This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
5minutes, I'm a bit miffed that your talk page invitation came with a revert. Anyway, my beef is this. For all intents and purposes, your section looks like a "See also" section, and those should not come with red links, of course (and the second capital does not conform to the MOS). In addition, there is no rational given for "nearby": within driving distance? In Transylvania County? Either way, it makes our article look like a tourist brochure, which it already does. To avoid both issues it's best to link to the general article, Waterfalls of North Carolina. And yes, I think that should be done on similar articles as well: it's a step forward. Note that there isn't even a link to the greater article, and there are other MOS violations as well, some of which I will point out in my edit summaries to follow. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
No intention to miff you. With the exception of the "nearby falls" and "directions" sections - which I included on my earliest articles and simply kept including, most of the pages are designed around the WikiProject Waterfalls article structure. I'm sure they would love to have your input on suggestions. 5minutes (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
