Wikipedia:Peer review/List of longest streams of Minnesota/archive1

List of longest streams of Minnesota


I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it would make a great featured list for the Rivers and Minnesota projects. There are two other Lists of longest streams in U.S. states (Oregon and Idaho). This article on Minnesota's longest streams is comparable and has some additional features not in other articles. There is another page for List of rivers of Minnesota. I would be interested in comments that would help this article get to the point of a featured list.

Thanks, Talk to G Moore 22:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Zetana
I'm not too familiar with list articles or river articles, so I'm basing my comments mostly off the Oregon and Idaho FLs. Zetana (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC) A lot of the table work is straightforward but repetitive; I can help implement some of my suggestions if you wish. I can work on creating a streams map if you want as well, I have a bit of experience with working with these datasets. Zetana (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The list looks a bit awkward with three large maps taking up a large vertical space on the right. Could just have one map in the lede, and then show the other two in a separate section directly below, though not sure how well that alternative would look
 * Perhaps, two of the images could just be put in the gallery.  I think the watershed map is probably the most important for the lead section. There is a map link using GeoGroup that shows the mouth and source locations. -- Talk to G Moore 13:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A map gallery below the table could work, if I create a stream map it could go there also. Zetana (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The Idaho/Oregon FLs have a lede which covers (a) the important rivers/watersheds, and (b) some basic information/statistics about length/streamflow/etc., which seems like an adequate framework to use. There's some information about (b), but a lot of the info about (a) is in bullet lists and should be converted to prose instead.
 * Good suggestion. Should all the text then be in the lead section.  -- Talk to G Moore 13:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like that's what a lot of other Featured lists do (having most prose in a fairly long lede, followed by the table), but if that's not your preference then it could just be left in a "Streams" or similar section right above the Table. As long as it's all in written prose it should be fine Zetana (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The other FLs have all the "Streams" information in the lede; if that is a consideration of yours then perhaps merge the "Streams" section into the lede and just have the Table as the only other section
 * Good suggestion. -- Talk to G Moore 13:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I think the table could use a bit of work; in no particular order:
 * 2) Total length should just be numbers only, should move units to the column name. Separating miles and km into their own columns (as with Idaho) or rows (as with Oregon) would also improve readability
 * I used cvt template.  Would it be better to just take out the -mid and -long paramters and leave it in one column.  -- Talk to G Moore 13:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks good. Zetana (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) That cross symbol used to denote streams not entirely within the state could be moved into the length column (Oregon)
 * As long as it is at the end of the cell so sorting is not impacted, that would be fine. -- Talk to G Moore 13:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at the other FLs and see how they did it, will try changing this on the weekend if you don't mange to get around to it Zetana (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have the length of the sections of the rivers in Minnesota like one of the other FLs has, so I prefer to keep it in its own column so that at least you can sort on it.  Talk to G Moore 22:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Watershed area info would be nice (Oregon)
 * The top level watershed areas are in the text. We would have to find sourcing for the smaller watersheds.
 * Okay, I missed the top-level watersheds somehow, I think that's sufficient. Zetana (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Mouth elevation and coordinates should be separated into their own columns
 * Good suggestion. -- Talk to G Moore 13:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Is GNIS ID necessary?
 * I added it rather than have a separte GeoNames reference for every stream. It is a number that uniquely identifies every stream.  -- Talk to G Moore 13:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, makes sense. Zetana (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The other FLs have a map of the streams, do you think that would be helpful for this one?
 * The second image does provide a map of all or most of the streams.  If you have a way of pulling stream GIS data for Minnesota and making a tailored map that would be great.  The best I could do was the GeoGroup link. -- Talk to G Moore 13:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Any help that you could provide would be great. I would like to get this article to a Featured List state.  -- Talk to G Moore 13:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll see what I can do with the map, I'll probably get you a pre-vis by this weekend and we can go from there. Where did you get the information for the streams, was it mostly USGS? Zetana (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The primary sourceses were USGS's GeoNames and the Waters book. Other references are also cited.   -- Talk to G Moore 14:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I'll see if I can find anything. Zetana (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i've been really busy, I will get you a map tomorrow or tuesday and we can refine it from there. Zetana (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by TimK MSI
Thanks! --TimK MSI (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The "Total length" column header includes a source note that doesn't mention the length (it talks about coordinates etc.), and refers to the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS). I use GNIS fairly often, and usually that database does not include stream lengths. Per a sampling of some of the individual articles, the source for most of the lengths appears to be the National Hydrography Dataset. See Pipestone Creek (Big Sioux River tributary) for example: the length figure is attributed to "U.S. Geological Survey. National Hydrography Dataset high-resolution flowline data. The National Map, accessed March 30, 2011." (This is a very common citation for length in Wikipedia articles about rivers; I think most of the lengths and citations in this style were added by a single dedicated editor.) Anyway, the source info should be included here (it's definitely not GNIS in most cases). I see that the Oregon list provides an individual citation for each length figure. That would be a good practice here, and would help with any future editing disputes.
 * 2) Google Maps (given as a source in a few of the column headers) has some problems as a reliable source for information about rivers: It can be edited by the public, and it's easy to find many cases where the names of rivers are incorrect or missing entirely. I recommend attributing mouth/tributary information to The National Map instead (https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/). It's not perfect, but it generally aligns with GNIS definitions of individual rivers.
 * 3) If using the convert template, the "adj=mid|-long" setting should definitely be removed for a tabular display.
 * to ensure that they saw the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft of table
I came up with this format the table using what was done on the Oregon and Idaho lists. It puts the length and elevation in separate columns. It will take some time to redo the table, one row at a time. Can I do this in the article and leave a note that it is under construction? (Note: Currently, working on the reformatting at User:G._Moore/sandbox/temp_for_fixing)

Talk to G Moore 15:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)