Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Missouri River/archive3


 * 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 Karanacs 20:31, 10 July 2011.

Missouri River

 * Nominator(s): Shannºn   Talk   06:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the Missouri, that longest river of North America yet listed as a tributary of the Father of Waters, later that legendary pathway of the romanticized explorers and hardy pioneers of the American West, most recently publicized as that ongoing "problem" for failing levees in North Dakota and nuclear plants in Nebraska. This tremendous year of rains and snowmelt has given new life to reaches of the river that haven’t seen its thunderous power since the six Pick-Sloan dams were put in, and it only seems fitting that the Missouri be honored on Wikipedia as well by granting it FA status. I believe this complete, well referenced and well illustrated article meets the FA criteria or at least is squeakingly close enough to it. I have been through two fruitless FACs and one fruitful GAN with this, I’m ready for what’s next... Shannºn  Talk   06:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Support I was the GA reviewer and consider this to be the highest quality article that I have reviewed at GAC in my time on WP. I have been waiting for months to see this at FAC so that I could show my support. You can gather by the lengthy review at Talk:Missouri River/GA1 that my concerns have been addressed. I tried to be fairly critical at GA and give a PR as well as a GA analysis in order to help this twice-failed FGAN get over the hump. I know the article is greatly improved from its last visit here. I hope that the FAC community will be receptive to this contribution and accommodate the pace of response of its main editor, which may not be as fast as all you folks tend to like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose layout. I know this is your baby. And I love rivers too! Plus I see you have been through the mill a few times. So I feel bad to oppose. That said, this is really a huge and important topic and important that we do well. It does not look professional to me, right now, sorry.

Blue mass of coordinates in infobox is very uninviting. I suggest not having an infobox and just putting that content at the bottom in a more organized table (with columns dividing up some of the blue-links). I do like the blue lead image though. The map is probably your most important image, but you have it stuck in the infobox. It ought to be centered and large at the beginning of Course. Also, the river ought to be a different color, and maybe trim out some or all tribs. A lot of the other images are too small to be useful. I like that you have a graph (we should do that more), but then it lacks axes, is dublicated as a table, and is too big. The bulleted list of tribs should be in a table. I'm wondering if there is a way to put them at the end (but I see why they are near Course). See Also is too long and should have all the list of state rivers cut. I really didn't look at it that close or get into substance...because of the issues I saw in presentation.


 * I temporarily removed your "blue mass of coordinates", see if that looks better. Personally, I actually like the aesthetics better this way. Shannºn   Talk   18:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Just saying, according to WP:RIVERS the map belongs in the geobox. Shannºn   Talk   19:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll try to mess around with the flow graphs a bit, see if I can transfer the data in the tables to the graphs. Because they're kind of difficult to handle. (In fact, they were stolen from the Russian Wikipedia...) Shannºn   Talk   19:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Also some overlinking (wheat? Fort Peck Lake AND Fort Peck Dam?)  Given how much we really have to link (and on this article, I actually think you should like North America...because it is a key concept), cut the gravel and such.


 * Removed some... Shannºn   Talk   19:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * North America is linked in the lead, and in the Watershed section, and in the Native American section. Are you sure that isn't actualy a case of overlinking? Shannºn   Talk   05:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I did see that TTT spent a lot of time with you and that a bunch of things got adressed in the GAN. Still kind of think it's not there...although admitting I only skimmed the article, didn't really read it.

TCO (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I disagree with your comments about the infobox. It should definitely stay, with the coordinates in it. I think this is exactly the kind of information that ought to be in an infobox. It makes it easy to find all important numbers, coordinates etc, and makes the presentation of them consistent with other river-articles. Iusethis (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In terms of the infobox, it is twice the length of almost all FA river articles (Bull Run River (Oregon), Chetco River, Columbia River, Johnson Creek (Willamette River), Jordan River (Utah), Little Butte Creek (Rogue River), River Parrett, Rogue River (Oregon), and St. Johns River). However all of those are less than 60 miles in length except the Rogue (215 miles), St. Johns (310 miles), and Columbia (1243 miles).  Basically, the majority of FA rivers are streams and creeks. The only high-importance FA to WP:RIVER is the Columbia.  The only significant difference in the infobox between the Missouri and the Columbia is in the source detail.  However, this detail should be evaluated by topic experts, but seems relevant to me based on the text, IMO.  I think the extra detail is due to the magnitude of the topic, which simply has more details that need to be provided.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should list the source in the geobox as Brower's Spring? Shannºn   Talk   19:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A MOS review is needed (hopefully someone will get to it before I have to find time to list everything), and there is a daunting amount of unnecessary sea of blue (see WP:OVERLINK). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my influence on OVERLINKING. I have asked for several links in the article. I am not sure, which are problematic here, but I may be at fault for some of them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I appreciate the work that's gone into this article, but I don't feel it yet meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:
 * This article is in need of extensive editing for WP:MOS issues. On a quick skim I see heavy overlinking, "%" to be spelled out in article text, numbers under 10 should usually be spelled out in article text (ex. "2nd" -> "second"), etc
 * WP:W2W/WP:NPOV: don't use phrases like "definitely not true", particularly without an immediate citation, don't tell the reader to "note" something
 * I don't think 'definitely not true" in that context is arguable at all – who would deny the difference between 2,300 miles and sixty? Shannºn   Talk   19:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Reference formatting needs cleanup for consistency. All web citations need publisher and accessdate; all print citations need page numbers. Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized when, etc.
 * Would you mind clarifying if this is a widespread or small problem? I believe the references' format is fine. Shannºn   Talk   19:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
 * There were only two that needed it; fixed anyway; others are all NWIS citations or two pages or less. Shannºn   Talk   19:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * TOC is too long - some shorter subsections (ex. "Longest") could be merged
 * Shortened by four or five headers/subheaders... good? Shannºn   Talk   19:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See also is also too long - some of those links would be helpful in article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shortened about 50%. Shannºn   Talk   19:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * weak Oppose 1a. Sorry, but the article really needs a thorough copyedit by an uninvolved editor. Here is a small sampling of questionable prose; these problems are abundant, and evident throughout the article. Sasata (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "The river has had a continuous history of different tribes and groups," what does this mean?
 * "However, after Europeans got to North America" the phrase "got to" is at best colloquial
 * "The first Europeans to see the river were the French explorers Louis Jolliet and Jacques Marquette in 1673 who shortly after looking at Piasa petroglyph paintings on the bluffs above the Mississippi River near the present-day location of Alton, Illinois heard the Missouri rushing into the Mississippi." too much information for one sentence
 * "Bourgmont had further infuriated the French by illegally trapping and for immoral behavior when he showed up at French outposts with his Native American wife." verb tenses not in agreement
 * "However after Bourgmont's two documents, Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne, Sieur de Bienville, founder of Louisiana, said that rather than arresting Bourgmont they should decorate him with Cross of St. Louis and name him "commandant of the Missouri" to represent France on the entire river." First part of sentence does not jibe with the rest
 * "After squabbling with French authorities over financing of a new fort on the Missouri and also suffering a yearlong illness, Bourgmont established Fort Orleans near present day Brunswick in the north central part of present-day Missouri, which was the first fort and first longer term European settlement of any kind on the Missouri, in late 1723 near his home at Brunswick." Again, poor grammar (too much info for one sentence)


 * Going through this, but I'm not convinced – the vast majority of this is from the first three subsections Explorers section, the only portion of the article that I did not write. Shannºn   Talk   19:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * All fixed. Shannºn   Talk   20:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel like I've responded to all the comments... I'd be glad to hear a disagreement... Shannºn   Talk   23:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sasata (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed my oppose to a weak oppose, because I agree, the rest of the article isn't as bad as the sections I initially read. But I still maintain the prose should be picked over with a fine-tooth comb (and I don't have the inclination to do a sentence-by-sentence review on the entire article, sorry). Here's some more examples from the lead and first section:
 * do we really need links to Canada, U.S. states, and France?
 * "European and American explorers began to wander the region" missing a word?
 * "The headstreams of the similarly sized Madison River, in turn formed by the Gibbon and Firehole rivers; and the smaller Gallatin River emerge from Yellowstone National Park in northwestern Wyoming and flow north and northwest into Montana." grammar or punctuation problem
 * "It flows north, shortly being joined by the Gallatin, then passing through Canyon Ferry Lake, a reservoir west of the Big Belt Mountains." verb tense issue (flows -> passing)
 * "… a series of five substantial cataracts." The link for cataracts goes to waterfalls… why not just say waterfalls?
 * "… before crossing into North Dakota where the Yellowstone River, its greatest tributary, joins from the right." greatest by size? volume? reputation?
 * "At the confluence, the two rivers are approximately the same size." Does "size" here mean width?
 * "It turns east at Kansas City, where the Kansas River enters from the right, and so on into north-central Missouri." so on?


 * responded to most of the points, will do another runthrough for grammar, spelling, wording, etc. Shannon   +    º    !   17:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Shannon, very good. A few things:
 * 1) WP:OVERLINK needs to be accounted for (US, Nth Am, French).
 * 2) "uri then proceeds to form the boundary of South Dakota and Nebraska, then after it receives the James River, forms the Nebraska–Missouri border (en dash). Same for US–Canada border.
 * 3) similarly-sized"—MoS says no hyphen after -ly.
 * Done Shannºn   Talk   04:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "including the 100-mile (160 km)-long Shonkin Sag"—consider "including the Shonkin Sag 100 miles (160 km) long"
 * Done Shannºn   Talk   04:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 13–16 ... you could choose to use M or million instead of all those zeros.
 * Is it possible to do that without removing the conversion template? Shannºn   Talk   21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Also, the creation of giant reservoirs has trapped —can "also be later in the sentence?
 * Done. Shannºn   Talk   21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "also stayed along the Missouri"—remove "also", I think.
 * Done. Shannºn   Talk   04:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Native Americans who ...
 * Where is this phrase? Shannºn   Talk   22:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Your pics could be 240px without any trouble.
 * 2) "during this time period"—remove time.
 * 3) 1926–27
 * Done. Shannºn   Talk   04:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) MoS says US not USA.
 * Done. Shannºn   Talk   21:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) That map could be larger, and possibly on the right.

I must ask that SandyGeorgia recuse as delegate from this nomination because of bullying, threats, and an ominous statement claiming there are things "I have to factor when reading your reviews." Tony  (talk)  19:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


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