Missouri River has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Toolbox |
---|
The first reference USGS GNIS: Missouri River is broken. I cannot figure out how to fix it. I believe the link should be: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:756398 --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brentl99 2009-06-23 14:40 (UTC)
In the picture next to the Tributaries section there is the caption: "The James River, a Missouri River tributary, in Jamestown, North Dakota" but in the list of tributaries in North Dakota the James river is not listed. Looks like the list is incomplete. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.162.51.213 on 2008-08-09 04:26 (UTC)
I like the geographic map at the top, but I'd also like to see a map of the river with state borders so I can quickly graphically see what states it goes through. -- zandperl 15:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Missouri the "longest". See: List of rivers by length for discussion of considerations taken into account. Jerry picker 18:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 72.40.135.7 22:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)uuuuuuuuuuuuuuh 72.40.135.7 22:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the longest river in the United States, the Mississippi or Missouri? Two different Wikipedia articles have different answers:
The Mississippi? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River; "is the longest river in the United States; the second-longest is the Missouri River, which flows into the Mississippi")
The Missouri? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_River; "it is the longest river in the United States ")
The United States Geological Survey, a bureau of the Department of the Interior and official surveyor of the U.S. Government says it's the Missouri: (" http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/riversofworld.html").
georgephawley@comcast.net 216.241.240.30 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course, the reason for this discrepancy rests in the underlying assumptions. When these assumptions are laid out, the reader can decide for themselves according to which basic principles they choose to subscribe. An absolute distinction is somewhat arbitrary and academic; it is clear that the Missouri is either the longest or second longest river in the US, and the difference is so close that it comes back to which set of criteria one wishes to apply. It is more educational and to-the-point to lay out these criteria for the sake of a thoughtful and applied geographical consideration of the question. The current language has been chosen with this in mind: "At about 2,315 mi (3,725 km) in length, it drains approximately one-sixth of the North American continent. Depending on whether its length is reckoned from the headwaters of its sources (as the Mississippi's length is reckoned from Lake Itasca, Minnesota), or from their confluence where the Missouri is first so-named (at Three Forks, Montana), it is currently either the longest or second-longest river in the United States. Prior to the Pick-Sloan Program and channelization, it was unquestionably the longest river in the US." Jerry picker 02:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The article lacks actual stats on the average discharge of the Missouri, something that most of the articles on major rivers seem to have (rather just having unquantified comparisons with the upstream Mississippi and the Ohio). Can anyone provide? Alai 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
According to a statement from the Army Corps of Engineers, "In an average year, the Missouri River provides about 45 percent of the flow of the Mississippi past St. Louis. During times of drought, that contribution could rise to as much as 70 percent." http://www.ibjonline.com/print_reducing_river_flow_levels.html Jerry picker 22:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC) =)
This has been changed back and forth several times between "above" and "north of". Please note that one formal definition of "above" (prep.) is "upstream of", which may more accurately describe the geographical situation of the Mississippi at its debouchement by the Missouri. Jerry picker 23:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The picture downstream to the south showing the confluence of the Mississippi & Missouri rivers is NOT the confluence. It is the I-270 bridge & the old Chain of Rocks bridge (US 66) crossing the Mississippi from Illinois to Missouri several miles south of the confluence. There is a fine picture of the actual confluence in the Wikipedia article on the Mississippi river looking upstream that clearly shows the Missouri flowing into the Mississippi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cngresick ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Note: I've made a relatively minor edit to the main article to correct a misunderstanding that although the Milk River is the only river in Canada that drains into the Gulf of Mexico via the Missouri, it is not the only watershed in Canada that drains into the Gulf. The Poplar River (Saskatchewan-Montana) watershed extends into Canada even if the river itself does not. See also http://www.swa.ca/Maps/ (Saskatchewan Watershed Authority) Dzubint 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC) JeNnIiEe fErGgHy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.255.48 ( talk) 05:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow. This article is pretty well written. It looks pretty good. The picture describes the article. (Well) :) Atm153 00:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I found a slight problem in the opening paragraph, but I don't see an edit link there. Maybe someone who knows how to make the change will read this.
The first paragraph says that the Missouri River drains 1/6 of the land area of the North American continent. There's no way that can be correct. Indeed, when you click on Footnote 1, the original government source says "1/6 of the United States." -- Bill B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.86.189 ( talk) 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand the logic behind the idea -- that a river's "true source" is that of its longest contributing tributary. But the term "true source" strikes me as odd. Many or even most rivers begin at a confluence of headwater streams. Perhaps it is the word "true" -- implying that the statement that the source of the Missouri is the confluence of the Jefferson and Gallatin is false. The atlas I have in front of me says right at the confluence "Missouri Headwaters". As a counter-example, is it false to say the Tennessee River begins at the confluence of the Holston River and French Broad River? Or better yet, is the "true source" of the Mississippi River Brower's Spring. Anyway... I almost edited the statement to be less absolute, without the word "true", but couldn't think of a good way to phrase it at the moment. Thoughts? I know it is a bit pedantic, but there must be a better way to say it, no? Pfly 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
For an example, please note how the Mississippi River and Missouri River sources are officially defined:
Yes, the current length is actually shorter than most officially-published lengths due to channelization. LeheckaG ( talk) 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
There are more dams on the Missouri than just the Ft. Peck Dam. Great Falls, MT has five dams near the city; the Black Eagle Dam, Rainbow Dam, Cochrane Dam, Ryan Dam, and the Morony Dam. Upstream of Great Falls are the Holter Dam, Hauser Dam, Canyon Ferry Dam, and the Hosten Dam. See List of crossings of the Missouri River. Andercee 23:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the Wikipedia article on river source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_(river_or_stream)
I think that makes it pretty clear that the source of the Missouri is not the confluence of 3 rivers but likely to be Brower's Spring —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macgroover ( talk • contribs) 08:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is too developed to be a Start Class. It should be reassessed to a C or B Class. serioushat 06:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Sort of a minor issue - but should St. Louis be listed among the other cities in the infobox? I realize the river's proximity and importance to the development of the city, but the Missouri's mouth looks like it's 5 or 10 miles north of the city. Alexius Horatius 17:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
–Joliet and Marquette
–Bourgmont
–MacKay and Evans
–Lewis and Clark
–Fur trade
–Settlers and pioneers
Do we expect an article for the boat Yellowstone?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I see this as a high quality article in need of direction. Hopefully, my comments can prepare it for a successful run at WP:FAC.
I am going through all issues to summarize outstanding issues.
–Joliet and Marquette
–Bourgmont
–MacKay and Evans
It looks like all major issues have been responded to... Shannon talk contribs 03:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I am going to pass this article now. I would like to commend the author for diligence in responding to my pesky concerns. Of all of the articles that I have reviewed at GA, the result of this review is the one that I think is most ready for a run at WP:FAC. I would caution the author, however, that he may run into objections based solely on the rate at which he addresses concerns. Otherwise, best of luck.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 06:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yikes! The geology section has major issues. I will rewrite it, as the amount of time I would spend here on everything would be more than it would take for me to do it. But I want to know: what is the overall goal of the geology section? Currently it tries to say that vast regions were one thing, which is where it hits some factual issues.
Y'know what? I'll take a stab at it until I fall asleep. But please, let's iterate on what is wanted here. Awickert ( talk) 07:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This photo, File:Missouri River joins the Mississippi River.JPG, is a bit confusing. The caption was just changed to what I think it probably correct, but it is still confusing. The small stream in the foreground stands out as the subject of the photo, but as far as I can tell the Missouri is across the Mississippi, almost invisible (at least in thumbnail size). The identity of the foreground stream is a mystery. From looking at a topo map I'm guessing is it the "Cahokia Diversion Channel", and the photograph was in the Lewis and Clark State Memorial Park. In any case, I'm wondering if maybe this photo is too confusing and should not be included on the page? Pfly ( talk) 23:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the bar graph showing the monthly discharges at Herman and that showing the average discharges at selected cities do not have labels on the Y axis. Why? Surely labels and units would improve the graph. I've created figures with labels using the timeline routines – see Lake Faguibine and Bani River (bottom figure – other is a svg created before I understood the software) Aa77zz ( talk) 17:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm proposing adding the following paragraphs to the "Ecology and Human Impacts" section. The paragraphs are about a 2010 National Research Council report on sediment in the Missouri. The report is called Missouri River Planning: Recognizing and Incorporating Sediment Management and can be downloaded here: http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Missouri-River-Planning-Recognizing-Incorporating/13019
Please let me know if anyone has any comments/suggestions on this. Thanks, Earlgrey101 ( talk) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
References
In the article's subsection headed "Passage to Sioux City," the length of the river's navigation channel -- from Sioux City to St. Louis -- is given as 735 miles. In the same subsection, the channel's portion from Kansas City to St. Louis is given as 553 miles. Unless I'm missing something, that makes the difference -- i.e., the portion from Sioux City down to Kansas City -- less than two hundred miles (735 minus 553); but even in a straight line -- i.e., without consideration of bends in the river -- the distance between those cities appears to be at least two hundred fifty miles (closer to three hundred) on Google Maps. 108.36.209.26 ( talk) 19:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This article (which is great) says the Missouri "is joined by the Gallatin a mile (.6 km) downstream." I'm not sure what the actual facts are, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Could someone check? · rodii · 22:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Missouri River. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Missouri River/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
There is a comment regarding the flow of the Missouri river from its headwaters, "from this point it flows through its valley south and east into the Missippi", technicaly this is not true for it flows many miles north and east before it turns south. |
Last edited at 21:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 00:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Missouri 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Missouri 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Missouri 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 26 external links on Missouri 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sage.wisc.edu/riverdata/scripts/station_table.php?qual=32&filenum=1454{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/gmr/lewis_clark/lewis_clark-gates.asp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ndstudies.org/resources/IndianStudies/threeaffiliated/historical_1900s_garrison.htmlWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The following statement has been repeatedly added by (an) IP editor(s) and then removed as not needed here, original research, unsourced commentary or as an unsupported claim by other editors, including me:
Depending on the time of year, the Missouri River basin often contributes more water to the Lower Mississippi River just north of St. Louis, than the Upper Mississippi River, meaning the Missouri River could and often is considered the true chief river, not the Mississippi River.
The IP(s) have not discussed the text except in a comment that states I added in a factual statement, which is backed up by the National Park system. https://www.nps.gov/miss/riverfacts.htm, and another comment which is not pertinent to the content. I was unable to substantiate the claim in the reference given, and have brought the matter here for discussion. I ask that the IP does not add this text to the article again until some consensus can be reached in a discussion on this talk page.
My initial opinion is that if this text is actually relevant to the article, and it is not yet clear that it is, then it must be supported by a reliable source. Poltair ( talk) 20:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
There is an issue with how the table in Missouri_River#Navigation is aligned with the text. The text seemingly sticks to the table. I don't know where the problem lies. Somebody who does know; please fix it. - thx! -- Isidor Welti ( talk) 15:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The article currently says:
Most of the watershed receives an average of 8 to 10 inches (200 to 250 mm) of precipitation each year. However, the western most portions of the basin in the Rockies as well as southeastern regions in Missouri may receive as much as 40 inches (1,000 mm).
Both of these statements cite the same reference, a 2006 report by the US Army Corps of Engineers. But the relevant passage in that report appears to be:
Normal average annual precipitation ranges from as low as 8 to 10 inches just east of the Rocky Mountains to more than 40 inches in the southeastern part of the basin and in parts of the Rocky Mountains.
It's much different to say 8 to 10 inches is the average than to say 8 to 10 inches is the lower bound of the precipitation range. (8 to 10 inches is quite dry, drier than the state average of Nevada, the driest state in the Union.) 128.187.112.28 ( talk) 128.187.112.28 ( talk) 20:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
The first paragraph states that the Missouri is much longer and cites geographical data that doesn't explicitly state it as such. The article, List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem), has their length 1 mile, or 2 kilometers, apart. While the definition of the word "much" may be in question, I do not see evidence to suggest that the Missouri River is significantly longer than the Mississippi River. A better wording here may be "nominally larger." FortySeven90K ( talk) 21:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
If it's longer than the Mississippi and carries a comparable amount of water, as the lead states, why is the Missouri the tributary rather than the main river? Is there some hydrological definition that makes it so, or is it just historically so? Could the article explain this? Furius ( talk) 23:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Missouri River has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Toolbox |
---|
The first reference USGS GNIS: Missouri River is broken. I cannot figure out how to fix it. I believe the link should be: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:756398 --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brentl99 2009-06-23 14:40 (UTC)
In the picture next to the Tributaries section there is the caption: "The James River, a Missouri River tributary, in Jamestown, North Dakota" but in the list of tributaries in North Dakota the James river is not listed. Looks like the list is incomplete. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.162.51.213 on 2008-08-09 04:26 (UTC)
I like the geographic map at the top, but I'd also like to see a map of the river with state borders so I can quickly graphically see what states it goes through. -- zandperl 15:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Missouri the "longest". See: List of rivers by length for discussion of considerations taken into account. Jerry picker 18:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 72.40.135.7 22:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)uuuuuuuuuuuuuuh 72.40.135.7 22:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the longest river in the United States, the Mississippi or Missouri? Two different Wikipedia articles have different answers:
The Mississippi? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River; "is the longest river in the United States; the second-longest is the Missouri River, which flows into the Mississippi")
The Missouri? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_River; "it is the longest river in the United States ")
The United States Geological Survey, a bureau of the Department of the Interior and official surveyor of the U.S. Government says it's the Missouri: (" http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/riversofworld.html").
georgephawley@comcast.net 216.241.240.30 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course, the reason for this discrepancy rests in the underlying assumptions. When these assumptions are laid out, the reader can decide for themselves according to which basic principles they choose to subscribe. An absolute distinction is somewhat arbitrary and academic; it is clear that the Missouri is either the longest or second longest river in the US, and the difference is so close that it comes back to which set of criteria one wishes to apply. It is more educational and to-the-point to lay out these criteria for the sake of a thoughtful and applied geographical consideration of the question. The current language has been chosen with this in mind: "At about 2,315 mi (3,725 km) in length, it drains approximately one-sixth of the North American continent. Depending on whether its length is reckoned from the headwaters of its sources (as the Mississippi's length is reckoned from Lake Itasca, Minnesota), or from their confluence where the Missouri is first so-named (at Three Forks, Montana), it is currently either the longest or second-longest river in the United States. Prior to the Pick-Sloan Program and channelization, it was unquestionably the longest river in the US." Jerry picker 02:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The article lacks actual stats on the average discharge of the Missouri, something that most of the articles on major rivers seem to have (rather just having unquantified comparisons with the upstream Mississippi and the Ohio). Can anyone provide? Alai 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
According to a statement from the Army Corps of Engineers, "In an average year, the Missouri River provides about 45 percent of the flow of the Mississippi past St. Louis. During times of drought, that contribution could rise to as much as 70 percent." http://www.ibjonline.com/print_reducing_river_flow_levels.html Jerry picker 22:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC) =)
This has been changed back and forth several times between "above" and "north of". Please note that one formal definition of "above" (prep.) is "upstream of", which may more accurately describe the geographical situation of the Mississippi at its debouchement by the Missouri. Jerry picker 23:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The picture downstream to the south showing the confluence of the Mississippi & Missouri rivers is NOT the confluence. It is the I-270 bridge & the old Chain of Rocks bridge (US 66) crossing the Mississippi from Illinois to Missouri several miles south of the confluence. There is a fine picture of the actual confluence in the Wikipedia article on the Mississippi river looking upstream that clearly shows the Missouri flowing into the Mississippi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cngresick ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Note: I've made a relatively minor edit to the main article to correct a misunderstanding that although the Milk River is the only river in Canada that drains into the Gulf of Mexico via the Missouri, it is not the only watershed in Canada that drains into the Gulf. The Poplar River (Saskatchewan-Montana) watershed extends into Canada even if the river itself does not. See also http://www.swa.ca/Maps/ (Saskatchewan Watershed Authority) Dzubint 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC) JeNnIiEe fErGgHy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.255.48 ( talk) 05:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow. This article is pretty well written. It looks pretty good. The picture describes the article. (Well) :) Atm153 00:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I found a slight problem in the opening paragraph, but I don't see an edit link there. Maybe someone who knows how to make the change will read this.
The first paragraph says that the Missouri River drains 1/6 of the land area of the North American continent. There's no way that can be correct. Indeed, when you click on Footnote 1, the original government source says "1/6 of the United States." -- Bill B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.86.189 ( talk) 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand the logic behind the idea -- that a river's "true source" is that of its longest contributing tributary. But the term "true source" strikes me as odd. Many or even most rivers begin at a confluence of headwater streams. Perhaps it is the word "true" -- implying that the statement that the source of the Missouri is the confluence of the Jefferson and Gallatin is false. The atlas I have in front of me says right at the confluence "Missouri Headwaters". As a counter-example, is it false to say the Tennessee River begins at the confluence of the Holston River and French Broad River? Or better yet, is the "true source" of the Mississippi River Brower's Spring. Anyway... I almost edited the statement to be less absolute, without the word "true", but couldn't think of a good way to phrase it at the moment. Thoughts? I know it is a bit pedantic, but there must be a better way to say it, no? Pfly 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
For an example, please note how the Mississippi River and Missouri River sources are officially defined:
Yes, the current length is actually shorter than most officially-published lengths due to channelization. LeheckaG ( talk) 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
There are more dams on the Missouri than just the Ft. Peck Dam. Great Falls, MT has five dams near the city; the Black Eagle Dam, Rainbow Dam, Cochrane Dam, Ryan Dam, and the Morony Dam. Upstream of Great Falls are the Holter Dam, Hauser Dam, Canyon Ferry Dam, and the Hosten Dam. See List of crossings of the Missouri River. Andercee 23:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the Wikipedia article on river source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_(river_or_stream)
I think that makes it pretty clear that the source of the Missouri is not the confluence of 3 rivers but likely to be Brower's Spring —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macgroover ( talk • contribs) 08:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is too developed to be a Start Class. It should be reassessed to a C or B Class. serioushat 06:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Sort of a minor issue - but should St. Louis be listed among the other cities in the infobox? I realize the river's proximity and importance to the development of the city, but the Missouri's mouth looks like it's 5 or 10 miles north of the city. Alexius Horatius 17:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
–Joliet and Marquette
–Bourgmont
–MacKay and Evans
–Lewis and Clark
–Fur trade
–Settlers and pioneers
Do we expect an article for the boat Yellowstone?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I see this as a high quality article in need of direction. Hopefully, my comments can prepare it for a successful run at WP:FAC.
I am going through all issues to summarize outstanding issues.
–Joliet and Marquette
–Bourgmont
–MacKay and Evans
It looks like all major issues have been responded to... Shannon talk contribs 03:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I am going to pass this article now. I would like to commend the author for diligence in responding to my pesky concerns. Of all of the articles that I have reviewed at GA, the result of this review is the one that I think is most ready for a run at WP:FAC. I would caution the author, however, that he may run into objections based solely on the rate at which he addresses concerns. Otherwise, best of luck.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 06:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yikes! The geology section has major issues. I will rewrite it, as the amount of time I would spend here on everything would be more than it would take for me to do it. But I want to know: what is the overall goal of the geology section? Currently it tries to say that vast regions were one thing, which is where it hits some factual issues.
Y'know what? I'll take a stab at it until I fall asleep. But please, let's iterate on what is wanted here. Awickert ( talk) 07:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This photo, File:Missouri River joins the Mississippi River.JPG, is a bit confusing. The caption was just changed to what I think it probably correct, but it is still confusing. The small stream in the foreground stands out as the subject of the photo, but as far as I can tell the Missouri is across the Mississippi, almost invisible (at least in thumbnail size). The identity of the foreground stream is a mystery. From looking at a topo map I'm guessing is it the "Cahokia Diversion Channel", and the photograph was in the Lewis and Clark State Memorial Park. In any case, I'm wondering if maybe this photo is too confusing and should not be included on the page? Pfly ( talk) 23:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the bar graph showing the monthly discharges at Herman and that showing the average discharges at selected cities do not have labels on the Y axis. Why? Surely labels and units would improve the graph. I've created figures with labels using the timeline routines – see Lake Faguibine and Bani River (bottom figure – other is a svg created before I understood the software) Aa77zz ( talk) 17:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm proposing adding the following paragraphs to the "Ecology and Human Impacts" section. The paragraphs are about a 2010 National Research Council report on sediment in the Missouri. The report is called Missouri River Planning: Recognizing and Incorporating Sediment Management and can be downloaded here: http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Missouri-River-Planning-Recognizing-Incorporating/13019
Please let me know if anyone has any comments/suggestions on this. Thanks, Earlgrey101 ( talk) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
References
In the article's subsection headed "Passage to Sioux City," the length of the river's navigation channel -- from Sioux City to St. Louis -- is given as 735 miles. In the same subsection, the channel's portion from Kansas City to St. Louis is given as 553 miles. Unless I'm missing something, that makes the difference -- i.e., the portion from Sioux City down to Kansas City -- less than two hundred miles (735 minus 553); but even in a straight line -- i.e., without consideration of bends in the river -- the distance between those cities appears to be at least two hundred fifty miles (closer to three hundred) on Google Maps. 108.36.209.26 ( talk) 19:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This article (which is great) says the Missouri "is joined by the Gallatin a mile (.6 km) downstream." I'm not sure what the actual facts are, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Could someone check? · rodii · 22:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Missouri River. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Missouri River/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
There is a comment regarding the flow of the Missouri river from its headwaters, "from this point it flows through its valley south and east into the Missippi", technicaly this is not true for it flows many miles north and east before it turns south. |
Last edited at 21:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 00:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Missouri 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Missouri 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Missouri 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 26 external links on Missouri 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sage.wisc.edu/riverdata/scripts/station_table.php?qual=32&filenum=1454{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/gmr/lewis_clark/lewis_clark-gates.asp{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ndstudies.org/resources/IndianStudies/threeaffiliated/historical_1900s_garrison.htmlWhen 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The following statement has been repeatedly added by (an) IP editor(s) and then removed as not needed here, original research, unsourced commentary or as an unsupported claim by other editors, including me:
Depending on the time of year, the Missouri River basin often contributes more water to the Lower Mississippi River just north of St. Louis, than the Upper Mississippi River, meaning the Missouri River could and often is considered the true chief river, not the Mississippi River.
The IP(s) have not discussed the text except in a comment that states I added in a factual statement, which is backed up by the National Park system. https://www.nps.gov/miss/riverfacts.htm, and another comment which is not pertinent to the content. I was unable to substantiate the claim in the reference given, and have brought the matter here for discussion. I ask that the IP does not add this text to the article again until some consensus can be reached in a discussion on this talk page.
My initial opinion is that if this text is actually relevant to the article, and it is not yet clear that it is, then it must be supported by a reliable source. Poltair ( talk) 20:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
There is an issue with how the table in Missouri_River#Navigation is aligned with the text. The text seemingly sticks to the table. I don't know where the problem lies. Somebody who does know; please fix it. - thx! -- Isidor Welti ( talk) 15:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The article currently says:
Most of the watershed receives an average of 8 to 10 inches (200 to 250 mm) of precipitation each year. However, the western most portions of the basin in the Rockies as well as southeastern regions in Missouri may receive as much as 40 inches (1,000 mm).
Both of these statements cite the same reference, a 2006 report by the US Army Corps of Engineers. But the relevant passage in that report appears to be:
Normal average annual precipitation ranges from as low as 8 to 10 inches just east of the Rocky Mountains to more than 40 inches in the southeastern part of the basin and in parts of the Rocky Mountains.
It's much different to say 8 to 10 inches is the average than to say 8 to 10 inches is the lower bound of the precipitation range. (8 to 10 inches is quite dry, drier than the state average of Nevada, the driest state in the Union.) 128.187.112.28 ( talk) 128.187.112.28 ( talk) 20:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
The first paragraph states that the Missouri is much longer and cites geographical data that doesn't explicitly state it as such. The article, List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem), has their length 1 mile, or 2 kilometers, apart. While the definition of the word "much" may be in question, I do not see evidence to suggest that the Missouri River is significantly longer than the Mississippi River. A better wording here may be "nominally larger." FortySeven90K ( talk) 21:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
If it's longer than the Mississippi and carries a comparable amount of water, as the lead states, why is the Missouri the tributary rather than the main river? Is there some hydrological definition that makes it so, or is it just historically so? Could the article explain this? Furius ( talk) 23:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)