# Talk:Muncy Creek

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)

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)
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)
"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)
Previous articles have suitable links for class 2 (etc) rapids.
Linked. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 23:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
"Muncy Creek" in the caption is in bold for no good reason.
Fixed. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
"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)
"92 percent of assessed streams..." avoid starting sentences with numerals.
Fixed. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
"Pennsylvania Science office of The Nature Conservancy" should that office be Office?
Fixed. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec 11:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
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)

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