![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The picture, aside from being too large, looks like it was taken from Olmstead Island at Great Falls, MD. is just outside of DC, so it would be in the lower portion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.214.99 ( talk) 18:11, 10 January 2003 (UTC)
The sentence
doesn't parse. I'm not sure what meaning is intended, so I can't edit it. Is it Maryland that plays an interesting part throughout the history of the river, or the river throughout that of Maryland, or is it the fact that the entire river is part of Maryland that has played a role in the history of the U.S? - Molinari 22:07 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Where did the Potomac river get its name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.61.216 ( talk) 10:34, 9 October 2004 (UTC)
Potamus is an anglicization of the Ancient Greek potamos (ποταμός) meaning river or stream.
It is possible the Greek word was chosen for its resemblance to the original name. It's amazing what you see happening when cultures meet. The Chinese words for both England and America are phonetically similar to their English counterparts, come from previously existing Chinese words, and are quite appropriate. Ying Guo (Gwuh, meaning country) means brave country; Mei Guo (may gwuh) means beautiful country,appropriate not only because of the song which shares music with "God Save the Queen", but also because the continents were named after Amerigo Vespucci because of his beautiful descriptions of the land.
It is pure coincidence that the Chinese word for 'country' happens to work so well phonetically with England and America. They use it for the name of every country, including their own. Yet it works, and works very well, in both sound and meaning.
It is not ridiculous to think that a name which has been distorted by the English tongue so many times was finally settled as a phonetically similar Greek word meaning river. Indeed, it is quite likely. Why BASE a word on the original when you could just use the original? Many times we have, after all. Thetrellan ( talk) 18:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The Potomac river doesn't go through Morgantown, West Virginia, the Monongahela does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.250.171.177 ( talk) 18:59, 23 March 2005 (UTC)
Added tables for lists of bridges over the North and South Branches Potomac respectively, and will add the links to topo maps for North Branch bridges soon. The list of South Branch bridges is from memory and some map spot-checking so if anyone knows of a bridge that may have been left off, please feel free to include it in one of the tables. Thanks. 207.255.205.142 21:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Is it becoming approrpriate to split up the page and give the respective branches of the Potomac River their own articles? -- Caponer 19:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I took the liberty of making the Potomac River article more uniform in subject order and fixed a number of internal links. -- Caponer 21:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I noted that there are two meanders between Blue Ford and the mouth of the South Branch. These meanders distinguish Blue Meadows and French's Neck West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jegenrieder ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Rather than including this page in the nineteen categories of counties through which the river flows, may I suggest establishing something similar to Category:Ohio River counties? Malepheasant 03:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I created a separate page that lists dams, bridges, and other crossings of the Potomac River. List of crossings of the Potomac River -- Caponer 05:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I added a note about the headwaters of the N Branch being in West Virginia. From the Fairfax Stone the river actually flows west, then hooks north and then east for its first mile or so. The MD charter states:
As one follows the meridian line through the Fairfax Stone south from the Pennsylvania border, he hits the Potomac first at Kempton, Maryland rather that at the Fairfax stone. So all the river northwest of the stone is actually WV. See maps for the stone: 39°11′41″N 79°29′14″W / 39.19472°N 79.48722°W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoghanacht ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, I've nominated the Potomac River article for a peer review to be carried out. All contributors and editors to the Potomac River article are welcome and invited to take part in the peer review. Thank you. -- Caponer 21:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again a user is using wikipedia to editorialized his political viewpoints of a state, see Maryland ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), into an article. Even though well source, the section is far from being NPOV. The language is very one sided to the slant of that the user is trying to focus on, and is also speculative in its nature. Also the section is extremely limited in it scope, mainly focusing on the last 20 years, while either attempting to discount trends that happened prior to the cited time period, as well of the scope of the information, which is primarily focused on the federal level with no mention of state or local, which would have a great impact on the cultural argument then would the wide blanket of the federal coverage. The geographic scope is also extremely limited, as it seems only to focus on the Rural Virginia and Urban Maryland, discounting the rural sections of Maryland in which most of the rive lies, as well as West Virginia. Even taking where it does create the boundaries between the states,m their is little difference between the political leaning of either state on the federal level along the river, as the difference is mostly on a state wide basis.
Also to all this section Cultural Dividing Point is misleading, as it focuses on a a subsection of a culture, specifically politics. To say that politics is the defining principal of culture, epically in the Unites States, is just simply inaccurate, as it would equate, due to the effective two party system, that their are two cultural subtypes in the united States based upon voting patterns and political affiliation, which is ludacrist. Either way the section needs a revamp and needs to be a section less about the politicise of the people living on the opposite banks of a river and more about the culture of the people living along the river, taking it from historic perspective rather than a contemporary only perspective. Other wise i move to remove it on the basis on NOT (Wikipedia is not a soapbox) and POV/ NPOV -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the entire section is by its very nature POV, and quite inappropriately so, since it focuses on a narrow window of history, rather than representing in any sense an historical trend. It should be jettisoned entirely, most probably, but perhaps if we must, we can leave in the somewhat interesting trivial observation that the river divided the 2004 electoral results as they fell along the east coast. At least that would be a fact, as opposed to a blatant mass of opinion. User:Vaux 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
And also, the misspellings and other abuses of the English language that are present in all comments to this section of the talk page brand each potential contributor, if a native speaker, as one who would do well to become more highly educated before making unilateral changes to wikipedia. The latter is a resource that will be read by impressionable young people the world over.
Vaux — Preceding undated comment added 12:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I always thought that the name "Potomac" is derived from Greek ποταμός. Never thought of that it is a Native American name. Meursault2004 14:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I always thought that the name "Potomac" is derived from Greek ποταμός.
The Algonquian origin is well sourced in the article. - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
This is discussion, is it not? If I wanted to make a change, I should make a change. I'm just saying it's likely the Greek connection is no coincidence, given the original word could just as easily been used, and 'potamic' (not potomac)is extremely appropriate. I care not a whit whether it is verifiable, THAT is irrelevant to my point, and I'm not looking to change the article's content. I don't appreciate my contribution being deleted out of hand like that. Not a minute had passed, a helluva lot less time than it took to write it. Not all discussion is an issue needing to be solved. Leave it for posterity, please. Thetrellan ( talk) 18:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
This has peculiar unit mixing: Why are gallons per minute stated alongside gallons per day? As an occasional whitewater paddler, I've never seen a U.S. river measured in anything other than cubic feet per second. For example, the USGS posts a table of river stages and flows all expressed in CFS. Perhaps CFS isn't the custom on the Potomac? Or maybe east of the Mississippi water is conventionally measured differently? — EncMstr 21:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I edited the flow figures for the Potomac. The mean flow where tidal influences start (above Wash DC near the pump station) for THIS time of year is 16,100 cfs. The total mean flow is lower, about 11,000 cfs. Here is my source [7]. - User:Peckvet55 23:02 MST, 30 April 2007
The per capita flow figures are *way* off - the river is the predominant source of drinking water for the population. The per capita flow must be at least 365*100gpcpd = 36,500 gallons/person/year (to be extremely conservative) Cphi ( talk) 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I (Ogr_HK) deleted the per capita precipitation. Using average VA precipitation data and the verifiable data for area and population, precipitation/person = 38,000,000,000 sqm/5,000,000 persons*1.2 (avg. annual precipitation) ~9,120 m^3. More than a factor thousand over what was claimed before. I will not give a new figure without verifiable precipitation data for the Potomac's watershed, but the old figure was a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogr HK ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Pohick Creek should be merged into this article as it lacks any great ammount of content or sources. It's a candidate for deletion, but the name of the tributary could be maintained here. Alan.ca 10:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"Potomac is a European spelling of an Algonquian name for a tribe subject to the Powhatan confederacy, that inhabited the river just below Fredericksburg. " Fredericksburg is on the Rappahannock, not the Potomac. Perhaps the Powhatans' home river should be specified. Rmasbury 21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the correct drainage area? The text says "about 14,700 square miles" while the infobox lists "15,679 mi²". That's quite a difference. A correct figure with sources would be desirable. I have temporarily inserted the "fact" template until this issue is resolved. Qblik 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Article is assessed at "B" status based on quantity and quality of material, but lacks better citations and sources to push it to a higher level. Importance is ranked at "high" based on general knowledge of River to a wide and diverse group of people. VirginiaProp 20:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
83.189.129.35 ( talk) 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering the length of the article and that fact that the North Branch and South Branch are pretty distinct from each other and the "main" Potomac River, I think it makes sense to split the North Branch and South Branch sections out to their own articles. What do other people think? There didn't seem to be any real consensus one way or the other when this was brought up a couple years ago. Brian Powell ( talk) 16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This article would benefit from a section listing the dams on the Potomac. Toddst1 ( talk) 22:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
In the process of updating the Geobox, I have found USGS data for the historical maximum and minimum discharges as measured at Little Falls that are at variance with those in the second paragraph of the Geography section. I am uncertain how to reconcile these differences and would appreciate guidance from other editors. -- Thank you P999 ( talk) 23:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Spruce Knob is the tallest point in west virginia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.204.146 ( talk) 17:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Rollidan ( talk · contribs) 15:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I saw this nomination and decided to take it on. The
Potomac River I feel is vital to American History, so thank you for nominating it. Know that I may not get back to your responses immediately, but I will work through the article quickly.
Also, be aware that this is my first GA review, so I will be regularly looking at GA criteria, as well as existing GA and FA river articles for examples.
@ P999: When I first looked at the article, I saw a okay article overall. However, I noticed several things which raised concerns:
a) The lead is two paragraphs long, which is alright, but considering the current length of the article (106,000 bytes as of May 24) a longer introduction to the topic would be warranted. It also gave insignificant consideration to the History, Legal Issues, and Wildlife sections, as examples.
b) There were 53 pictures on the page when I first looked at it. I see that some images are already in a gallery at the end, but there are still too many in the main body of the article. Consider limiting to one or two per section. This is in guidance to MOS:LAYIM, as well as looking at Colorado River and Hudson River as examples, which have fewer than two dozen images in total.
c) In conjunction with b, there are several sections of the article which could use expanding. The flora section is entirely lacking in prose, and the fauna could use expanding to include prose on the sections listed as well as other sections like invertebrates, etc. The article needs expansion in the history section past 1864 (perhaps some things could be taken from the legal issues and water supply and water quality sections). It also needs some kind of geology mention, and a few sections could perhaps be reorganized to be more like that of other river articles. I saw in your (P999) userspace subpages that you already have some of those things, but as it is, the body needs improvement. (Reference: MOS:BODY)
d) Also in conjunction with above, the extensive use of lists and templates for flora, fauna, tributaries, etc., are perhaps not the most appropriate for the article. Writing about these things in paragraph form would be good. (Examples: Hudson River, Williamette River, etc)
Note that these thoughts only my first thoughts. I am by no means an expert on rivers, but the article needs significant rework if we want it to look like other good and featured river articles. Rollidan ( talk) 17:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Know that at the moment, I am inclined to fail the nomination, as the article does not pass criteria 1 or 3, and it needs a lot of work to do so. Rollidan ( talk) 18:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Rollidan: Thank you very much, Rollidan for your comments and suggestions. Since no one else seems interested in working on the PR article at this time, and the changes you recommend are more than I can undertake within the next seven days, I believe that failing the nomination would be the best course of action. Perhaps your review will have attracted the interest of some other editors who will decide to become involved in improving it in accordance with the guidelines you have provided. -- P999 ( talk) 18:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@ P999: Sounds good. Thanks again! Rollidan ( talk) 18:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
See also Wikibooks where you can have multiple pages / chapters and space for lots of multi-media throughout. -- Green C 06:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The picture, aside from being too large, looks like it was taken from Olmstead Island at Great Falls, MD. is just outside of DC, so it would be in the lower portion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.214.99 ( talk) 18:11, 10 January 2003 (UTC)
The sentence
doesn't parse. I'm not sure what meaning is intended, so I can't edit it. Is it Maryland that plays an interesting part throughout the history of the river, or the river throughout that of Maryland, or is it the fact that the entire river is part of Maryland that has played a role in the history of the U.S? - Molinari 22:07 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Where did the Potomac river get its name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.61.216 ( talk) 10:34, 9 October 2004 (UTC)
Potamus is an anglicization of the Ancient Greek potamos (ποταμός) meaning river or stream.
It is possible the Greek word was chosen for its resemblance to the original name. It's amazing what you see happening when cultures meet. The Chinese words for both England and America are phonetically similar to their English counterparts, come from previously existing Chinese words, and are quite appropriate. Ying Guo (Gwuh, meaning country) means brave country; Mei Guo (may gwuh) means beautiful country,appropriate not only because of the song which shares music with "God Save the Queen", but also because the continents were named after Amerigo Vespucci because of his beautiful descriptions of the land.
It is pure coincidence that the Chinese word for 'country' happens to work so well phonetically with England and America. They use it for the name of every country, including their own. Yet it works, and works very well, in both sound and meaning.
It is not ridiculous to think that a name which has been distorted by the English tongue so many times was finally settled as a phonetically similar Greek word meaning river. Indeed, it is quite likely. Why BASE a word on the original when you could just use the original? Many times we have, after all. Thetrellan ( talk) 18:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The Potomac river doesn't go through Morgantown, West Virginia, the Monongahela does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.250.171.177 ( talk) 18:59, 23 March 2005 (UTC)
Added tables for lists of bridges over the North and South Branches Potomac respectively, and will add the links to topo maps for North Branch bridges soon. The list of South Branch bridges is from memory and some map spot-checking so if anyone knows of a bridge that may have been left off, please feel free to include it in one of the tables. Thanks. 207.255.205.142 21:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Is it becoming approrpriate to split up the page and give the respective branches of the Potomac River their own articles? -- Caponer 19:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I took the liberty of making the Potomac River article more uniform in subject order and fixed a number of internal links. -- Caponer 21:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I noted that there are two meanders between Blue Ford and the mouth of the South Branch. These meanders distinguish Blue Meadows and French's Neck West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jegenrieder ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Rather than including this page in the nineteen categories of counties through which the river flows, may I suggest establishing something similar to Category:Ohio River counties? Malepheasant 03:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I created a separate page that lists dams, bridges, and other crossings of the Potomac River. List of crossings of the Potomac River -- Caponer 05:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I added a note about the headwaters of the N Branch being in West Virginia. From the Fairfax Stone the river actually flows west, then hooks north and then east for its first mile or so. The MD charter states:
As one follows the meridian line through the Fairfax Stone south from the Pennsylvania border, he hits the Potomac first at Kempton, Maryland rather that at the Fairfax stone. So all the river northwest of the stone is actually WV. See maps for the stone: 39°11′41″N 79°29′14″W / 39.19472°N 79.48722°W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoghanacht ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, I've nominated the Potomac River article for a peer review to be carried out. All contributors and editors to the Potomac River article are welcome and invited to take part in the peer review. Thank you. -- Caponer 21:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again a user is using wikipedia to editorialized his political viewpoints of a state, see Maryland ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), into an article. Even though well source, the section is far from being NPOV. The language is very one sided to the slant of that the user is trying to focus on, and is also speculative in its nature. Also the section is extremely limited in it scope, mainly focusing on the last 20 years, while either attempting to discount trends that happened prior to the cited time period, as well of the scope of the information, which is primarily focused on the federal level with no mention of state or local, which would have a great impact on the cultural argument then would the wide blanket of the federal coverage. The geographic scope is also extremely limited, as it seems only to focus on the Rural Virginia and Urban Maryland, discounting the rural sections of Maryland in which most of the rive lies, as well as West Virginia. Even taking where it does create the boundaries between the states,m their is little difference between the political leaning of either state on the federal level along the river, as the difference is mostly on a state wide basis.
Also to all this section Cultural Dividing Point is misleading, as it focuses on a a subsection of a culture, specifically politics. To say that politics is the defining principal of culture, epically in the Unites States, is just simply inaccurate, as it would equate, due to the effective two party system, that their are two cultural subtypes in the united States based upon voting patterns and political affiliation, which is ludacrist. Either way the section needs a revamp and needs to be a section less about the politicise of the people living on the opposite banks of a river and more about the culture of the people living along the river, taking it from historic perspective rather than a contemporary only perspective. Other wise i move to remove it on the basis on NOT (Wikipedia is not a soapbox) and POV/ NPOV -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the entire section is by its very nature POV, and quite inappropriately so, since it focuses on a narrow window of history, rather than representing in any sense an historical trend. It should be jettisoned entirely, most probably, but perhaps if we must, we can leave in the somewhat interesting trivial observation that the river divided the 2004 electoral results as they fell along the east coast. At least that would be a fact, as opposed to a blatant mass of opinion. User:Vaux 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
And also, the misspellings and other abuses of the English language that are present in all comments to this section of the talk page brand each potential contributor, if a native speaker, as one who would do well to become more highly educated before making unilateral changes to wikipedia. The latter is a resource that will be read by impressionable young people the world over.
Vaux — Preceding undated comment added 12:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I always thought that the name "Potomac" is derived from Greek ποταμός. Never thought of that it is a Native American name. Meursault2004 14:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I always thought that the name "Potomac" is derived from Greek ποταμός.
The Algonquian origin is well sourced in the article. - SummerPhD ( talk) 14:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
This is discussion, is it not? If I wanted to make a change, I should make a change. I'm just saying it's likely the Greek connection is no coincidence, given the original word could just as easily been used, and 'potamic' (not potomac)is extremely appropriate. I care not a whit whether it is verifiable, THAT is irrelevant to my point, and I'm not looking to change the article's content. I don't appreciate my contribution being deleted out of hand like that. Not a minute had passed, a helluva lot less time than it took to write it. Not all discussion is an issue needing to be solved. Leave it for posterity, please. Thetrellan ( talk) 18:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
This has peculiar unit mixing: Why are gallons per minute stated alongside gallons per day? As an occasional whitewater paddler, I've never seen a U.S. river measured in anything other than cubic feet per second. For example, the USGS posts a table of river stages and flows all expressed in CFS. Perhaps CFS isn't the custom on the Potomac? Or maybe east of the Mississippi water is conventionally measured differently? — EncMstr 21:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I edited the flow figures for the Potomac. The mean flow where tidal influences start (above Wash DC near the pump station) for THIS time of year is 16,100 cfs. The total mean flow is lower, about 11,000 cfs. Here is my source [7]. - User:Peckvet55 23:02 MST, 30 April 2007
The per capita flow figures are *way* off - the river is the predominant source of drinking water for the population. The per capita flow must be at least 365*100gpcpd = 36,500 gallons/person/year (to be extremely conservative) Cphi ( talk) 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I (Ogr_HK) deleted the per capita precipitation. Using average VA precipitation data and the verifiable data for area and population, precipitation/person = 38,000,000,000 sqm/5,000,000 persons*1.2 (avg. annual precipitation) ~9,120 m^3. More than a factor thousand over what was claimed before. I will not give a new figure without verifiable precipitation data for the Potomac's watershed, but the old figure was a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogr HK ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Pohick Creek should be merged into this article as it lacks any great ammount of content or sources. It's a candidate for deletion, but the name of the tributary could be maintained here. Alan.ca 10:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
"Potomac is a European spelling of an Algonquian name for a tribe subject to the Powhatan confederacy, that inhabited the river just below Fredericksburg. " Fredericksburg is on the Rappahannock, not the Potomac. Perhaps the Powhatans' home river should be specified. Rmasbury 21:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the correct drainage area? The text says "about 14,700 square miles" while the infobox lists "15,679 mi²". That's quite a difference. A correct figure with sources would be desirable. I have temporarily inserted the "fact" template until this issue is resolved. Qblik 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Article is assessed at "B" status based on quantity and quality of material, but lacks better citations and sources to push it to a higher level. Importance is ranked at "high" based on general knowledge of River to a wide and diverse group of people. VirginiaProp 20:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
83.189.129.35 ( talk) 23:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering the length of the article and that fact that the North Branch and South Branch are pretty distinct from each other and the "main" Potomac River, I think it makes sense to split the North Branch and South Branch sections out to their own articles. What do other people think? There didn't seem to be any real consensus one way or the other when this was brought up a couple years ago. Brian Powell ( talk) 16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This article would benefit from a section listing the dams on the Potomac. Toddst1 ( talk) 22:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
In the process of updating the Geobox, I have found USGS data for the historical maximum and minimum discharges as measured at Little Falls that are at variance with those in the second paragraph of the Geography section. I am uncertain how to reconcile these differences and would appreciate guidance from other editors. -- Thank you P999 ( talk) 23:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Spruce Knob is the tallest point in west virginia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.204.146 ( talk) 17:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Rollidan ( talk · contribs) 15:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I saw this nomination and decided to take it on. The
Potomac River I feel is vital to American History, so thank you for nominating it. Know that I may not get back to your responses immediately, but I will work through the article quickly.
Also, be aware that this is my first GA review, so I will be regularly looking at GA criteria, as well as existing GA and FA river articles for examples.
@ P999: When I first looked at the article, I saw a okay article overall. However, I noticed several things which raised concerns:
a) The lead is two paragraphs long, which is alright, but considering the current length of the article (106,000 bytes as of May 24) a longer introduction to the topic would be warranted. It also gave insignificant consideration to the History, Legal Issues, and Wildlife sections, as examples.
b) There were 53 pictures on the page when I first looked at it. I see that some images are already in a gallery at the end, but there are still too many in the main body of the article. Consider limiting to one or two per section. This is in guidance to MOS:LAYIM, as well as looking at Colorado River and Hudson River as examples, which have fewer than two dozen images in total.
c) In conjunction with b, there are several sections of the article which could use expanding. The flora section is entirely lacking in prose, and the fauna could use expanding to include prose on the sections listed as well as other sections like invertebrates, etc. The article needs expansion in the history section past 1864 (perhaps some things could be taken from the legal issues and water supply and water quality sections). It also needs some kind of geology mention, and a few sections could perhaps be reorganized to be more like that of other river articles. I saw in your (P999) userspace subpages that you already have some of those things, but as it is, the body needs improvement. (Reference: MOS:BODY)
d) Also in conjunction with above, the extensive use of lists and templates for flora, fauna, tributaries, etc., are perhaps not the most appropriate for the article. Writing about these things in paragraph form would be good. (Examples: Hudson River, Williamette River, etc)
Note that these thoughts only my first thoughts. I am by no means an expert on rivers, but the article needs significant rework if we want it to look like other good and featured river articles. Rollidan ( talk) 17:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Know that at the moment, I am inclined to fail the nomination, as the article does not pass criteria 1 or 3, and it needs a lot of work to do so. Rollidan ( talk) 18:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Rollidan: Thank you very much, Rollidan for your comments and suggestions. Since no one else seems interested in working on the PR article at this time, and the changes you recommend are more than I can undertake within the next seven days, I believe that failing the nomination would be the best course of action. Perhaps your review will have attracted the interest of some other editors who will decide to become involved in improving it in accordance with the guidelines you have provided. -- P999 ( talk) 18:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@ P999: Sounds good. Thanks again! Rollidan ( talk) 18:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
See also Wikibooks where you can have multiple pages / chapters and space for lots of multi-media throughout. -- Green C 06:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)