Talk:Phantom Falls

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rivers: Waterfalls Low‑importance

	Geography portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Waterfalls task force.

Grammar and encyclopedic wording[edit]

I am reverting Podruznik's latest changes which once again returned the article to a hugely problematic state. Per our own style manual, as well as conventions accepted by every publication in the English language with any pretensions of credibility, the wording cannot be sloppy or informal; it must conform to certain basic standards, including those regarding syntax and punctuation. This is an encyclopedia, and it has rules. Those rules need to be followed. Rivertorch (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The right preposition[edit]

Adapted from a thread in user talk: It may sound weird, but via is the only appropriate preposition I can think of for the context. With works in casual conversation but is too imprecise for an encyclopedia article. Podruznik's preferred wording essentially says "the bottom can be reached with a hike", which doesn't make sense; it's like saying "Los Angeles can be reached with a freeway". The revised wording with via essentially says "the bottom can be reached by means of a hike," which makes perfect sense.

Unless someone can dispute this on rational grounds, the reverting to with needs to stop. Good grammar isn't optional. Rivertorch (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preposition issue resolved by this edit by JHunterJ. Rivertorch (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]