Talk:Deckers Creek: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
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. --[[User:Pat1019|Pat1019]] ([[User talk:Pat1019|talk]]) 19:18, 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. --[[User:Pat1019|Pat1019]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Eakes27|Eakes27]] ([[User talk:Eakes27|talk]]) 21:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:13, 8 September 2009
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)