Looks like issues from my nomination a number of months ago have been cleared up. Phoenix Two 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support as nom. Phoenix Two 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Before I even read the details of the article, the fact that a {{
unsourced}} template exists in the
Longest rivers that have probably existed in the past section immediately disqualifies this article. Please go back and reference this section before considering this list a featured one. In addition, the word "probably" in the section name probably isn't such a good idea. Can you reword it so it (pithily) suggests that some sources believe these river existed? In addition, a lack of inline citations poses a major problem to this list. --
Fbv
65
e
del /
☑t /
☛c ||
00:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I tried rewording the section and adding a few references. Phoenix Two 05:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- It still lists averages from several sources, without telling us which sources or what they give as the lengths. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, not even close enough to say "no cigar"
- Title is misleading. It's obviously a List of rivers longer than 1000 km. The fact they are ordered by length is just a natural extension of the scope.
- Maybe that "River systems that may have existed in the past" section would be better off as "Hypothesized former rivers"?
- Agree that it's under-cited: every entry should have separate citations for the numbers.
- Too many multiple links. Atlantic Ocean and Amazon River are each linked over 10 times, for exemple.
- Choice (twice the Nile?) and position (could be better spread) of images are dubious.
- The drainage area and discharge columns are mostly empty, a tribute to not looking for enough sources. I'm sure a large number of these can be filled up by looking around for sources. I recall an Atlas of Canada with drainage area for most important rivers that could fill several of the empty ones.
- Why is there a dagger at the beginning of "Definition of length"??
- Circeus 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Only the first instance of a country's name should be wikilinked; use either "USA" or "United States" throughout - not a mixture. Tompw ( talk) 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- comment the colors for Asia and Europe are too close to readily differentiate; can a different color/shade be chosen for one of them? Hmains 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like issues from my nomination a number of months ago have been cleared up. Phoenix Two 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support as nom. Phoenix Two 23:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Before I even read the details of the article, the fact that a {{
unsourced}} template exists in the
Longest rivers that have probably existed in the past section immediately disqualifies this article. Please go back and reference this section before considering this list a featured one. In addition, the word "probably" in the section name probably isn't such a good idea. Can you reword it so it (pithily) suggests that some sources believe these river existed? In addition, a lack of inline citations poses a major problem to this list. --
Fbv
65
e
del /
☑t /
☛c ||
00:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- I tried rewording the section and adding a few references. Phoenix Two 05:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- It still lists averages from several sources, without telling us which sources or what they give as the lengths. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, not even close enough to say "no cigar"
- Title is misleading. It's obviously a List of rivers longer than 1000 km. The fact they are ordered by length is just a natural extension of the scope.
- Maybe that "River systems that may have existed in the past" section would be better off as "Hypothesized former rivers"?
- Agree that it's under-cited: every entry should have separate citations for the numbers.
- Too many multiple links. Atlantic Ocean and Amazon River are each linked over 10 times, for exemple.
- Choice (twice the Nile?) and position (could be better spread) of images are dubious.
- The drainage area and discharge columns are mostly empty, a tribute to not looking for enough sources. I'm sure a large number of these can be filled up by looking around for sources. I recall an Atlas of Canada with drainage area for most important rivers that could fill several of the empty ones.
- Why is there a dagger at the beginning of "Definition of length"??
- Circeus 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Only the first instance of a country's name should be wikilinked; use either "USA" or "United States" throughout - not a mixture. Tompw ( talk) 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- comment the colors for Asia and Europe are too close to readily differentiate; can a different color/shade be chosen for one of them? Hmains 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)