User talk:Jokulhlaup/sandbox

  WP:Rivers importance low

  WP:Lighthouses importance mid NRHP

   {{WikiProject Lighthouses|class=redir}}
   {{WikiProject Lighthouses|class=cat}}

{{WikiProject xyz|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Lighthouses|class= |importance=mid}}

   {{WikiProject Rivers|class=category}} 

   {{WikiProject Rivers|class=|importance=}} 

   {{WikiProject Rivers|class=|importance=low}} 

   |needs-infobox=y

  
   {{WikiProject Rivers|class=stub|importance=low}} 
 
   {{WikiProject California|class=Stub|importance=Low}}
   {{WikiProject Rivers|class=stub|importance=low}} 

   {{WikiProject Rivers|class=start|importance=low}}  

 
   {{WikiProject Rivers|class=C|importance=low}} 

    {{WikiProject Lighthouses}}

   {{WikiProject Lighthouses|class=stub|importance=low}}

   {{WikiProject Lighthouses|class=start|importance=low}}

   {{WikiProject UK geography|class=Stub|importance=Low}}

       
   WikiProject Rivers|class=stub|importance=low
  
   WikiProject Rivers|class=stub|importance=mid
 
   WikiProject Rivers|class=start|importance=low

   WikiProject Rivers|class=start|importance=mid

   WikiProject Rivers|class=C|importance=low

   WikiProject Rivers|class=C|importance=mid

   WikiProject Lighthouses|class=stub|importance=low

   WikiProject Lighthouses|class=start|importance=low

      WikiProject England|class=c|importance=Low

   WikiProject Scotland|class=c|importance=Low

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject England|class=stub|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject UK geography|class=Stub|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Rivers|class=stub|importance=low}}




{{talk page of redirect}}
 

Talk:North Calder Water

  Outside the scope of WP:Rivers - Template removed

• 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
• 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
• 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
• 4. The article is reasonably well-written, and is free from major grammatical errors.
• 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
• 6. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way.

• 1. Is it suitably referenced, and do all major points have appropriate inline citations.
• 2. Does it reasonably cover the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
• 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
• 4. The article is reasonably well-written, and is free from major grammatical errors.
• 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
• 6. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way.

Start a discussion about improving the User:Jokulhlaup/sandbox page

Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Jokulhlaup/sandbox" page.

Start a discussion