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?
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
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?
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]
