Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Missouri River/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 16:20, 15 December 2010 [1].

Missouri River[edit]

Nominator(s): Shannon ^talk _contribs 05:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been editing and working my back off on this article for seven months starting out as a lowly geobox in my sandbox. The Missouri is one of the most important rivers in the United States, whether for agricultural supply, power generation or transportation, and is known for its huge role in the settlement of the western states, second only to the mighty Mississippi of which it is a tributary of. I’ve built this page into a very extensive and detailed biography of the river, while looking at examples such as Columbia River and Jordan River (Utah), but hope it flows well and can be understood by anyone, ... Looking for a great new addition to WP:RIVERS’ honor... Shannon ^talk _contribs 05:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Comments Looks good, but I think there's some room for improvement. Here are thoughts pending further consideration. Sir Nils (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicky stuff from the lede:

"Approximately 10 million people live in the river's basin, mostly concentrated in urban centers in the south such as St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha, and Denver." I think the meaning of "the south" here is not immediately clear. It apparently means the southern part of the basin, but might just as easily be taken to mean the American south.
"French, Spanish and American explorers wandered the region in the 18th and 19th centuries, during the time that the Missouri basin became part of France's Louisiana Territory" You think here to Louisiana Territory, which is about the American territory, but I think you want the article Louisiana (New France). Also, French Louisiana was established in 1682, which predates the era you're discussing.

Other river FAs, such as Columbia River handle tributaries somewhat differently.

Sources:

A number of the citations are incomplete, for example number 67: "Pinckney’s Treaty or Treaty of San Lorenzo". Encyclopaedia Britannica."

Fixed. Shannon ^talk _contribs 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

images - File:Missouririvermap.jpg could do with an additional image showing the subnational region this map is of, N.American geography is a mystery to many. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Shannon ^talk _contribs 21:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives a list of rivers in the USA, theses are Colorado, Columbia, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and the Rio Grande but you have excluded Salmon_Falls_Creek, why is this? Fasach Nua (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is said list? It might be the list of rivers that have more discharge than the Missouri, but Salmon Falls Creek is significantly smaller than the Missouri? Shannon ^talk _contribs 21:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the geography section, and I would expect something tighter than "It might be" when a definition of rivers is used Fasach Nua (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I think you mean the template United States topics? If you see a problem with that you'd have to edit the template, not the article. But that template encompasses a rather broad topic. I mean, this is the United States (not just Nevada, which doesn't even have anything to do with the Missouri). Shannon ^talk _contribs 02:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and if I have an issue with an featured article candidate containing a definition of rivers that falls short of WP:VERIFY where should that be raised? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I even searched for the words "it might be" on the page with the browser's find function. Am I not functioning properly or what? I don't see where this is -- there isn't even a section titled Geography in the article. Shannon ^talk _contribs 03:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The might be is six lines up, and the geography section is at the bottom of the article Fasach Nua (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:-

What makes http://www.jrank.org/history/pages/6374/The-North-American-Plains.html a high quality reliable source? What do we know about the degree of editorial control etc?
Refs 10 and 90: Athearn, undefined, not listed in works cited
Refs 16, 32 and others: Benke and Cushing, not defined (Benke, Colbert E. in works cited)
Ref 33: Roberts and Hodsdon not defined (Roberts, W. Grant in works cited)
Ref 39: "The National Academies" should be named in the publisher info.
Ref 45: More publisher info needed. If this was a magazine article, date? issue no? etc
Ref 46: "Ewers" undefined, not listed in works cited
Ref 49: Lott and Greene undefined. (Lott, Harry W. in works cited)
Ref 57 and others: Can you comment on nebraskastudies.org? Who runs thia site?
Ref 59: Publisher information missing
Ref 63: What makes http://www.greatriverroad.com/lewclark/gatherintel.htm a high quality reliable source? Retrieval date missing
Ref 74: Publisher's name rather than website name should be givn where possible. In this case the publisher is The Lewis and Clark Fort Mandan Foundation. (there may be other instances)
Ref 75:...for example, the publisher is A&E Television Networks
Ref 77: Morris undefined, not listed in works cited
Ref 89: Holmes, Walter and Dailey undefined, not in works cited
Refs 93, 97: Retrieval dates missing
Ref 104: What makes http://www.helenahistory.org/dams.htm a high quality reliable source?
Ref 112: What makes http://www.steamboats.org/traveller/missouri-river.html a high quality reliable source?
Ref 114: Dyer undefined, not in works cited
Ref 129 et al: Publisher is The Nature Conservancy
Christensen in works cited, no citations

Apart from the above issues, which are mostly minor, the sources look pretty impressive. I have not at this stage carried out any spotchecking; will try to do so later. Brianboulton (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this site you'd notice it includes a bibliography. The Nebraskastudies site is a purely educational website. And I didn't realize how I could have so many orphaned references... Shannon ^talk _contribs 02:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, "Dyer" refers to the website cited just before, except it was a different page within that article... didn't want to link the same article twice but to different pages... Shannon ^talk _contribs 03:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems though nps.gov is timing out; as it's a .gov I'm inclined to believe that it's temporary. --Pres N 22:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.