Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers/Assessment

Template and categories
I've done a bit of hacking on the template, borrowing code from similar templates from other projects, to get it to do the categories correctly. I've also set up the category pages. I think most of them should be working now, so we can start using this as a worklist. w00t. -Kieran 18:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Paulins Kill
I was surfing around to look for a model for a river I am editing- and looked at the FA Paulins Kill. Could I ask a couple of questions. Looking at the criteria, I can't see how this can be FA. Help me understand! -ClemRutter (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no title geocoords- surely this is essential
 * The template is - isn't this deprecated- shouldn't it be ? Does this cause the problem above.
 * In lead, there is a link to Palatine Germans shouldn't it be Palatine Germans?
 * In lead, the water flow 76 cubic feet of water per second (2.15 m³/s) MOS states cu ft as shown in the Geobox. The Geobox though over links each unit.
 * In lead we have this paragraph. Flowing through rural sections of Sussex and Warren counties, the Paulins Kill and its surrounding valley are regarded as an excellent venue for fly fishing, hiking, other forms of recreation and observation of a multitude of species of birds and other wildlife. Isn't this POV? This is unreferenced, and vague. Is this good practice?
 * Culver's Lake, shouldn't red links be resolved?
 * Geology - there is a section called Geography and Geology- and a sub section Valley and watershed where some Geology is included. Isn't this a bit vague, shouldn't there be an explanation of how the four phases of the Appalachian Orogeny affected the river? According to the model article structure Geology is an advised top level section?
 * Geology -pre-Cambrian but isn't this Pre-Cambrian?
 * First off, the assessment of this article as WP:FA was done at WP:FAC. The basic criteria it needs to meet as an FA are outlined at WP:WIAFA. The only way to try and delist it is to nominate it at WP:FAR. The main editor for this article was User:ExplorerCDT who has not edited here since Feb. 2007. I watchlist it and revert vandalism and updated the infobox to Geobox. Now for a point by point response.

Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no FA requirement for title geocoords. You can certainly add it - see WP:BOLD
 * There are eight FA class River articles listed at Category:FA-Class River articles - all of them use Geobox River or the newer Geobox river. Either the Infobox or the Geobox is fine, I think the Geobox is better as it is more versatile.
 * Agree that it is a better link, but German Palatines was started after this made FA. Again feel free to be bold and update it.
 * The Manual of Style says at MOS:CONVERSIONS In the main text, give the main units as words and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses so this follows the MOS (spelling out cubic feet of water per second)
 * Per WP:LEAD references are not required in the lead, which should be a summary of the rest of the article. This seems to be in the Today section and is referenced there.
 * There is no requirement that an FA have no red links.
 * If you have reliable sources to expand the Geology section, please do so.
 * Agree that Pre-Cambrian is the wrong link and changed it to Precambrian - thanks,

PS I copied this to Talk:Paulins Kill too, as it is more likley to attract interested eyes there. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hudson River
I think the Hudson should get Mid or Low on the importance scale. I would reccomend Mid, though, because it is the biggest river in New York state, and the state's capital, Albany, and New York City both lie on it.

-- Rayqayza Dialga Weird 2210   20:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

C Class articles.
According to the table we have 29 C class articles- but no C-class definition. There must be a wonderful explanation! Looking at it another way we have 29 article size problems. Could someone reassess them, and leave detailed comments on what needs to be done to raise them all to a B. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. The explanation is fairly simple - the current river definitions were established before C-class was introduced Wikipedia wide, and there was no update to include the new class. The simplest thing to do is add a description of C-class to the definitions (I belive there is a boiler plate one somewhere) and pick an example. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * C Class is an article with a nearly B quality but is not yet suitably referenced. Shannon1  talk   contribs  01:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits to importance remarks
I've been assessing rivers recently and have found the remarks on this page about how to judge a river as top, high, mid, etc, not as helpful as could be. I'm about to edit them a little to try to improve things. Here's a couple issues I have. First is the comments about top rivers "pass through many countries", high rivers "pass through capital cites, have major catchment areas within a country", etc. Second, top rivers are "known to most educated persons in the world", high rivers are "known to most people in a given country", etc. This "known to people" criteria seems impossible to really know and, this being the English Wikipedia, biased toward rivers in North America and Europe. For example, the Columbia River is currently assessed as top importance. The Wei River or Huai River are both likely more significant, especially historically, and probably well known to more people. But they are in China. I assessed the Wei River as mid importance, but I think it should probably be high, except that most English Wikipedia users have probably not even heard of it. Anyway, so, I might take that criteria out. The "pass through many countries", "pass through capital cities", etc, criteria are problematic because counties differ in size. European rivers are much more likely to meet the top criteria than Chinese, Russian, and US rivers. Finally, I had to look up the word "mondial"! So anyway, just wanted to post here that I'm planning to make some edits to the assessment remarks. More on this later, have to run.

PS, I also added "GeoGroupTemplate"s to the assessment categories, so you can view maps of rivers by assessment parameters, see categories under Category:River articles by importance and others under Category:WikiProject Rivers articles, like Category:River articles needing infoboxes. Pfly (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists of rivers - importance assessment
There are quite a few List of ... articles that have not been given an importance assessment; the majority are Lists of rivers in a particular country or region. Many have been classed as NA, which seems incorrect as they all have some content. Many have not even been classed as List class articles. The current assessment criterion for lists for each category is given as: Also lists and registers of these rivers, this could be improved upon as follows; Thought it was worth checking here before making any changes, or reassessing any articles. Jokulhlaup (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Top - Global lists and registers of all rivers. Example: Lists of rivers
 * High - Lists and registers of rivers at a continental or national level. Example: List of rivers of Africa
 * Mid - Lists and registers of rivers at a regional or sub-national level. Example: List of rivers of Pennsylvania
 * Low - Lists and registers of rivers at a sub-regional or local level. Example: List of rivers of Orange County, California
 * Changes now made to assessment page. Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also added for Low Importance: This category also includes any article or list which is not primarily about rivers, but has been given a WP:Rivers project banner as it is about a related topic. Jokulhlaup (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment of non-river river-related articles
Just had a thought about adding non-river articles to the Rivers project. Clearly there are articles that are not specifically about a particularly river that are invariably related to rivers. Some example include instrumentation like stream and tide gauges, infrastructure like dams and inland ports, and terminology like meander and thalweg. The articles that I mentioned that have already been given the Wikiprojects template have been designated as mid-importance. Does that make sense all the time? Dams are pretty important as are stream gauges. --Curoi (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a previous discussion about this in 2014 here. The conclusion was not to include a Rivers project template when it was covered by another more specific project eg Dams, Bridges etc.River morphology articles are included so thanks for adding thalweg, I will remove the Rivers project from Dam though...Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)