A fact from Big Wapwallopen Creek appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 April 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Big Wapwallopen 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: June 13, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MPJ-DK ( talk · contribs) 12:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I will be starting the GA review of this article in the next day or so. I usually provide my feedback in sections over a day or two instead of everything at once, but feel free to respond/address any comments even before the review is complete if you want to. Let me know if you have any questions along the way. The GA review page is on my watch list so just post here to keep all conversations in one place.
MPJ
-US 12:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.
"The peak annual discharge of Big Wapwallopen Creek at its mouth has a 10 percent chance of reaching 3350 cubic feet per second. It has a 2 percent chance of reaching 6550 cubic feet per second and a 1 percent chance of reaching 8400 cubic feet per second. The peak annual discharge has a 0.2 percent chance of reaching 15,000 cubic feet per second." that is a lot of examples - is it perhaps a bit over the top especially when adding details from the tributaries too? Seems almost like trivia overload? is this level of detail common in these types of articles?
Review complete, I will put on hold to allow for improvements. I will swing by and check off anything that looks addressed in the next day or so. Not that much to address, it's in good shape
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Big Wapwallopen 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) 04:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
A fact from Big Wapwallopen Creek appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 April 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Big Wapwallopen 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: June 13, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MPJ-DK ( talk · contribs) 12:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I will be starting the GA review of this article in the next day or so. I usually provide my feedback in sections over a day or two instead of everything at once, but feel free to respond/address any comments even before the review is complete if you want to. Let me know if you have any questions along the way. The GA review page is on my watch list so just post here to keep all conversations in one place.
MPJ
-US 12:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.
"The peak annual discharge of Big Wapwallopen Creek at its mouth has a 10 percent chance of reaching 3350 cubic feet per second. It has a 2 percent chance of reaching 6550 cubic feet per second and a 1 percent chance of reaching 8400 cubic feet per second. The peak annual discharge has a 0.2 percent chance of reaching 15,000 cubic feet per second." that is a lot of examples - is it perhaps a bit over the top especially when adding details from the tributaries too? Seems almost like trivia overload? is this level of detail common in these types of articles?
Review complete, I will put on hold to allow for improvements. I will swing by and check off anything that looks addressed in the next day or so. Not that much to address, it's in good shape
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Big Wapwallopen 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) 04:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)