*Please check AE/BE spelling and decide for one or the other (kilometre/meter...)
- Thanks. I found one "meter" in the lead and changed it to "metre" to match the form of the others. I don't see any more exceptions, but I may have looked at the article too many times now to see it afresh. Do you see any others that I missed?
Finetooth (
talk)
17:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Found another one, but only checked for "meter" and not any other Americanisms.
bamse (
talk)
20:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks. I found others, eventually, and I think now we have caught them all.
Finetooth (
talk)
22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- The table is a tiny bit too wide on my (smallish laptop) screen. Can it be fixed?
- I'm not sure if anything can be done since screens come in a wide variety of sizes and have variable settings. What works best for one setting doesn't seem to work best for another. Someone wiser than I might know of a way, but I don't.
Finetooth (
talk)
17:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Since there are so many columns, the only solution I can think of is to combine two columns (say "source/mouth coordinates". Anyway it is only slightly too wide and not a big problem.
bamse (
talk)
20:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- As I made further changes to the table, I moved the notes to a third line in each box, hoping that this might cut a little slack for the last column. Maybe it looks better now on your screen? I hope.
Finetooth (
talk)
22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Too many "rivers" in Mississippi River and Missouri River rivers.
- Good catch. Thank you. I have tightened the prose to eliminate the duplication.
Finetooth (
talk)
18:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- If Ruth Patrick referred to U.S. rivers, this fact should be mentioned: "...describing a table of high-discharge US rivers..." in my opinion. If she referred to non-US rivers, the whole paragraph is slightly less relevant and might be removed.
- She's mainly talking about U.S. rivers, so I have adopted your suggestion and changed the sentence to say, "... describing a table of high-discharge U.S. rivers".
Finetooth (
talk)
18:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- The main stem is "the primary downstream segment of a river, as contrasted to its tributaries", including lakes filled by those tributaries. Not sure whether lakes are included in the main stem or not (i.e. whether the last part of the sentence refers to "tributaries" or to "main stem").
- I changed the sentence to read: The main stem is "the primary downstream segment of a river, as contrasted to its tributaries", including lakes. Is that better?
Finetooth (
talk)
17:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks.
bamse (
talk)
20:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I have since rewritten much of the lead and added to the definition of "main stem" in hopes of making this part more clear.
Finetooth (
talk)
22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- In the table header: "images"->"image" (possibly also "coordinates"->"coordinate") since other headers are singular.
- I changed "images" to "image" since each row has only one and changed the lead in two places to reflect this change. It might be awkward to change "states" and "provinces" to "state(s)" and "provinces(s)" to cover all situations, but I can change them in this way if you think it would be better. "Coordinates" in this list refers to a matched pair and has to be plural.
Finetooth (
talk)
19:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks.
bamse (
talk)
20:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- In/in the "States, provinces" column... It is in fact a "States, provinces, and images" column.
- Another good catch. I have changed the lead to match the column heading.
Finetooth (
talk)
18:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- As far as I know, every table row should be wikilinked as if it stood on its own, i.e., provinces/states should be wikilinked in every row.
- Thanks. I have now linked them all.
Finetooth (
talk)
19:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Are the parentheses in the list's title necessary?
- I changed the title in response to
Nergaal's suggestion above and thought it was an improvement over the former title.
Ruhrfisch said above that he was OK with either title. I wouldn't say the parentheses are absolutely necessary, but I can imagine a reviewer asking what a "United States by main stem" might mean. I think the parentheses prevent that.
Finetooth (
talk)
17:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- OK.
bamse (
talk)
20:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Add percentage to note 13 for consistency.
- Percentage added.
Finetooth (
talk)
20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Some images show very little river (e.g. Tennessee River, Little Missouri River). Aren't there any better images? No picture of the White River (South Dakota) available?
- The image choice is partly a matter of taste. I looked for high-quality images, for example, rather than just using images showing the most river, and I tried to include variety from image to image. In the case of the White River (South Dakota), there are no images on the Commons or in the English Wikipedia, and I found none via Flickr. I would take one myself, but the White River is far far away.
Finetooth (
talk)
20:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- OK
bamse (
talk)
20:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Not too fond about the equation in not 15. I think it should be stated clearly which of the three numbers of that equation referst ot the length of the Red River according to Kammerer.
- I agree. The equation was clumsy. I have replaced it with a more direct sentence: "Kammerer gives the length as 1,290 miles (2,080 km)".
Finetooth (
talk)
20:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Not sure why you mention the sources in prose ("The sources for length data include...") since they already appear in the references section.
- The lead is to be an inviting summary of the whole article. The sentences you mention are summations. It's possible to ferret the information out by looking at the references, but the summary presents the essence in a single place.
Finetooth (
talk)
18:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Not sure what information the sentence: The table below lists rivers with long main stems, the end points of which are defined by two sets of coordinates. conveys other than that the table lists the longest main stem rivers.
- It adds the additional information about the coordinates defining the end points. The precision of the coordinates eliminates the guesswork about just exactly where the main stem begins and ends, according to the USGS or the Canadian equivalent. With some rivers, it's pretty easy to guess the approximate source and mouth points, but with others, like the St. Lawrence, it's not easy. Not only is locating the source point of the St. Lawrence more than a map-reading problem, so is locating the mouth point, since the river enters a gulf long before reaching the ocean. The coordinates (assigned by an authority of some sort) define precisely which stream segments the list is referring to.
Finetooth (
talk)
17:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I see. Initially I thought it was some pseudo-scientific fluff as it was not clear to me that the sentence referred to the coordinates in the table. Maybe you could add something like the explanation above to the text!?
bamse (
talk)
20:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Now that you've put it that way, I've had a change of heart. The offending sentence isn't necessary and is murky in a way that I had not considered. I simply removed it, which I think is what you were suggesting earlier.
Finetooth (
talk)
23:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I think it would make sense to order states/provinces from source to mouth. At least for the Rio Grande this is not the case. Haven't checked the others.
- I agree, and I think they all are, including the Rio Grande. The Rio Grande begins in Colorado, flows through New Mexico, borders New Mexico and Texas for a short way and then becomes an international border. Texas is on the north, and the four Mexican states are on the south, in the order given. Am I missing something?
Finetooth (
talk)
19:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- If they were ordered, I believe that Texas and Tamaulipas (those with superscript "m") should be closer together.
bamse (
talk)
20:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- They can't be closer together without distorting the source-to-mouth sequence. I understand why this is confusing, but I don't think the confusion can be helped.
File:Riogranderivermap.png shows why. Texas is so big that it precedes all of the Mexican states and also borders all of them, to the very end of the river; it is third in order and also last in order.
Finetooth (
talk)
23:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Oops, indeed. Didn't realize that Texas is that biiig.
bamse (
talk)
00:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Use either "cu m/cu ft" or "m3 /ft3". Also you mix "miles" (spelled out) and "km" (abbreviated), etc. (for instance in note 4).
- It's my understanding that in geoboxes and tables the units are best abbreviated, but in the main text and notes the preferred method is to spell out the primary unit and abbreviate the secondary unit. I have tried to do this consistently throughout the article.
Finetooth (
talk)
20:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Sounds reasonable as for the second part. But why use two types of abbreviations ("cu m/cu ft" or "m3 /ft3")?
bamse (
talk)
20:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
bamse (
talk)
11:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- You are quite right, and I simply did not see them on the first go-round. I entered the quantities and units by hand in the table rows and used the shortest possible common abbreviations to save space. In the text and notes, I used the {{
convert}} template, which is much more efficient than entering everything by hand. The template is programmed to spell out and abbreviate in just one way, and it's not always the shortest common way. So, yes, the two sets of abbreviations differ from one another. I can change all of the notes and text abbreviations by hand, if you insist, but my feeling is that no readers will be confused by the two sets of abbreviations since they are both common and mean the same things. Let me know if you disagree, and I will change them.
Finetooth (
talk)
23:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- It would be nice to have the same abbreviation everywhere but it is not essential as for me. Only change it if you feel bored. I'd vote support now, but will have a second (quick) look over it in a couple of days. I am pretty sure that it is FL-quality. One quick question: Why does the first column have a grey background?
bamse (
talk)
00:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I have now changed them all in addition to switching from metric first to metric second throughout the article.
Finetooth (
talk)
22:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you for your kind words and your helpful suggestions. I'm not bored. Your question about the grey background is a good one and not something I'd thought about. I tend to imitate things that look good to me, and I certainly did not invent the table parameters. I cast about for something that looked appealing and then used it, making modifications where necessary as I went along. I can't say that I consciously saw the grey before you mentioned it; it just seemed natural. Do you think I should figure out how to make it go away? Do you know how to do that?
Finetooth (
talk)
01:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- As for me the background is fine. I was just wondering whether there was a reason for it. Honestly looking at the table code, I don't know how it got there. Maybe through ! scope="row"!? If so, don't remove it since it is important for
WP:ACCESS.
bamse (
talk)
01:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
- OK. Thanks.
Finetooth (
talk)
04:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
reply
|