Talk:Missouri River/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer:

• You are stuck with me and I am a tedious reviewer. Expect this review to take weeks. However, since you have been through two
  WP:FACs
  , I am sure you will be able to deal with me.
• My initial take of the
  WP:LEAD
  is that I can not tell which cities it actually passes through or borders. Also, why do all the river articles have random pictures for the main image instead of the encyclopedic maps?
• Also, is it possible to make the river a different color than its tributaries in the map.--
  WP:FOUR) 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No clue, but that's the way it tends to be. Would a satellite image or something from NASA Blue Marble be better? Awickert (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You would have to show me a particular image. P.S. don't strike my concerns. Protocol is that the person who has the concern strike things himself so that we can be sure his concern has been fully addressed.--
      WP:FOUR) 15:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • In general, yes, though all I struck were "linking" ones, which are pretty unambiguous and helped keep me organized. But as you wish. PS: It is good manners to at least give someone the courtesy of a brief reply when you make them waste 15 minutes explaining themselves because you told them that they can't be right i.e., here, and especially before you ask them to explain themselves again. Sorry to be snippy, but geez louise, I'm trying to help and actually do have a clue of what I'm doing. Awickert (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC) [OK, venting done, I feel better. Awickert (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)][reply]
      • For the image: if it's not clear if it would be an improvement, I won't make it. It takes a while to do. Awickert (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• One other thing. Try alternating sides of image space. In some spaces you might want to use
  WP:FOUR) 19:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Link meanders.--
  WP:FOUR) 23:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This is looking like an easy review. Two FACs has cleaned up a lot of issues.

• put the opening quote in a quotebox.
  • Use the kind at
    WP:FOUR) 21:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• What is a catchmen? hydrologic source?
  • Catchment = watershed = drainage basin. Linked. Not sure about hydrologic source - the definition of the source of the Missouri is weird... Awickert (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Longest and largest tributary info repeats in this section.--
  WP:FOUR
  ) 00:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC

Geology

• link headwaters.--
  WP:FOUR) 23:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This section would be better with citations immediately following facts rather than blanket paragraph citations. E.g., I am uncomfortable with the first paragraph.
  • I think this is solved in everything but the last paragraph now. Awickert (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What does the term upwelling mean?
• In fact, I don't understand this whole sentence: "Upwelling of molten rock from underneath North America forced up by the remains of the Farallon caused the Sea's banks to encroach on it on both sides."
• If Stable Interior is a term, shouldn't we have or expect a link?
• Link bedrock, seismic, magma, Montana Dome, the Transcontinental Arch, Ice Ages, sediment, glaciation.
  • I am unsure why you have removed these terms rather than link them.--
    WP:FOUR) 17:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Because they have little to do with the development of the Missouri River, and many were used anachronistically. Awickert (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a geological term for snow and ice melt that should be linked?--
  WP:FOUR) 01:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Nothing I can think of that would be helpful; special term is "ablation", but it's used more frequently in the context of mass balance on modern ice sheets. "Retreat" applies to ice sheets, but we haven't talked about that here. Awickert (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost the entire geology section is wrong. I'm sure that this is not for lack of trying to do it right, but for lack of sources, etc. I think that we should put the GAR on hold for the moment as we try to do it right. I am going to open a section at talk, as I'm not sure what the goal of the geology section is and I don't want to trample all over the article. I will be happy to help make it better. Awickert (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been through 2 FACs. I find it hard to believe it could be that wrong.--
    WP:FOUR) 01:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That's absolutely unbelievable and really unnerving. Please please please grab me or Vsmith or Mikenorton or someone if you have questions about a geology section, because the timing of Rocky Mountain uplift (off by >50 million years), the cause of the mid-continental seaway, the characterization of Cretaceous North America (NOT a low-lying swamp), the characterization of the "stable interior" as sedimentary basins, invoking magmatism related to the seaway, totally missing the actual uplift of the rocky mountains, rerouting the Missouri River in the last 20 ka (actually >200 ka), and many more are all incorrect/issues. I do not want to give Shannon a hard time because she writes great, great river articles. But the fact that something like this can be through FAC twice really indicates a problem in our ability to assess fact in what should be the pinnacle of Wikipedia articles. So please believe me; I wouldn't be taking your (plural) time if it weren't significant. (And I actually do research in the Western US and the Mississippi River basin as a geologist, so sadly, I do know what I'm talking about. But I feel guilty giving people a hard time without pitching in, so I'm on the train to get this thing whipped up into shape.) Awickert (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Think I got it. Not perfect, could add some Quaternary stuff, but good enough for the moment. Awickert (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Greatly improved. And yes, it was that bad ... sorta highlights a problem with FA/Ga process when a reviewer makes a comment like that. Subject matter "clue" is critical. Vsmith (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First peoples

• I'd link ecosystem.--
  WP:FOUR) 01:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• link grassland.--
  WP:FOUR) 23:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Not sure what portage means. Does it have a link?
• Does the quote box refer to one of these
  WP:FOUR) 01:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'd say that Vermillion/California Sea refers to the Pacific Ocean. Shannon^talk _contribs 01:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

–Bourgmont

• You mention an early map, which makes me think that there should be an early map and maybe a more recent map from before the rerouting of the river. It would be good to see the natural river course and the synthetic course in one image.
• Could you expand "Bourgmont established Fort Orleans" to say "In current day region (such as southeast) Missouri, Bourgmont established Fort Orleans".
• Even if Brunswick village does not have a link, describe it region.--
  WP:FOUR) 01:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This also mentions an early map.--
  WP:FOUR) 01:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• In 1798 comma. same for In 1801--
  WP:FOUR) 01:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• link fur trappers, Platte Valley
• beaver and river otter should be linked here rather than later.--
  WP:FOUR) 00:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What does this mean: the western approach of the First Transcontinental Railroad was a ferry ride across the Missouri
• Link Independence and clarify its relation to the river.
• naturally and "Had to be" in para 4 sound POV--
  WP:FOUR) 00:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Last one fixed Shannon^talk _contribs 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dams and engineering

• If any of these floods are at Category:Floods in the United States, please link. (done)
• Convert US$1.4 million to modern terms. See Bobby Orr or Rachel Weisz for some articles I reviewed that use this feature.

For the money conversion you mean this link? I don't know how to use it... Shannon^talk _contribs 06:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. See

WP:FOUR) 08:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Link barge, hydroelectric plan, megawatts. (done)
  • Can you link first instance and delink later ones.--
    WP:FOUR) 02:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Consider linking smelter, which is not a common term.
• Is there a link for largest dams.
  • I would have added
    WP:FOUR) 20:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• What is the meaning of run-of-the river structure? It is not linked on first use, but the term is linked later.
• After introducing and linking the term either consistently refer to it as the Pick-Sloan Plan or the Pick Plan and don't switch.
  • Also, I see Pick-Sloan Plan, Pick-Sloan plan, Pick-Sloan project and Pick plan now. Get this organized.--
    WP:FOUR) 05:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Done... Shannon^talk _contribs 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N--

WP:FOUR) 03:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Now that's done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you intend to use the abbreviation BoR, you must put (BoR) or (henceforth, BoR) after first spelling it out.--
  WP:FOUR) 00:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Done Shannon^talk _contribs 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link and define abbreviation at first use. Abbreviate thereafter.--

WP:FOUR) 03:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• What is a bull boat?
• Link steamboat, dredging, revetments.
• Does Independence have a link? It sounds famous.
  • I mean the boat may be linkable. Now the town has a redundant link.--
    WP:FOUR) 05:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• There most of these needs a comma after there.
• navigation channel?
• I think Then in 1927 needs a comma after Then.
• You use the full U.S. Army Corps of Engineers three times and then switch to initials without defining them.
  • You should explain the initial on first use (in the LEAD, not here).--
    WP:FOUR) 01:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You don't need to define the term twice. Once you define the initials don't go back and forth on using the full term and the initials. Define the initials once and then use only the initials afterwards.--
      WP:FOUR) 15:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• You also link U.S. Army Corps of Engineers both of the first two times and a total of three times in the article.
• "the sealing and cutting off of meanders and side channels" seems ungrammatical. Might be better without the leading the and not sure what form meanders should take.
• Tons need conversions.--
  WP:FOUR) 08:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• minks, river otters, beavers, muskrats, and raccoons are all linked here. Remove redundant links with above.
• The following sentence could use a map for support. You may want to talk to the
  WP:GL
  . "The Missouri River basin is divided into three freshwater ecoregions by the World Wide Fund For Nature: the Upper Missouri, Lower Missouri and Central Prairie." (done)
• "whole Missouri watershed" sounds like a different claim than of the three ecoregions.
• How has channelization affected the flood plains in terms of high risk flood zones?--
  WP:FOUR) 23:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Do any places referred to as "notably Native American archaeological sites." have articles worth mentioning here?
• Link sandbars, riffles, snags on first use (here or prior).
• Are there any
  WP:FOUR) 23:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]