Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the
good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a
good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the
good article instructions.)
Short description: Natural flowing freshwater stream
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
River article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
Talk:River is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use
geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
This article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write
neutral and
well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly
categorized. Read
Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the
project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography articles
This article 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Regrettably rivers are widely used for waste disposal in several parts of the world. Wikipedia records what has been said about subjects, not how we would like them to be. VelellaVelella Talk 20:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)reply
A Common Misconception?
It describes "all rivers flow N-S" as a 'common misconception'. In my half century on this planet, nearly half of which are in education, I have encountered a lot of misconceptions but never heard of this. What is the definition of 'common' being employed here. The sources listed a few blogs; hardly encyclopaedic. 
2001:8003:F231:2501:E41C:D857:B016:7B0F (
talk)
11:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I guess for context I was asked to find consensus for
[1] this version of the article. I am def happy to collab and take criticism on the article… I didn’t realize it would be a controversial since the live version has a lot of unsourced content and is a little barebones.
ForksForks (
talk)
12:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There has been a deal of debate about the content of this article in the past. We did, at one stage have a reasonable version where the images reflected the text and demonstrated the progression of a river from headwaters through tumuluous stream right down to the vast deltas. Over the years that has been lost somewaht and the article has collected a fair degree of unsourced contant. I would be happy to work with any editors to improve it but a major re-structuring without discussion was not appropriate. In general it is easier to first get general agreement to the shape and then implement that one sentence or section at a time to allow for debate. A massive change is impossible to work with, and few editors have the time to work though such a change to check that all the important points have been included, taht the sources are good and support the article statements, and that it follows a logical encyclopaedic structure. Regards VelellaVelella Talk 13:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I had looked at the talk page archive, but it seemed like the link you're referring to did not attract a lot of work or discussion. I would understand going sentence by sentence if this was a controversial article with a lot of active maintainers, but that is not really what I see. It's an article that has been allowed to gain tons of cruft and unsourced sections over time without anyone bothering to revert it.
An article like this (in my opinion) does require research and also a lot of writing, which is what I've done, and I have been careful to cite everything and read a lot and put a careful, balanced article together. If I were to submit it all individually here for approval I would be very surprised if I could get the same work done, and if anyone would actually show up to debate. My understanding with wp is that we should be bold with such changes so we don't get bogged down like this.
If you have a specific critique of the new version, I get it, but this sounds more like you don't fell comfortable reviewing the whole thing, which is understandable. My plan has been to take this to GAN as well as show it to other editors (see my recent work on
Island) to get some experienced eyes on the topic, and I think I was successful with this approach before.
ForksForks (
talk)
14:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Be bold, sure, but please see
WP:BRD which deals with just such a sitiation as this. Regards VelellaVelella Talk
Nothing here seems to me to justify halting work on this article. Whole sections, and many paragraphs, are completely uncited, so any editor should feel free either to attempt to cite the existing text (always a risky manoeuvre) or to find suitable sources and to modify the text according to the sources, surely an uncontroversial action. I'd suggest that editing should proceed a paragraph or small section at a time, with the edit comments stating "added source Bloggs 1986", "rewritten using Smith 2021" and the like. That should be hard to disagree with.
Then if there are any specific difficult decisions to be taken, such as replacing favourite images, they can be discussed here, or the tried-and-trusted BRD process can be attempted on those, one at a time.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
08:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have added a small subsection to verify content in the lead, and redid the 'source of rivers' section. Propose adding to this section to illustrate drainage basins.
ForksForks (
talk)
18:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd like to propose a new lead image. The Elwha River photo is nice, but I think I'd like to show a photo of a more major river, in higher fidelity. The cloud cover in the current photo gives the photo a dimmed appearance, something with some visual appeal would be nice. I like this photo of the Missouri River. However, if people have other ideas, please share!
ForksForks (
talk)
13:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply