A fact from Roaring Brook (Lackawanna River tributary) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 May 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Roaring Brook flows through the Nay Aug Gorge, which is listed on the National Register of Geologic Landmarks?
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
Course: See if you can break that large first paragraph into two, it'll make it easier to read.
Done.
I'd also just remove the carriage return from the single sentence (current) second paragraph and just have it be at the end of the new second paragraph
Fixed.
Hydrology: "The concentration of fluoride in Roaring Brook at Scranton was once measured to" - can we be anymore specific about when? Even if it's just a decade.
That means that it was measured one time; the date's given in the previous paragraph.
The final two paragraphs both start with "The peak annual discharge" - is there a way of changing one or the other to remove the repetition?
Reworded.
Geography, geology, and climate: You should move "Horace Hollister's 1885 History of the Lackawanna Valley described Roaring Brook as being "the noisiest tributary of the Lackawanna"." up to the other comments by Hollister - it looks out of place down towards the bottom of this section.
Done.
Watershed: If you're going to link Drainage basin in the article body, it should be up near the top when watershed is first mentioned.
I don't know. I don't think there's anything wrong with spacing out he links a little.
Merge the final two paragraphs since the last one is a single sentence.
Done.
Biography: Any chance of being a bit more specific with your linkage in "Wolves, bears, wildcats, and panthers" as I'm doubtful that all members of those families are found there.
The article doesn't imply that either, and there's nothing more specific to be said. Most readers probably won't care about the exact species anyway.
Notes: Can we get a cite for the note?
Nested references would appear to break the note.
Citations: There's quite a few instances of listing an organisation as an author - could you edit these and change those to publishers as they're not a specific individual(s) who wrote the text.
No, oftentimes the organization literally is the author; there isn't a single individual or even several credited with writing it.
Cite #13: Is the publisher the National Dam Inspection Program? If so, remove that from the title of the citation and place in a publisher field.
No, part of the title.
Cite #20: Publisher/Location details? Old books like that tend to have them printed on the bottom of the first page with text.
Done.
Cite #21 through 23: Need to be filled out with full source information, and in the case of the Life one, the article information.
Better.
Ok, placing this one on hold. Ping me back when you've had a chance to look or need more than 7 days. Miyagawa (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
