
"by scalloped hills." scalloped is badly linked, do you mean scallop-shaped?

See wikt:scalloped#Adjective. I will fix the link. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Previous articles have suitable links for class 2 (etc) rapids.

Linked. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a Course section but then I see "Muncy Creek's course winds significantly, but flows generally southwest.[11]" in the Geography section. Is there an unnecessary overlap here?

No, that's just very broad description; the course section is for a more specific description. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is nothing more then a list of bullet points, if we want this to be prose, please rework it so that it flows as prose.

I don't know what you mean by a list of bullet points, but I've done some minor reworking. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Muncy Creek" in the caption is in bold for no good reason.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"a woolen mill " isn't that a "wool mill", because wouldn't a "woolen (sic) mill" be a mill made of wool?

See the Little Nescopeck Creek review. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"92 percent of assessed streams..." avoid starting sentences with numerals.

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Pennsylvania Science office of The Nature Conservancy" should that office be Office?

Fixed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a lot of work could go into making it more readable and less like a disparate set of bullet point facts. For criteria fails, right now I'm seeing problems with 1a, 1b and 3b, as detailed above.

A few issues so I'm placing it on hold for a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There still seem to be several outstanding issues. I'll close the review on 11 July unless these are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: It should all be done now. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 02:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]