Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:00, 8 April 2011 [1].

List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem)[edit]

List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles about rivers typically describe the main stem in detail and use the main-stem length as the length of "the river". Confusion sometimes arises about the lengths of rivers because some reliable sources use "the river" to mean the main stem plus other water-body lengths in the river's watershed. Typically, but not always, these other lengths are those of the river's largest upstream fork plus the fork's largest upstream fork and so on to the river's ultimate headwaters. The list I am nominating today compares main stem to main stem and provides data that should not only be useful to readers but also to editors who are working on river articles elsewhere in the encyclopedia. This list employs many of the features of List of longest streams of Oregon. My thanks to User:Ruhrfisch for a helpful peer review. Finetooth (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice list, but I have a quick question first: which "non-main-stem" rivers would make it into this list? Nergaal (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. The most striking example that comes to mind is the Atchafalaya River, a distributary of the lower Mississippi River. Its main stem is listed at 224 km, but it's total length (counting upstream to the most remote water source) is 2,261 km. Other rivers that would make the list if measured nose-to-tail include the Mobile, Alabama, Wabash, Tombigbee, Apalachicola, Kansas, and Porcupine, and this is probably not a complete list. Finetooth (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the title of the article is confusing. I think you want to name the article "List of longest rivers in the United States (by main stem)". Nergaal (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's a good suggestion. Before I make the change, I want to know if you think "of" would be better than "in" since some of the rivers on the list are not entirely within the U.S. Would "List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem)" be better? Finetooth (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long or otherwise large rivers like the Atchafalaya, Kansas, Susquehanna, North Canadian, Porcupine, Mobile, Wabash, Willamette, and Kootenay are not included because their main stems are shorter than 800 kilometres (500 mi). needs a citation
    • I shortened the list of examples to three and added a citation for each. Finetooth (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list should discuss briefly what is the length distribution below 800 km (about how many rivers are between 500 and 800 for example).
    • I don't know of a source for that information. I have not found a list of river lengths by main stem in any publication, and as far as I can tell, this list is in that sense unique. I tracked down the lengths of the 800 km streams by looking at a lot of maps and tracking down articles about rivers, one by one. To determine the distribution with accuracy, I would need to track down a lot more. In my opinion, the value (to this particular list) of the potential information is not great enough to justify the time it would take to tease it out. Finetooth (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth considering having a separate section with the longest rivers not just by main stem (say above 2000 km) for comparison, at the end.
    • The longest 10 rivers in the USGS list by Kammerer are as follows, in descending order: Missouri, Mississippi, Yukon, Rio Grande, St. Lawrence, Arkansas, Colorado, Atchafalaya, Ohio, and Snake. I'm not sure what you mean by "a separate section". This information could be presented in a sentence or two and might work well as a note in the "Notes" section. Any thoughts? Finetooth (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support All the major issues seem to have been solved. Nergaal (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and your support. I might add that the suggestions you made during the FLC of List of longest streams of Oregon were also helpful to the creation of this list and that I referred to List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium and some of your other FLs to see how things might be done. Finetooth (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As noted, I peer-reviewed this and all of my concerns were addressed in the PR. I think this meets all the FL criteria and am glad to support. I am OK with either title. Nicely done! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your kind words, support, and your helpful peer review. Finetooth (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Impressive list! Just a couple of suggestions...
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Please check AE/BE spelling and decide for one or the other (kilometre/meter...)
Thanks. I found one "meter" in the lead and changed it to "metre" to match the form of the others. I don't see any more exceptions, but I may have looked at the article too many times now to see it afresh. Do you see any others that I missed? Finetooth (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found another one, but only checked for "meter" and not any other Americanisms. bamse (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I found others, eventually, and I think now we have caught them all. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table is a tiny bit too wide on my (smallish laptop) screen. Can it be fixed?
I'm not sure if anything can be done since screens come in a wide variety of sizes and have variable settings. What works best for one setting doesn't seem to work best for another. Someone wiser than I might know of a way, but I don't. Finetooth (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are so many columns, the only solution I can think of is to combine two columns (say "source/mouth coordinates". Anyway it is only slightly too wide and not a big problem. bamse (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I made further changes to the table, I moved the notes to a third line in each box, hoping that this might cut a little slack for the last column. Maybe it looks better now on your screen? I hope. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many "rivers" in Mississippi River and Missouri River rivers.
Good catch. Thank you. I have tightened the prose to eliminate the duplication. Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Ruth Patrick referred to U.S. rivers, this fact should be mentioned: "...describing a table of high-discharge US rivers..." in my opinion. If she referred to non-US rivers, the whole paragraph is slightly less relevant and might be removed.
She's mainly talking about U.S. rivers, so I have adopted your suggestion and changed the sentence to say, "... describing a table of high-discharge U.S. rivers". Finetooth (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main stem is "the primary downstream segment of a river, as contrasted to its tributaries", including lakes filled by those tributaries. Not sure whether lakes are included in the main stem or not (i.e. whether the last part of the sentence refers to "tributaries" or to "main stem").
I changed the sentence to read: The main stem is "the primary downstream segment of a river, as contrasted to its tributaries", including lakes. Is that better? Finetooth (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. bamse (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have since rewritten much of the lead and added to the definition of "main stem" in hopes of making this part more clear. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table header: "images"->"image" (possibly also "coordinates"->"coordinate") since other headers are singular.
I changed "images" to "image" since each row has only one and changed the lead in two places to reflect this change. It might be awkward to change "states" and "provinces" to "state(s)" and "provinces(s)" to cover all situations, but I can change them in this way if you think it would be better. "Coordinates" in this list refers to a matched pair and has to be plural. Finetooth (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. bamse (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In/in the "States, provinces" column... It is in fact a "States, provinces, and images" column.
Another good catch. I have changed the lead to match the column heading. Finetooth (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, every table row should be wikilinked as if it stood on its own, i.e., provinces/states should be wikilinked in every row.
Thanks. I have now linked them all. Finetooth (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the parentheses in the list's title necessary?
I changed the title in response to Nergaal's suggestion above and thought it was an improvement over the former title. Ruhrfisch said above that he was OK with either title. I wouldn't say the parentheses are absolutely necessary, but I can imagine a reviewer asking what a "United States by main stem" might mean. I think the parentheses prevent that. Finetooth (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. bamse (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add percentage to note 13 for consistency.
Percentage added. Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some images show very little river (e.g. Tennessee River, Little Missouri River). Aren't there any better images? No picture of the White River (South Dakota) available?
The image choice is partly a matter of taste. I looked for high-quality images, for example, rather than just using images showing the most river, and I tried to include variety from image to image. In the case of the White River (South Dakota), there are no images on the Commons or in the English Wikipedia, and I found none via Flickr. I would take one myself, but the White River is far far away. Finetooth (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK bamse (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not too fond about the equation in not 15. I think it should be stated clearly which of the three numbers of that equation referst ot the length of the Red River according to Kammerer.
I agree. The equation was clumsy. I have replaced it with a more direct sentence: "Kammerer gives the length as 1,290 miles (2,080 km)". Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why you mention the sources in prose ("The sources for length data include...") since they already appear in the references section.
The lead is to be an inviting summary of the whole article. The sentences you mention are summations. It's possible to ferret the information out by looking at the references, but the summary presents the essence in a single place. Finetooth (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what information the sentence: The table below lists rivers with long main stems, the end points of which are defined by two sets of coordinates. conveys other than that the table lists the longest main stem rivers.
It adds the additional information about the coordinates defining the end points. The precision of the coordinates eliminates the guesswork about just exactly where the main stem begins and ends, according to the USGS or the Canadian equivalent. With some rivers, it's pretty easy to guess the approximate source and mouth points, but with others, like the St. Lawrence, it's not easy. Not only is locating the source point of the St. Lawrence more than a map-reading problem, so is locating the mouth point, since the river enters a gulf long before reaching the ocean. The coordinates (assigned by an authority of some sort) define precisely which stream segments the list is referring to. Finetooth (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Initially I thought it was some pseudo-scientific fluff as it was not clear to me that the sentence referred to the coordinates in the table. Maybe you could add something like the explanation above to the text!? bamse (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've put it that way, I've had a change of heart. The offending sentence isn't necessary and is murky in a way that I had not considered. I simply removed it, which I think is what you were suggesting earlier. Finetooth (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would make sense to order states/provinces from source to mouth. At least for the Rio Grande this is not the case. Haven't checked the others.
I agree, and I think they all are, including the Rio Grande. The Rio Grande begins in Colorado, flows through New Mexico, borders New Mexico and Texas for a short way and then becomes an international border. Texas is on the north, and the four Mexican states are on the south, in the order given. Am I missing something? Finetooth (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they were ordered, I believe that Texas and Tamaulipas (those with superscript "m") should be closer together. bamse (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They can't be closer together without distorting the source-to-mouth sequence. I understand why this is confusing, but I don't think the confusion can be helped. File:Riogranderivermap.png shows why. Texas is so big that it precedes all of the Mexican states and also borders all of them, to the very end of the river; it is third in order and also last in order. Finetooth (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, indeed. Didn't realize that Texas is that biiig. bamse (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use either "cu m/cu ft" or "m3 /ft3". Also you mix "miles" (spelled out) and "km" (abbreviated), etc. (for instance in note 4).
It's my understanding that in geoboxes and tables the units are best abbreviated, but in the main text and notes the preferred method is to spell out the primary unit and abbreviate the secondary unit. I have tried to do this consistently throughout the article. Finetooth (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable as for the second part. But why use two types of abbreviations ("cu m/cu ft" or "m3 /ft3")? bamse (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bamse (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, and I simply did not see them on the first go-round. I entered the quantities and units by hand in the table rows and used the shortest possible common abbreviations to save space. In the text and notes, I used the {{convert}} template, which is much more efficient than entering everything by hand. The template is programmed to spell out and abbreviate in just one way, and it's not always the shortest common way. So, yes, the two sets of abbreviations differ from one another. I can change all of the notes and text abbreviations by hand, if you insist, but my feeling is that no readers will be confused by the two sets of abbreviations since they are both common and mean the same things. Let me know if you disagree, and I will change them. Finetooth (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to have the same abbreviation everywhere but it is not essential as for me. Only change it if you feel bored. I'd vote support now, but will have a second (quick) look over it in a couple of days. I am pretty sure that it is FL-quality. One quick question: Why does the first column have a grey background? bamse (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now changed them all in addition to switching from metric first to metric second throughout the article. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words and your helpful suggestions. I'm not bored. Your question about the grey background is a good one and not something I'd thought about. I tend to imitate things that look good to me, and I certainly did not invent the table parameters. I cast about for something that looked appealing and then used it, making modifications where necessary as I went along. I can't say that I consciously saw the grey before you mentioned it; it just seemed natural. Do you think I should figure out how to make it go away? Do you know how to do that? Finetooth (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for me the background is fine. I was just wondering whether there was a reason for it. Honestly looking at the table code, I don't know how it got there. Maybe through ! scope="row"!? If so, don't remove it since it is important for WP:ACCESS.bamse (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. Finetooth (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support after having had a second look. Just one minor issue: the whole table seems to have a blue-greyish background color which is not necessary and makes the cells with "Watershed is not entirely within the United States." harder to distinguish from the rest. I'd change the background to just plain white because of that. bamse (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful review and for your support. I have added "background:#fff;" to the table code, which I think is how to change to plain white (though I'm not quite sure). Feel free to make alterations. Finetooth (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. bamse (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have a long review on this talk page (Andy-Sandy said my reviews went to long for FAC). I really think this is a cool topic, why I bothered to review, and I'm just sort of a nitpicker. So please don't let longness bug you. And they are all suggestions.TCO (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but which talk page do you mean? How do I find your review? Finetooth (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[2] TCO (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I moved the nomination as the page seemed to have been moved around a week ago, hope that's okay?
Yes. Thank you. I wasn't sure how to do that and thought it might happen automatically. Finetooth (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this has been commented on before but it does seem a little odd that a US article has metric measurements first. Perhaps that's a result of the sources?
Yes, it is odd, and it is because most of the sources use metric. It was a thoughtful decision (not a mistake) on my part to follow the sources rather than to stick with the normal pattern of imperial first in U.S.-centric articles. This issue comes up from time to time, and I'm not advocating (or implying advocacy) for a general switch to metric first in other U.S.-centric articles. It just happens that the hydrographers I cite generally expressed things in metric units, and I didn't feel comfortable about saying otherwise. I don't think that U.S. readers will find the reverse order hard to follow. Finetooth (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I'm tired of swimming against the current, and I make mistakes, and I'm not always right, and perhaps this is not the best forum for a metric–imperial debate, and even if it were, I'm not sure I should be sitting in the front row of the debating hall. Give me a couple of days, and I'll reverse the order to imperial first, metric second. Finetooth (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My "tool" says there's a dab link in the article somewhere, but I can't find it... helpful, eh?!
Actually helpful. It was the second link to Washington, which should have been (and now is) Washington (state). Finetooth (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saint Lawrence vs St. Lawrence, I'd be consistent.
Thank you. Good catch. I have changed all to Saint rather than St. Finetooth (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the drainage basins (watersheds)" since you link drainage basin, is there any real need to add (watershed) afterwards?
You are right; it is redundant, and I have removed the parenthetical. Finetooth (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""km" for "kilometre", "mi" for "mile", "s" for "second", "m" for "metre"," surely, surely, as a USENG article, km should be kilometer, and m should be meter?!
Yes. The trap I fell into was relying on the {{convert}} template which does this: 10 kilometres (6.2 mi). It works well for the Europeans but not so well for us Yankees. bamse noted this too, as well as the related inconsistency you note in your next comment. I am going to change them all today to make them consistent. Finetooth (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have cubic feet per second abbreviated in the table but not in the footnotes. I would be consistent.
Agreed and working on it. Finetooth (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And done. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links looks a little odd as there aren't any but those in the templates. Any chance of putting the templates in the preceding section?
TCO found them odd too. I will work on an alternative. Finetooth (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't figure out any way to make it fit or to take it apart. I deleted it. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your helpful comments and suggestions. Please let me know if anything is still amiss. Finetooth (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose.

  • The good: this is a very important article and the writer has done a service in digging through the maps and in comparing sources and in describing disagreements of the sources.
  • The lacking:
    • First paragraph does not well cover the list concept (most of it is on a measurement issue rather than the content of the list). Also the last sentence has nothing to do with the measurement issue (but is ambiguously confusing).
      • Butting in - there are several ways to define the length of a river. Since this list uses the length of the main stem in terms of river miles, shouldn't the lead define these? Quoting from WP:WIAFL Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Also please see WP:MOSBEGIN about the first paragraph of the lead: The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic.. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The first sentence is good. It can go fine with a general description of the list or with the measurement stuff. I like the first sentence a lot.
        • The next few sentences (the measurement issue) should be moved lower down into the lead. You are starting off as if this measurement issue is the key thing, rather than the rivers themselves (oh and we happen to have a measurement issue). So, yes, COVER the measurement issue. But not with such prominence. There is no intention to do a different list with extended stem measurements and no separate list with them. Move it down and be less defensive about it. Main stem is basically the COMMON sense way to measure the river. Tennessee ending at the Ohio, not going to New Orleans. Missisissippi starting in MN, not MT. I totally WANT that content as useful insight. Just not so prominent.
I have substantially re-written the lead to address this suggestion. Is that better? Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regardless, the last sentence in that para has nothing to do with the measurement issue (rivers that misssed the cut), so it is not part of a unified paragraph. It's actually about the content of the list (rivers themselves). Good writing has unified paragraphs. And to boot, the sentence is so worded that it's not completely clear that it's NOT part of the "what's main stem versus what's extended stem" heart of that paragraph. Also, the last sentence of that paragraph does NOT fit into a discussion of the measurement issue, but confusingly so. Let's not have another rhodocene, Ruhrfish.TCO (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images are not "best work". There is free photo content available per Google where we have the map. There is even better content (probably) available by writing and asking for donations (hunting pictures from blogs). No effort seems to have been made even to use cropping so that the images are viewable (see Mississippi). And the author responded to criticism of the images by saying that is subjective (yes it is, but that is not an excuse for not trying our best...if this were the NYT, they would want good photos, saying "it's subjective" would not cut it with the editor).
      • How is this an actionable request? There is even better content (probably) available... When I did the peer review, I looked on Flickr for free images of the White River (South Dakota) but found none. If you know of free images that should be used instead, please provide specific links. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is not actionable about cropping? Download the thing, open it in MS Paint, crop. Save as. Reload to Commons as derivative work. Mississipi image is not even viewable now. Might as well just have a link instead of a picture.
        • Do a Google search for images and use advanced settings and click the button on license that says for commercial use with modification. You'll get some NASA images. Better than your map at least.
        • There are also some very nice hunting pictures of the river. I OFTEN find an email to an individual will get a donation. If you've never tried it, give it a shot.
        • I readily get the impression that the goal here is not to do everything we can to make a great article, FOR THE READER but to have arguments about "what we should have to do". The comment about images being subjective fit right into that. YES. I agree images are subjective, but that does not mean we can't get a group of people and get pretty ready agreement about what's good and bad. That almost sounded like we could put anything up and no one can criticize it, and we don't have to try to do our best since it's subjective anyway! That would not cut it for featured content in a book, magazine article, newspaper, etc. We are trying to look good. Look...I'm VERY sympathetic to the argument that we can't find better images and willing to pass an FA/FL that just does not have professional quality photography...IF WE TRIED OUR HARDEST. But when we have this "it's subjective" legalistic argument...no sympathy for that. That's the argument to make when you have GREAT images, but the reviewer is just being diffucult. But not the argument when you did the best you could, but they're still not great looking. And I think when you can't SEE the river in an image, that is pretty clearly not as good an illo. So, I'd be sympathetic with a comment that says, X, Y, and Z images are not as good as I'd like, but I can't get any better. That at least shows that he cares about the reader experience, thought about it, tried to fix it. But when he just says it's subjective...that comes across like the source-kilometers excuse (one book on North America, not the practice in the United States, USGS, or even our U.S. river articles on Wiki).
          • I have uploaded two satellite photos of the White River and found two more of the river itself on Commons. All of them and the map are shown in a gallery on this FLC talk page for a consensus decision.
          • TCO, as for File:Lake Itasca Mississippi Source.jpg, I literally do not know how you want it to be cropped. When I look at it, it clearly shows the Mississippi River flowing out of Lake Itasca.It has been used on the Main Page here in a WP:DYK and it is used about 66 times on about 38 different Wikipedias, including 10 times on the English Wikipedia (see here). So all of this shows me that there are a lot of editors here and elsewhere who think it is a useful picture. I would still be interested to see your crop. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TCO, I don't agree that the Mississippi image needs cropping. You didn't say how you would crop it, but I have to assume that you would like it better with less sky. I don't agree. If I were working for the The New York Times, an editor would not be likely to say to me "Mississipi image is not even viewable now. Might as well just have a link instead of a picture." You probably do not work for the Times, and you are not my boss. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kilometers first. Just shows a lack of perspective...every US river article on Wiki uses miles, we have "river miles" as a concept, USGS uses miles, published maps in the United States use miles, etc. And the in-text rationale seems strange to have in article.
      • Finetooth said to The Rambling Man (above) that the article was going to be switched to miles first. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some concerns on the table (see reverse). I'm not an expert, so not saying for sure my fixes are the way to go, but would feel better if a table expert like Jack or Rexx agreed with some of the choices like mashing states and image in same column, especially.
I'm not a table expert either, and if Jack or Rexx made suggestions here, I'd be inclined to take their advice. However, when you say "mashing states and image in the same column", you invite an angry response. When you put the case in that way, my instinct is to reject it out of hand and to conclude that you are not a skilled reviewer. Unfortunately, I got so cross about this and other language in your review (such as the "excuse" comment and the odd statements about Mexicans, Germans, and Canadians) that I lost my temper and replied in kind with mocking replies to your mocking comments. Do you think it's possible for us to start over and simply address the issues and not each other's credentials or motives? Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some other places, like cutting the parts of the reference discussion that were non-value add, where a change was said to be made, but I'm not seeing it.
      • Could you please be more specific / provide a diff? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The non-insightful text on sourcing. He said he would clip it. It's not gone.TCO (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that has now been addressed. Other than unresolvable disagreements about aesthetics, TCO, do you have any remaining issues? Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCO (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TCO. I am not sure what I have done to stir up your anger, but I do not want to continue to anger you or to distract from the business of this FLC. As far as Rhodocene goes, it is a FA which I supported and you did not comment on in FAC - I fail to see its relevance to this article or FLC. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well done, meets FL criteria, very interesting. We're always taught that the Mississippi is the longest, but a little research disproves it. Dincher (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and support. It has certainly been an interesting undertaking. Finetooth (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - excellent, informative, and visually appealing list. Clearly took a lot of work, beyond simply rehashing a single source's chart. A couple comments to go along with my support...
  • I imagine you can have a mouth without it being a delta. Is river delta the best place to link to in the lead?
  • Three—the Milk, and Saint Lawrence rivers and the Red River of the North - Seems like a stray comma floating about here, but I'm not entirely sure.
  • The |thumb| format of the pictures seems a bit unnecessary... would it be possible to make them simple thumbnails?

Nice work. Juliancolton (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took your advice in each of the three cases and made the changes you recommended. Thank you for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I found a couple of spacing inconsistencies in what is otherwise good work. For consistency, note 23 should have a space after the comma, and reference 118 should have a space between the period and page number. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I fixed these and a couple of others that were lurking elsewhere in the refs. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_longest_rivers_of_the_United_States_(by_main_stem)/archive1&oldid=1089077250"