Jump to content

Talk:Hudson River/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Inconsistent data about the source

The sidebox has Lake Tear of the Clouds as the Hudson River's source, but the article Lake Tear of the Clouds states, that "the Hudson River officially begins several miles southwest of Marcy at Henderson Lake (1,814 feet)."

There is no article about a Henderson Lake, but the article Henderson, New York lists in subsection "Geographical features and locations" a Henderson Pond, which might have been referred to as Henderson Lake.

So, we have 3 options for the true source: Lake Tear of the Clouds vs. Henderson Lake vs. Henderson Pond.

Can someone familiar with the topic clean up the cited articles? --Gulliveig 06:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to get back to you so late ... When it is said that the Hudson "officially" begins at Henderson Lake, that means where it starts appearing on maps. But a river's source is its highest pond source, and for that reason Lake Tear has been so recognized. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been reopened on Talk:List of fixed crossings of the Hudson River#beginning --Cstaffa (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


I don't know if we have some Henderson Lake boosters here, or what, but I've twice now had my edits reverted with no explanation. The origin of the river is NOT Henderson Lake. The citation shows coordinates at the exact location of the confluence of the outlet of the lake (which per the discussion in the "fixed crossings" article is Indian Pass Brook) with Calamity Brook. I'm going to make the edits again. Archons (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I support your edits. There are conflicting claims about the source and the discussion above reached a consensus and went with the USGS citation for the source. If someone wants to reopen that discussion and give us a good reason to change they should reply here. Kmusser (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Note the comment about "source" versus "beginning" in the article listed by User:Cstaffa, above. - Denimadept (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Miked1992 continues to make his edits and apparently refuses to discuss here. Now he seems to be insisting that Google Maps and Mapquest are the authoritative sources. I give up. Unless someone else wants to fight this battle, he can keep his misinformation in the article. Archons (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have checked several websites and the Google Maps and Mapquest. I know for certain that it is Henderson lake. Miked1992 talk 11:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read the discussion at [[1]], there are conflicting sources for the source of the Hudson and that discussion says why editors went with USGS as the government was deemed the most reliable source. If you disagree with the logic there, tell us why? Google and Mapquest are both drawing their labels from OpenSteetMap, which anyone can edit, making their reliability somewhat questionable. I note that Google changes how that stream is labeled depending on your zoom level and whether you have the satellite view turned on or off. Kmusser (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
After the apparent consensus here NOT to use Henderson Lake as the source, this is in fact what the infobox reads now!! I am going to clarify this properly to (hopefully) avoid further conflict here while at the same time provide full information. Castncoot (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

River Source

Although the Article says that the source is at the confluence of Indian pass Brook and Calamity Brook and that may seem like a good possibility, I have read maps published in the last few days that show it flowing directly out of Henderson Lake. So I am currently undecided, although I am leaning towards Henderson lake--Miked1992 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Mike DeNicola--Miked1992 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done resolved. - Denimadept (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Lists in the article

I don't think that the lists of tributaries and towns on the river should be in the article. I have been searching through a bunch of articles and have not found other river articles with similar lists. Perhaps the lists should be put into separate list articles. I am open to comments. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of such lists, but they are mentioned in the article guidelines for Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers. They do help in an undeveloped article, as it allows information to be easily added, but for a more mature article such as this, they should be incorporated into the Geobox or the section on the course or basin. Another way is to have a collapsed list, which keeps the information in the article...Jokulhlaup (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I have not seen lists in any major articles about rivers. I am of the opinion that the list should either be split into a new article or deleted altogether. Its true that the Wikiproject mentions lists, but I have not seen it used in practice that often. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


Creation of article "Pollution of the Hudson River"

For reasons described at Talk:Pollution of the Hudson River#About this article I created the article Pollution of the Hudson River. I have deleted the content in this article which was covering this topic and replaced the content which was here with the lede of that pollution article and a link to the pollution article.

I propose that anyone with comments post them at that article, because multiple articles had been covering the topic of "pollution of the Hudson River", and I likewise have directed them all to that article. It is best to post there because this new pollution article affects several articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Description of contamination removed

An IP user removed content on the composition of the contamination in the river here with the edit reason "Implies responsibility". Any responsibility implied may be in the mind of the IP user, because the content only described the content of the contamination so that readers might know what congeners might be present in the river. SageRad (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Addendum...

I am talking about your web page “The Hudson as Fjord” at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_River

I was recently at a meeting where the subject of the difference between a river and a fjord came up. As the son and the half-brother of cartographers I started to explain this difference, and being a New Yorker I used the Hudson as an example of a river, when I was immediately contradicted and told that the Hudson is a fjord. When I persisted and tried to explained the Hudson’s tidal character, one of those present used his phone to display your web page as definite proof that the Hudson could only be described as a “fjord.” He also displayed another web page that could lead to this conclusion at:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/66611.html

If the Hudson River were truly a "fjord" as suggested in these articles, forcing all its downstream waters back into the Atlantic and blocking the passage of upstream water, the cities of Troy, Schenectady, Albany, Saratoga, and Glen's Falls along with all surrounding communities and coastal areas would have long ago been under many meters of water, creating a vast and expanding upstate lake. What I believe the author meant to convey is that a section of the river between Bear Mountain and Storm King bears glacial similarities to a fjord and that twice each day high tides create a temporary fjord-like situation which blocks upstream water, possibly for no more than a few hours each time, but then during each day's two low tides the blockage is broken, letting upstate water flow through and find its way through the mouth of the river into the sea. I believe the expressions "fjord-like" or perhaps "resembling a fjord" would be more correct in describing these constantly shifting currents of water.

A more correct description of these differences is that a river necessarily has a source and a mouth. The source is usually at high altitudes and/or among mountains, the mouth is at close to sea level, sometimes forming a delta. Rivers “flow” because of this difference in altitude, obeying the law of gravity. A fjord is however an arm of the sea, neither end of a fjord can be described a a source or a mouth, both are necessarily at sea level, and movements within a fjord are caused by the wind, ocean currents, or glacial irregularities below the surface. By this definition the East River and Harlem River can be described as fjords, but not the Hudson.

very best!

alexander gross language@sprynet.com

Hi Alexander Gross. The page you started is meant to be a good article review, which is different from discussing the content of the article such as the river being a fjord or not. Unless you meant this as a GA review, I will move this thread back to the general talk page in the appropriate spot, where the discussion can continue. Details on the Good Article Nomination process can be found at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions.
With regards to the content of your post, I can see where you are coming from to an extent. However, the Hudson River is at sea level all the way north to Troy, New York. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation also considers the Hudson to be a fjord. [2] Other sources seem to say that the valley is a fjord. Either way, if you can find sources to back up your point that the Hudson is not a fjord, the article can be changed to reflect that. I am curious where this discussion will go, and thank you for bringing this to our attention. Cheers, PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Let me add the important distinction that a river contains fresh water arising in its higher reaches, while a fjord is necessarily salt water, reflecting its origin in the sea. I find similar fjord-like comparisons for the Nile and the Congo, though neither is commonly referred to as a fjord. The Thames, Seine, Rhine, Mississippi, St Lawrence, Amazon, and Zambezi are not listed as fjordlike, though this does not mean there is no tidal influx at all.

best!

alex

24.215.177.84 (talk) 08:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Alex Gross July 7, 2017

Could a fjord be part of a river, and the other part be a freshwater section? I thought the Hudson was referred to as fjord-like due to glacial influence during the ice age. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hudson River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

@Ɱ: I'm REALLY not interested in getting into another edit war and shouting match with you. The decision has been made to replace {{Geobox}} with {{Infobox river}}. You can see the decision here and all the discussions on Template talk:Infobox river. Now if there was information lost, that DOES need to be addressed. Rather than just reverting my changes, could you elaborate on what was lost? I am more than happy to fix any mistakes but I need you to elaborate on what the problem is. @MSGJ, TimK MSI, and Shannon1: can you chime in here? You all have been super helpful with pointing out issues with the process. M I want to re-emphasize that if I mistakenly deleted information, that does need to be corrected and I appreciate you catching it. Just need to know what the issue is. Thanks in advance! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Will comment details after work or tomorrow. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I am one of the other primary editors on this page. Honestly, I have not paid too much attention to the infobox debate, which I barely knew was even ongoing. I don't think the average Wikipedia reader cares about what infobox is used, let alone knowing that templates even exist. That being said, changing templates will remove some data points that are pretty useful. My question is this: what is the best way to see what data points differ between each infobox? I need to see the differences before making any further comment on what I prefer. Additionally, is there any way to add the popular features from Geobox into Infobox River during the merging process? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@PointsofNoReturn: please join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox river. You should find all the information you need there. Can you elaborate on what you mean by popular features? Might be best to start a thread on the talk page for infobox about your concerns. Either way, please {{ping}} me in your message so I'm sure to see it. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Differences include:
  • Depth [left out of Infobox]
  • Average discharge [left out of Infobox]
  • Discharge elsewhere (average) [this displays only halfway in Infobox; it's not clear it's an avg at Green Island, nor is the actual discharge rate displayed]
Thanks for working with me here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 00:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ɱ: so I fixed the last 2. Those were just mistakes in my script. As for depth, that is a tricky one. The issue is that {{geobox}} had no real definition for what "depth" was... With {{Infobox river}} we now have |depth_min=, |depth_avg= & |depth_max=. The only thing worse that removing information from the infobox would be putting in inaccurate info. The old value was 61.6 m. I don't know if that is a max, min or average so I don't want to just throw it back in the Infobox. Would you mind looking into that? :-) --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay thanks! Also - a CTRL-F would do the trick - "The Hudson River is 315 miles (507 km) long, with depths of 30 feet (9.1 m) for the stretch south of the Federal Dam, dredged to maintain the river as a shipping route. Some sections there are around 160 feet deep,[19] and the deepest part of the Hudson, known as "World's End" (between the US Military Academy and Constitution Island) has a depth of 202 feet (62 m).[17]" ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ɱ: but control F is so much workkkkk. :-p --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@PointsofNoReturn: @Zackmann08: @Ɱ: Chiming in here really quick, we have been having such issues on other river articles as well. I don't believe that information should be scrubbed simply because it's "too much work". I was one of the original editors who opposed the Geobox -> infobox conversion but later tentatively supported it, based on the assumption that it would be done without widespread loss of information. Let's either do this correctly or not do it at all. Shannon [ Talk ] 21:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok Shannon well we are doing this, that decision has been made at 2 TFDs now. Second, the but control F is so much workkkkk was obviously a joke. The only information that was "lost" here was the depth. It was removed from the infobox during conversion because the depth was non-specific. Ɱ did some research and found an accurate value to insert into the infobox. There is simply no way around that. The value that used to be in the infobox was non-specific. It was just a generic depth. An alternative that we could do is add a generic |depth= to the infobox but as has been discussed that is a meaningless value. We are also removing |population= from the infobox because that has no meaning for a river... If there is information you think is being lost or improperly addressed, then please discuss it on the template's talk page. But just throwing up your hands and saying "I opposed this from the start and clearly we shouldn't do it" doesn't help anyone. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I know that one "depth" parameter may seem insignificant, but I only pledged my support at the TFD because I thought the transition would be done with care to make sure things like this didn't happen. Although what Ɱ did is nice, not every river article is on someone's watchlist. Therefore it is you that has the responsibility to address these ambiguous cases, rather than just delete because it's not initially clear what parameter it belongs to (which may verge on Unexplained removal of content.) Shannon [ Talk ] 00:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Shannon1: lets get a few things straight. First, this happening is not conditional on your support. You have so far been very helpful and for that I thank you. But whether or not you support the transition frankly doesn't matter. So what your rationale for "pledging support" is irrelevant. That being said, I have greatly appreciated the concerns you have raised and I would like to continue to work with you. So lets talk about the issue.
It is not possible for an automated script of any kind to take a generic "depth" and determine whether that information is an average, a minimum or a maximum. So that is not happening. My script has been updated so that any page with a depth value is currently being skipped. But it should be noted that removing it is nowhere close to unexplained content removal.
This is difficult to explain so let me trying to do a better job of it. On {{geobox}} (which was a trainwreck of a template) we have a value that was poorly defined. This would be akin to having a |temperature= parameter for an {{Infobox settlement}}. Temperature of what? When? Where? So when we are converting over to a new template, some values are going to have to be manually redone. There is no way around that. Additionally, there are values that are going to be removed. {{Geobox}} had support for |best_access=, |timezone=, |postal_code=, |area_code= and a whole host of other parameters. Based on your logic, you could also argue that removing an area code from the template is unexplained content removal but the fact is that the value has no business being in an Infobox about a river. I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that...
Now you make a great point about the depth! I don't want to just summarily delete data. Particularly in the case of an article like this one where that information is readily available. I appreciate Ɱ taking the time to track down the value and in this case, that was the right approach. But lets take an article like Agriș River (Nera). It doesn't have a depth in the Geobox, but for arguments sake, lets say that it did. No references, no "avg", "min" or "max". Just a numeric value. What do you expect me or anyone else to do? This is not a rhetorical question, nor is it me trying to be a pain. I'm being 100% serious. In my opinion if there is a value given with no context, then it should just be removed. If an accurate value can be located then by all means add it, and I agree we should check the article to see if that value is readily available. But if it isn't... Not sure what you expect? A depth parameter with no context needs to be removed.
So far you have been super helpful and have raised some valid concerns. Hopefully that dialog can continue. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Zackmann08: I'm sorry if I did not state some things clearly. I am just hoping that these conversions go through with the least amount of impact possible to existing articles, and I get what you're saying with values that are unclear or presented out of context. In this case I think adding a {{clarify}} or {{citation needed}} while defaulting to |avg_depth= would be a possible compromise. Of course I know I have no more say in this transition than anybody else; I was just pointing out I'm one of those river editors who was strongly opposed to begin with, and honestly still prefer geobox (or an infobox identical in appearance to geobox). But I'm trying to help constructively, not sit and make a fuss about it.
Since this issue isn't limited to the "depth" field though we should probably limit further discussion to the actual Template talk:Infobox river. Thanks for the thorough response, Shannon [ Talk ] 09:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
@Shannon1: you've raised some excellent points and while you and I don't agree most of the time, I really value your feedback. I've been dealing with a number of editors who are NOT being constructive and who ARE just sitting and making a fuss about it. Unfortunately and unfairly, you and Ɱ have both received a bit of my frustration with that. You are both being constructive, I just get tired of so many people objecting instead of helping. Need to take a step back. You make a good point about {{clarify}}. I have a thought... What if I wrote a script that would generate a list of all pages that use {{geobox}} and have a non-null value for |depth=? Lets start by seeing what kind of numbers we are looking at? There are currently just under 12,000 {{Geobox}} articles left. Let us see how many of them have a depth. It MIGHT be practical to just go through the list and manually update them. I'll work on generating the list later. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I like that idea, determining how many non-null depth parameters are out there. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Names

"Various stretches of the river have their own historical names, many created by early Dutch explorers and settlers. ...These names include, from north to south: the Great Chip Reach, Tappan Reach, Haverstroo Reach, Seylmakers' Reach, Crescent or Cook's Reach, Hoge's or High Reach, Martyr's or Martelaire Reach, Fisher's Reach, Lange Rack or Long Reach, Vasterack or Vaste Reach, Kleverack or Claverack, Backerack or Baker's Reach, Jan Playsier's Reach, and Hart's or Hunter's Reach." This lists the sections "from north to south", but should it read "south to north"? Lange Rack and Claverack are both north of Tappan and Haverstraw. Asking for a friend. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You are right that the names are from south to north, not north to south. I changed the article text to reflect your critique. Thank you for your input. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
A few of the names cited by Arthur Adams for Hudson River reaches are erroneous or unsupported by original sources. Adams' list is based upon an embellished list published by Wallace Bruce in 1873. Consulting the original colonial Dutch charts reveal that the Dutch did not name or designate every stretch of the river as a “reach” per se. Primarily, the trickier sections were named. Based upon the available evidence, I suggest editing the "Names" paragraph about the Hudson River reaches to read as follows:
The tidal Hudson is unusually straight for a river, and the earliest colonial Dutch charts of the Hudson River designated the narrow, meandering stretches as racks, or reaches. These names included the four “lower reaches” through the Hudson River Highlands (Seylmakers rack, Cocks rack, Hoogh rack, and Vosserack) plus the four “upper reaches” from Inbocht Bay to Kinderhook (Backers rack, Jan Pleysiers rack, Klevers rack, and Harts rack). A ninth reach was described as the “the long Reach” by the Englishman Robert Juet and designated as the Langerack by the Dutch. An embellished (and partly erroneous but commonly cited) list of “The Old Reaches” was published in a tourist guidebook for steamboat passengers in the nineteenth century.
Citations for "earliest colonial Dutch charts": “519 Map of a part of New Netherland, in addition to the newly discovered country, baye with drye rivers, laying at a height of 38 to 40 degrees, by yachts called Onrust, skipper Cornelis Hendricx, van Munnickendam,” [?, 1616], Map, http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/onderzoeken/archief/4.VEL/invnr/519/file/NL-HaNA_4.VEL_519.
Joan Vinckeboons, Noort Rivier in Niew Neerlandt, [?, 1639], Map, https://www.loc.gov/item/2003623406/, Library of Congress.
Citation for "the long Reach": Juet, Robert, "The third Voyage of Master HENRIE HVDSON," Haklvytvs posthumus, or, Pvrchas his Pilgrimes, Volume 3, Chapter 16, edited by Samuel Purchas, London, H. Fetherston, 1625, page 594, line 56, http://international.loc.gov/service/rbc/rbdk/d0403/06370594.jpg.
Citation for "The Old Reaches": Wallace Bruce, The Hudson River by Daylight, (New York: J. Featherston, 1873), page 21, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Hudson_River_by_Daylight/Bn07AQAAMAAJ.
For a lengthier explanation, please see "Dutch Racks Revisited: the puzzle of the Hudson River reaches" https://www.saugertieslighthouse.com/keepers-logbook/dutch-racks-revisited-the-puzzle-of-the-hudson-river-reaches/
(A version of this article has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication in an academic journal in spring 2023.) Landfaraway (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hudson River/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 10:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

  • A couple of points that are not an issue for GA, but which I may as well mention:
  • Earwig complains about "The river carries an abundance of suspended sediments, mainly clays eroded from glacial deposits and organic particles. Unlike most other US estuaries, the Hudson has a relatively youthful erosional history, so it does not have a large depositional plain near its mouth. Around New York Harbor, sediment also flows from the ocean to within the estuary by its upcurrent flow"; can you paraphrase this a little more?
  • There's a {{cn}} tag in the "Sources" section, and a few others further down the article.
  • The first two paragraphs of the "Sources" section seem to contradict each other. By "cartographically" I assume you mean "on maps"; the second paragraph says the USGS contradicts what you state as fact in the first paragraph. I looked at our article on Lake Tear of the Clouds, and it cites the USGS for a wording that seems to correspond with the first paragraph, not the second. The first paragraph of the "Upper Hudson River" restates the "name on maps" point yet again. I think all this could be compressed a bit.
    Struck, since you've fixed the contradiction; I still think it's a bit wordy but this is good enough for GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Flight 1549 landing on the waters of the Hudson River: the caption needs tweaking as the plane is clearly not in the act of landing; there are people standing on the wings.
  • Suggest linking Mahican on first use.
  • The Hudson is often mistaken for one of the largest rivers in the United States, but it is an estuary throughout most of its length below Troy: what does "largest" mean? Longest? Water discharge volume?
  • The information about fresh water fraction appears to contradict itself; the mean number cited is larger than the previous number, the definition of which is not clear.
  • The description of "World's End" as the deepest part is given twice, in different sections.
  • The section on the Hudson River School should give some date context.
  • as trains and automobiles were still being developed: true for trains, but automobiles came much later.
  • When the Erie Canal is first mentioned you don't explicitly say where it joins the Hudson, or even that it joins the Hudson at all.
  • Numerous landmarks have been constructed along the Hudson: odd way to phrase it; they weren't built as landmarks. How about something like "Many of the buildings of the Hudson are now well-known landmarks"?
    • Changed to "Numerous places have been constructed along the Hudson that have since become landmarks."
  • Other unique fish found in the river: does "unique" here just mean "unusual"? If so I'd change it to avoid confusion; there are no other unique fish previously mentioned.
  • What makes offshoreblue.com a reliable source?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I see a lot of progress has been made; I've struck the points that have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
PointsofNoReturn, just checking in -- are you still working on this? Not much left to fix now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for the delay. I am a student and unfortunately my coursework has prevented me from having much free time for the past week and change. My plan is to plough through the rest of the review by the end of Thursday or Friday. I appreciate the reminder. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
No worries; so long as I know you're working on this we can keep it open. If you need more time just let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Just the citation needed tag in the "Sources" section left to fix and then I'll promote this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The last tag has been removed. Thank you for your patience in reviewing this article. Also, thank you for the thorough recommendations you made for improving this article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Promoting to GA. Congratulations! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
PointsofNoReturn, by the way, the bot that notifies you it's passed will probably say it's failed; it's a bug in the bot whenever there's a previous fail. Just ignore the message; it's passed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
All good. Thanks for the info, and thanks again for the review. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hudson_River/Archive_2&oldid=1193182201"