Wikipedia:Peer review/List of longest main-stem rivers in the United States/archive1

List of longest main-stem rivers in the United States
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I've constructed it entirely in a sandbox over the past several weeks, and it has not been vetted by other editors. Although I'm as nitpicky as I can be, I always miss things, and my work is always improved by other eagle-eyed editors. Any suggestions will be appreciated. My goal is to get this list ready for WP:FLC. Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments by Ruhrfisch - this looks quite good on a quick glance, and I will make more detailed comments soon, but wanted to point out two quick things that coaught my eye. More before too long, hopefully, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that what a main stem is needs to be defined more explicitly in the article itself, perhaps with an example besides the St. Lawrence. Unfortunately the main stem article is fairly cryptic.
 * I also wondered if more images could be added in some way - either a gallery (know you're not a fan of those) or perhaps images in the table itself (add a column?).


 * Thanks for these suggestions. I look forward to more. I've added a more complete definition of "main stem" and a sample image to the Yellowstone River. It greatly expands the row dimensions and looks strange to me. Am I misunderstanding? Can you think of a tidy way to do this? Finetooth (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe eliminating the captions would help. Should I consider eliminating the other text, the list of states, in the column? Finetooth (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks better without the caption, I think. Finetooth (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And even better with several images. Thanks for this very good idea. Finetooth (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments
 * Glad my comments were useful. I like the images in the last column and think they make the article look better. I went on Flickr to see if there were any free images for the White River, but did not find any. I am just going to comment on the whole list as I read it through.
 * On the map caption, would it make sense to give the number of rivers on this list which are part of the Mississippi watershed? I did a quick count and think there are at least 17 (may have missed one or two). Perhaps something like "The Mississippi drainage basin includes the two longest main stem rivers in the United States (the Missouri and Mississippi), as well as 15(?) more of the rivers on this list."
 * I would move the sentence defining the main stem (The main stem is "the primary downstream segment of a river, as contrasted to its tributaries".[4]) right after the sentnece ending with the Gulf of St Lawrence, and before the sentence on the Mississippi River. This way the definition is followed by an example, and I think going from general to specifics is better than the other way.
 * Should the deinition of main stem somehow indicate more explicitly that lakes are not included? I am not sure this is necessary as it says "of a river" but the ST. Lawrence example includes the Great Lakes, so I was not sure if this was super clear or not.
 * I might add the Susquehanna to the list of rivers not quite long enough to be included (444 miles).
 * The lead is five paragraphs, but WP:LEAD says to limit the lead to four. I know this is sometimes ignored for lists, but I also wondered if the current thrid and fourth paragraphs might be moved to a short section before the table itself (which would need its own header to separate it from the lead). The lead would then be the current first, second and fifth paragraphs and would still end with the wonderful quote from Ruth Patrick.
 * In the table, should the column header "States, provinces" include the word "image" or "photo" or something like that? Also should "provinces" be italicized (on second thought, Mexican states are italicized, but American states are not, so not sure this makes sense).
 * The image of the Missouri has a different River in the foreground (Big Mo is the water in the background).
 * In the notes, if the watershed is split between two countries, would it help to give a percentage? So Note 2 would be Of the total, 27,800 square kilometres (10,700 sq mi), or 0.85% of the basin, are in Canada.[6][7]
 * Otherwise can't find anything else to quibble about. I think the km (mi) order is addressed nicely in the article already. The only other question I can think of that might arise in FLC is why limit this to 500 miles? I know 500 mi / 800 km is nice as they are both round numbers. 250 mi / 400 km would also work, but I worry this would be too large a list.
 * That was my thought too. I started with 200 mi but kept upping the limit to keep the list manageable. Finetooth (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hope this helps - please let me know when this is at FLC. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional suggestions. I'll be working to improve the article over the coming days, and I'll certainly let you know when I take it to FLC. Finetooth (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible expansion
 * For the sake of keeping discussions together, I have copied the relevant posts from my and Finetooth's talk pages and paste them below.

I've added the Susquehanna to the also-ran list in the lead. I had hoped originally to include it in the main list. I thought it might make it since according to Rivers of North America it is 721 km long. Then I realized that to be consistent I could only count the part from Sunbury downstream. If forks are tributaries, then the Susquehanna is only 200 km long. Sigh. Finetooth (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not sure how to figure what the main stem is. The Ohio River is clearly formed from its tributaries in Pittsburgh. However, I was not sure about the Susquehanna. The GNIS says the Susquehanna heads at Otsego Lake in Cooperstown, New York here. Even if its main stem starts in New York, the whole is less than 500 miles. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Butting in...The North Branch Susquehanna River, as opposed to the West Branch, is usually considered an extension of the main stem. ​​​​​​ ​​ Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 13:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I usually think of the North Branch as part of the main stem.
 * What if instead of aiming for a nice round number for length, thel ist was a nice round number of entries? So what if it were the 50 longest rivers in the United States (that would add 16 to the current list). Just an idea. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Waxing verbose, I replied on the PR archive page here. Finetooth (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Susquehanna River is exceptional in that the USGS defines the main stem as the part from the mouth to the branches' confluence plus the North Branch Susquehanna River. I didn't find any source, including Rivers of North America, that disagreed with this, but I don't recall finding any other big rivers for which the USGS included a fork (branch) as part of the main stem. (I would not be surprised to learn of other exceptions, but I didn't notice any.) The 500 mi cut-off is arbitrary. If I were to expand the list by 16, on what basis could I include the North Branch Susquehanna as part of the Susquehanna main stem without including, for example, the Prairie Dog Town Fork Red River as part of the Red River main stem? I think the 34-river list is internally consistent, but if I expand to 50, how can I make the Susquehanna fit? How should main stem be defined? When I try out things like "Main stem in this list refers to a named stream segment defined by the coordinates of its end points, as determined by the United States Geological Survey or Natural Resources Canada," I imagine readers' eyes glazing over. Part of the problem of defining main stem is that every tributary has a main stem, at least down to the level of the smallest named tributary, and even saying that a nameless stream has no main stem seems arbitrary and illogical. When I was compiling the list, I said, OK, stream X undergoes a name change at such-and-such a confluence; therefore the stream with the different name is a different stream. In all 34 cases (I think), the USGS coordinates confirm this choice. However, in the case of the Susquehanna, it doesn't. I have not found an RS definition that works for all streams. Any ideas? Finetooth (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am fine with Susquehanna not being in the list (much as I love the river, it is not long enough). I do note that the USGS GNIS does not list the name "North Branch Susquehanna River" in its database here. Changing the number to 50 was just an idea, I figured top 50 was as arbitrary as longer than 500 miles (but imagine with uncertainties in published lengths that there might be some dispute as to which rivers made the top 50 cutoff or not). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I stand corrected. You are right about the GNIS, and, checking my road atlas and Google Maps here, I find that what I've been calling the North Branch is clearly labeled "Susquehanna River". I thought I had already checked the maps, but apparently I was simply working from (faulty) memory, a form of original research. I know the question here is not about including or not including the Susquehanna; in my mind it's about making sure that the definition of main stem makes sense. It's a relief, actually, to discover that the definition works for the Susquehanna. The West Branch is a tributary, but the North Branch is not. Finetooth (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Ruhrfisch for moving the posts to this page, and thanks to Ruhrfisch and Niagara for pointing out the problem's solution. Finetooth (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The USGS stream gauge page for Pennsylvania refers to the main stem of the Susquehanna for several stations above Sunbury - not sure if similar pages would be helpful for determining what is the main stem on other rivers. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. That is helpful. I often consult similar pages to find the gauges, but I hadn't thought to consult them for references to the main stems. The problem here was that I "knew" too much about the Susquehanna, whereas I knew nothing or next to nothing about the Gila or the Kuskokwim and had fewer preconceived notions about them. Finetooth (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)