Talk:Deckers Creek

Comment
This page is fairly well put together as it contains headings and references, but lacks images. I like the different topics that were discussed in the article which range from the rivers geography to its environmental impact. Pictures of the creek could be added to give the reader an image to connect to the words.

We tested some water from Deckers Creek in one of my biology classes and it's very polluted. Could use a little more info about how bad the water is and some of the consequences of that damage. Good layout and very to the point. Eewalker3 (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

An image and more information in the leading paragraph might catch more people's attention. Ddoll01 (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about the creek so it was interesting to read. The information is good but it would be nice if you added more. Some pictures of the creek would be nice also. --157.182.79.197 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The page seems very short, so I would recommend more information. Also some pictures would be nice, and a few more references. Otherwise, it is a very good article. --Maxaroni2006 (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is a little short so my suggestion would be to add more information. Also, add some pictures of the creek and more references. Overall the article was quite informative. --Pat1019 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is a good idea, I didnt know about it until I read it. Organized well and is informative. Needs more external resources. Eakes27 (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Good core information but some details and pictures would be good. More references also, but definitly very informative. --Rpalmay (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was really informative. Some more resources and an image of Deckers Creek might be helpful.--SFL123 (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A good start. I think this is an excellent topic for an article, but I also think you expand some to ensure that it doesn’t get deleted. First, definitely include more references. Every fact needs references, obviously. The more the better. The lead section should be expanded. Something indicating that it is significant to the history and industry of the area, and is currently the center of a number of environmental debates... or something like that; i.e. the point is that the lead section should mirror the overall article: you have sections on history, environment, etc. and this should be played out in the lead section. Also, this will let you emphasize the significance of the topic in the lead. I think the three current subsections could each be longer. Geography: what communities does it pass through? What other significant geographical features? (i.e. aren’t there some rapids? Swimming holes? What else?) Environmental issues: can you be more specific about which extractive industries and about the history of the debate? What is AMD? What was the NPO claiming? Cultural history: What about today? For example, the rail trail! Plus don’t marathons and other races run along the stream? --74.99.14.57 (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Deckers 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66gupqQDM?url=http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ to http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)