Talk:Drina River

Clean up

Why does it need clean up? PajaBG 23:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was obviously written by someone who was not a native English speaker. It does not sound natural.--Mo-Al 04:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put the cleanup tag back. This article still needs cleanup. It is written in a very awkward style, and contains long lists of trivial information. --Mo-Al 21:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I was the one who copyedited and cleaned the article up and removed the tag a week ago. I am not a native speaker, but have discussed the issue with the style with PajaBG. Would you suggest some particular work that needs to be done? Also, the article doesn't seem to contain any lists, are you referring to the listing of villages, regions, artificial lakes and so on? If yes, I would not name these "trivial", but simply a somewhat more detailed description of the river's course, and I see nothing wrong with it. Thanks in advance! Todor Bozhinov → 10:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A list of all of the cities the river passes through seems excessive; look at Euphrates, it's path is described, but without much fluff (so to speak).--Mo-Al 23:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend pruning some of the description of the path of the river, and rewriting some of the text to sound more natural. --Mo-Al 08:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told some of my friends in England and Canada to check this article, since I am not a native speaker, and except for the few minor corrections they said there's nothing wrong with it, quite the contrary. So I guess it's all the matter of style, you not finding it suitable for your personal likings and literate style, and I don't think that deserves a clean up tag. You just correct what you think should be corrected.

As for the description, this is the way Wikipedia works. All of the articles grow bigger and more detailed. The Euphrates entry here began as just ONE sentence and it will most certainly continue to grow, and I think it should especially with the regard of the Euphrates importance in the history of mankind. For example, Britannica online's article on Euphratis-Tigris has 14 pages. The more informations, the better. Wikipedia offers so many possibilities and what would be the point of turning it into another source of abridged or digest info. PajaBG 20:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd agree that the English issues have been worked out at this point, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Mo-Al 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL...I agree, but...only villages are listed, not the phone numbers of their villagers (white pages) or their companies and farms (yellow pages) or prices in the tourist resorts along the river (travel guide)...so I don't think it fits there PajaBG 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know how many cities the Drina passes, but I seriously doubt the list is complete. Besides, I don't see why much of the information is notable. Probably a map is in order.--Mo-Al 02:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]