Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

WikiProject Rivers (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Source for Watershed information?Edit

White Deer Hole Creek is a FA and is being reviewed for meeting FA criteria (Larrys Creek was a FA, and was delisted recently as part of the same review of older FAs). Both articles had watershed information from here, which included information like the watershed's area, population in the previous US census, and area / percentages of the watershed by forest or agriculture, as well as what portion of the county was in the watershed (White Deer Hole Creek drains parts of 3 counties). This information is no longer available from the Chesapeake Bay program website, and the WebArchive links are to "URL not found" pages. Many year ago I emailed the Chesapeake Bay program asking where they got the information. Their reply was basically it was easy to get without giving me a source. My hope is that there is a database somewhere or website that I am not aware of, but someone here knows about. Anyone have any ideas? The two most important pieces of information for now would be 2020 census population of the watersheds, and area in each by forest, agriculture, built up. Thanks! - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ruhrfisch: I can't help with population, but this page has land use percentages and other useful info. You can get these reports for any U.S. stream segment via the EPA's WATERS GeoViewer: For the watershed, select the lowermost stream segment (at the mouth) and click "Watershed report." Just make sure you're looking at the figures for the entire watershed, and not the much smaller catchment for the stream segment alone. Hope this helps —TimK MSI (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks so much TimK MSI! This is very helpful and much appreciated. The data there (like total basin area) also matches what the article already has. Does anyone else have a source for watershed populations? 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC) - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:List of longest rivers in EurasiaEdit

I recently submitted Draft:List of longest rivers in Eurasia for review, but it was rejected as it "does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own". That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as there already exist List of longest rivers of Asia and List_of_rivers_of_Europe#Rivers_of_Europe_by_length, and Eurasia is bigger than both Asia and Europe. Can anyone advise? Stara Marusya (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

as there are lists of the longest rivers of Europe and Asia already, do we really need a duplication of that information? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will add that the list of longest rivers in Europe is just part of the quite comprehensive List of rivers of Europe, which has a fair amonnt of explicative text as well as a wealth of details about the rivers and their basins. I would suggest that List of longest rivers of Asia could be merged into List of rivers of Asia, and the latter article could be expanded along the lines of List of rivers of Europe. - Donald Albury 14:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea but that still doesn't require yet another list of the rivers of the combined continents as proposed by Stara Marusya. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was offering an idea for another project to work on instead of the Eurasian one. I find expanding/improving an existing article as satisfying as creating one. Donald Albury 16:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So the Eurasian and Asian lists would be better merged into their respective articles, like the European one?Stara Marusya (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summaryEdit

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Kept to
(overall 0.62)
Remaining to review
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProjectEdit

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek tributary)
  2. Riverina
  3. White Deer Hole Creek

Requested move at Talk:Liberdade River (Xingu River tributary)#Requested move 15 February 2023Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Liberdade River (Xingu River tributary)#Requested move 15 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 06:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original researchEdit

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rschen7754 15:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The RFC, now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, has questions related to notability. --Rschen7754 06:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!Edit

Please note that St. Lawrence River, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI teamReply[reply]

Naming of Swedish riversEdit

(Actually) a while ago a user moved a couple of Swedish rivers from X River to X (river), articles now at Torne (river), Ronneby (river), Byske (river), Åby (river). The Rivers where not disambiguators but translations of their name in Swedish (both Finnish and Swedish in one case), where they are named Village/Settlement/Other geographical element+ån/älven (the V/S/Oge River). Torne is in Encyclopedia Britannica as Torne River, Byske and Åby has English Google hits as Byske River and Åby River. I don't think this was the meaning with the section "Naming" on the project page, can I move them back? Kaffet i halsen (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was discussed a while back. American sources like Britannica frequently used "Foo River" because it follows their national system of naming; likewise British and other national sources often use "River Foo". The outcome of the discussion, however, was to follow the very common English practice of just referring to European rivers as the "Foo" and disambiguating if necessary. Bermicourt (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I understand for Central European rivers, but in these cases the chosen names are not natural in English (Google gives results from the following two categories), as translated to English (Torne River, Ronneby River, Byske River, Åby River) or in Swedish or other languages spoken where they are (sv:Torne älv, fi:Tornionjoki, sv:Ronnebyån, sv:Byskeälven, sv:Åbyälven) Kaffet i halsen (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is perfectly normal and very common English to refer to rivers as "the Thames" or "the Ronneby". Indeed I looked up Ronneby on Ngram Viewer and it was the most common form. Bermicourt (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ronneby is a town that Ronnebyån floats through, so "the Ronneby" gives you plenty of hits for Ronneby the town through the Ronneby bloodbath, Ronneby declaration, and the Ronneby conference. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure why you have a problem with this. "Foo (river)" is entirely acceptable under the guidelines and overwhelmingly the most common form for European rivers. And two of your examples, Torne (river) and Åby (river), just need to be moved to their redirects, Torne and Åby. "the Byske" is more common that the other forms and "the Byske river" is the most common combination - none of the others register. So I'm not sure why you're pushing for a North American naming system for Swedish rivers when it currently follows the same convention as the rest of Europe. Bermicourt (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not pushing any North American naming system, I just found it strange seeing them differing from other Category:Rivers of Sweden by county and wanted to see why. It is like Ötztaler Ache would be at Öztaler (river) or Öztal (river). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project-independent quality assessmentsEdit

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed refactoring of geographic feature notabilityEdit

We are discussing a proposal to refactor the guidelines for geographic feature notability. Please feel free to join in the discussion of this proposal. — hike395 (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]