Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Missouri River/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:16, 16 January 2011 [1].

Missouri River

[edit]

Missouri River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Shannontalk contribs 06:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second FAC for the Missouri River article. The first FAC got... not much attention. Shannontalk contribs 06:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have problems with some of the sources.
  • Is this reliable (fn 114)? Its spelling is so shocking that you've had to correct it significantly when quoted in the article.
fixed. Shannontalk contribs 03:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the first decade of the 20th century to the 1940s…" There are a number of consecutive sentences before we get to the first footnote here which only offers support for the very last part. The source isn't great anyway as it's written by the operator of the dam. That essentially leaves some significant unverified content. For example, I can't see any citation for the claim that the Black Eagle Dam was the first dam in Missouri. (BTW "series of dams were built" should be was).
Wording corrected, added two references. Shannontalk contribs 03:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new reference added, footnote 101, is to this page. Again I don't find any support in the source for the material in the article (eg built in 1891, first in the area, dams being built until the 1940s). --Mkativerata (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have doubts whether this is reliable.
Outdated references from the old visage of the article, removed/replaced. Shannontalk contribs 03:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot see where this source, as footnote 71, supports any of the four and a half sentences that it follows in the article.
I don't see a problem with ref 71 - appears that it links here. Shannontalk contribs 03:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that I don't see how any of the material in the source supports the material in the article to which footnote 71 relates. The source only gives brief mention of an unnamed camp - it says nothing of the rest of the 4 and a half sentences in the article.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added two references with material. Shannontalk contribs 04:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a spot check - these are four of about eight I've checked, so I'm concerned about the article as a whole.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing concerns were raised in the last FAC; if those have not been resolved, this FAC should be withdrawn until they have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems very overlinked and I question what the flag is adding to the reader's understanding.--John (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Most of the points in my long list of sources concerns at the last FAC remain unaddressed. This confirms the imression that this article had been brought back here too soon, without any serious preparation for a new FAC. Also, there are additional concerns raised above, re spotchecks. I agree with Sandy - withdraw for the moment, get all the outstanding issues settled before renomination. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just too many questions on sources and also some concerns about whether or not the sources back up what is said. I don't honestly have the time to double check all the sources against the statements in the article.

Besides the concerns that Brian listed, I have the following other ones:
New Orleans Local News?? check again... Shannontalk contribs 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speer, Gary. "Great Plains Region Changed by Horse Cultures, Gold Prospecting Rush". Ezine Articles - what the heck is this? A webpage? If it's an email newsletter, it isn't strictly speaking published and would fail as a reliable source.
  • "A majority of the Native Americans relied heavily on the bison as a food source, and their hides and bones served to create other household items. In time, the species came to rely on the indigenous peoples' periodic controlled burnings of the grasslands surrounding the Missouri, in order to clear out old and dead growth. However, once Europeans got to North America, both the bison and the Native Americans saw a rapid decline in population." this is not exactly what the source linked to says. It doesn't say that the majority of Native Americans relied on the bison (and that's wrong anyway, as that implies that ALL of the Native Americans in North America (if not South America too!) relied on the bison, which isn't true. Nor does it say that those that did hunt the bison "relied" on the bison, rather that the bison provided "critical supplies". Nor is there any mention of "In time, the species came to rely on the indigenous peoples' periodic controlled burnings of the grasslands surrounding the Missouri, in order to clear out old and dead growth." or of the last sentence either.
Changed a few words and adjectives to clarify, also included "Native Americans in the basin", specifying the Missouri basin as the area being discussed. Shannontalk contribs 00:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Links to this site replaced. Shannontalk contribs 01:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. Shannontalk contribs 01:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced, Shannontalk contribs 23:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Used by a lot of decent river articles (including Columbia River, a FA and Snake River, a GA); additionally, Nature Conservancy and WWF are both 'big' organizations. Shannontalk contribs 00:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise http://www.ewg.org/?
This article is written by a PhD (I am not, though.) Shannontalk contribs 00:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another concern - do you REALLY need that huge list of "see also"?
    done , tried shortening it a bit, now about the size of Columbia River's see also, but a teeny bit larger. Shannontalk contribs 00:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking - you link Rocky Mountains in the "course" section, and then again at Watershed. Do we really need links to canyons? Or North America? You link a huge pile of states in the course section, and relink a bunch of them in the Watershed section. That's just what jumped out at me while checking the sources.
    done Shannontalk contribs 00:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the pictures/lists/graphs are creating big swathes of white space on my screen - this should be looked into also.
White spaces -- those sometimes happen to me with a PC, but I am a Mac user, and there are no bugs on my screen, so I don't know. Shannontalk contribs 00:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But... I'm on a Mac. Using the latest version of Safari. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using Google Chrome, will try Safari right now. Shannontalk contribs 00:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Well, actually, Earwig's turned up content on "findwomen.com" and some garbled matches on two other sites, but I'm betting those are unrecognized mirrors. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 21:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to all above comments Done. Shannontalk contribs 05:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shannon, please read the instructions at WT:FAC and refrain from using "done" templates-- they cause the archives to exceed template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalled. Shannon, please review the instructions at WP:FAC. When you bring an article back to FAC without addressing previous issues, it is unlikely that reviewers will engage, as their time is valuable, and they aren't likely to appreciate reviewing the same issues twice. Please take at least two weeks and make certain you have addressed all issues before renominating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Missouri_River/archive2&oldid=1140156495"