Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of rivers by length/archive1
This is my first nomination to feature something on Wikipedia. I've been working hard over the last few days on this list of rivers in the world. It is colour coordinated by continent. I submitted it to peer review and tried to do everything that was suggested. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 02:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Question – is there a reason that some of the rivers don't have drainage area and discharge information? I'm inclined to vote support anyway, but I'd like to be sure that all sources have been checked for that info. --Spangineer (háblame) 03:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't start the list from scratch, I just reformatted it. I looked tirelessly for some of the information on water drainage areas/average discharge, but couldn't find it. I decided to nominate it for featured list status anyway, since the information will be found at some point, not to say that it isn't important. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 05:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose It's getting there and looks good, but the list itself says it is incomplete and it looks like a list that can be completed. Also the lengths in miles, drainage area in square miles, etc. should be given in addition to the kms. Can I also ask why 2,100 km has been chosen for the cut-off, rather than, say, the round figure of 2,000 km, or the top 40, say, rivers by length? (this last point is just a question, not an objection), SmokeDog 08:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'll extend the list so that the top 40 rivers are included, or maybe rivers over 2,000 km. I'll also try to add all of the figures in miles as well. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 15:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose
CommentYou've still got the Indus% wrong I'm afraid. Only the drainage within Kashmir is considered disputed. Parts which lie outside this area are not disputed. I'd given you a map of Kashmir to help you out. Please try and find out the %drainage that lies within the boundaries of the map. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:49, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I'm still not sure I get it but I'll look at the map again. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 01:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I'm still not sure I get it but I'll look at the map again. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 01:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I started adding the lengths of the rivers in miles. That will be complete shortly. Any suggestions on any ways to better implement the river lengths would be appreciated.
- As for the percentage of Indus River in India, China, and Pakistan, I'm working on it. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 03:35, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The lengths all of rivers are now in miles and kilometers. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 28 June 2005 03:31 (UTC)
- I oppose on the sole grounds of the lack of sources. There's an external link to [1] but that gives no source itself....so do we just leave faith in this website? I would like to see a reference to someone/people that are more well known for geography. Cartographers, governmental institutions, etc. Cburnett June 28, 2005 04:50 (UTC)
- I'll tell you what. That fact monster link contains the same information as page 495 of the Time Almanac 2004. I just wasn't sure how to cite that. So I suppose that almanac is the lone source. Also, when I began improving the list most of the information was already there, and I don't know where preveious editors got that from, because it doesn't match the almanac. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 28 June 2005 05:11 (UTC)
- Time Almanac is good enough for me. Whatever isn't in the Time Almanac needs to be sourced somewhere. If we find different numbers, then we either need to find another source or change the numbers. Cburnett June 28, 2005 05:52 (UTC)
- I'll look for other sources to cite. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 28 June 2005 14:58 (UTC)
- Time Almanac is good enough for me. Whatever isn't in the Time Almanac needs to be sourced somewhere. If we find different numbers, then we either need to find another source or change the numbers. Cburnett June 28, 2005 05:52 (UTC)
Oppose - sorry, but one of the criteria for a WP:FLC is that it be stable. An incomplete list cannot fit that description. - Ian ≡ talk 28 June 2005 05:46 (UTC)
- A list of rivers never really can be complete, but since I set the limit of 2,000 kilometers, it now is compelte. Over the last few days I was constantly adding to it, and encouraging others as well, which is why the note was there. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 28 June 2005 05:48 (UTC)
- Weak object. Since the scope is only over 2000 km., the title should reflect that, otherwise what do we do when we want to list rivers shoerter than that. It should be titled something like list of rivers by length (over 2000 kilometres), or whatever other name is less cumbersome and fits best with naming policy. That way we can have a list of rivers by length (1500-2000 kilometres) next. Also, it just isn't complete without those empty boxes filled. --Dmcdevit 28 June 2005 21:55 (UTC)
- Maybe the list can be moved to a more specific title. As for the empty boxes, I've yet to find a reliable resource for that information. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 29 June 2005 18:37 (UTC)
- Comment I am somewhat confused about the differing figures given for river length. The practice of supplying two different lengths, from presumably different sources is well explained in the introduction, but still leads to confusion and ambiguity. This is especially true with respect to the Amazon and Yangtze rivers, where the primary sources lists the Yangtze as longer than the Amazon. And yet, the Yangtze is listed below the Amazon. I think the best solution would be for the figures to have footnotes informing the reader from which source the information comes from. This will hopefully clear up any confusion.--Sophitus June 29, 2005 21:37 (UTC)
- Concerning the Yangtze and the Amazon, I wasn't sure what to do because I wanted to have the Nile at top of the list (therefore I had to switch the primary and secondary figures of the Amazon River), and most sources state the Yangtze length at 6,380 kilometers. So, even though this doesn't make sense, my intention was that in respect to the Nile River, the Amazon's now primary length of 6,296 kilometers would be used, and conversely with respect to the Yangtze its now secondary source of 6,762 kilometers was to be used. When I first started improving this list, there were secondary lengths given for some rivers, and I didn't know where those figures came from. For some of them, i just averaged them and stated it as one secondary figure, so that there aren't more than two lengths given for each river. Most of the primary sources are from the Time Almanac 2004, as stated in the References section at the bottom.
- I thought the best way to clear up confusion was to state at the bottom that some figures may be averaged out, as is the case with those two rivers. If both sources are taken and averaged out, the Amazon is longer. I know realize that this really was a complicated list to feature because of all the potential ambiguity. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 29 June 2005 22:08 (UTC)
- Concerning the Yangtze and the Amazon, I wasn't sure what to do because I wanted to have the Nile at top of the list (therefore I had to switch the primary and secondary figures of the Amazon River), and most sources state the Yangtze length at 6,380 kilometers. So, even though this doesn't make sense, my intention was that in respect to the Nile River, the Amazon's now primary length of 6,296 kilometers would be used, and conversely with respect to the Yangtze its now secondary source of 6,762 kilometers was to be used. When I first started improving this list, there were secondary lengths given for some rivers, and I didn't know where those figures came from. For some of them, i just averaged them and stated it as one secondary figure, so that there aren't more than two lengths given for each river. Most of the primary sources are from the Time Almanac 2004, as stated in the References section at the bottom.
- Indeed - you are doing a good job: the best you can do it to be transparent about which sources you are using and add footnotes and references as appropriate. If you are using one source, give a reference; if you are averaging several sources, refer to all of them - it may be clearest if you cite the numbers given by each source in a footnote; and explain why you are taking a different approach to different rivers. -- ALoan (Talk) 30 June 2005 10:11 (UTC)
- I agree with ALoan, complete referencing would be the best strategy. However, I really admire the work you have done with this article so far and applaud your continued efforts to get it to featured status.--Sophitus June 30, 2005 13:27 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm also working on other lists that I"m looking to nominate. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 30 June 2005 16:53 (UTC)
- I agree with ALoan, complete referencing would be the best strategy. However, I really admire the work you have done with this article so far and applaud your continued efforts to get it to featured status.--Sophitus June 30, 2005 13:27 (UTC)