A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the River article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days

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. Review: August 14, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs Geology High‑importance Talk:River is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Limnology and Oceanography High‑importance This article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Rivers Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from River appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 September 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that rivers form up to 23% of international borders? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/River.

It describes "all rivers flow N-S" as a 'common misconception'. In my half century on this planet, nearly half of which are in education, I have encountered a lot of misconceptions but never heard of this. What is the definition of 'common' being employed here. The sources listed a few blogs; hardly encyclopaedic.  2001:8003:F231:2501:E41C:D857:B016:7B0F (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Velella and ForksForks:? Rewrite no good? What wrong? Why not cooperate happily? jp×g🗯️ 12:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess for context I was asked to find consensus for [1] this version of the article. I am def happy to collab and take criticism on the article… I didn’t realize it would be a controversial since the live version has a lot of unsourced content and is a little barebones. ForksForks (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a deal of debate about the content of this article in the past. We did, at one stage have a reasonable version where the images reflected the text and demonstrated the progression of a river from headwaters through tumuluous stream right down to the vast deltas. Over the years that has been lost somewaht and the article has collected a fair degree of unsourced contant. I would be happy to work with any editors to improve it but a major re-structuring without discussion was not appropriate. In general it is easier to first get general agreement to the shape and then implement that one sentence or section at a time to allow for debate. A massive change is impossible to work with, and few editors have the time to work though such a change to check that all the important points have been included, taht the sources are good and support the article statements, and that it follows a logical encyclopaedic structure. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This link may help to set the context from 12 years ago.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had looked at the talk page archive, but it seemed like the link you're referring to did not attract a lot of work or discussion. I would understand going sentence by sentence if this was a controversial article with a lot of active maintainers, but that is not really what I see. It's an article that has been allowed to gain tons of cruft and unsourced sections over time without anyone bothering to revert it.

An article like this (in my opinion) does require research and also a lot of writing, which is what I've done, and I have been careful to cite everything and read a lot and put a careful, balanced article together. If I were to submit it all individually here for approval I would be very surprised if I could get the same work done, and if anyone would actually show up to debate. My understanding with wp is that we should be bold with such changes so we don't get bogged down like this.

If you have a specific critique of the new version, I get it, but this sounds more like you don't fell comfortable reviewing the whole thing, which is understandable. My plan has been to take this to GAN as well as show it to other editors (see my recent work on Island) to get some experienced eyes on the topic, and I think I was successful with this approach before. ForksForks (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, sure, but please see WP:BRD which deals with just such a sitiation as this. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}  

I have tried to notify some relevant wikiprojects to attract more discussion. ForksForks (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here seems to me to justify halting work on this article. Whole sections, and many paragraphs, are completely uncited, so any editor should feel free either to attempt to cite the existing text (always a risky manoeuvre) or to find suitable sources and to modify the text according to the sources, surely an uncontroversial action. I'd suggest that editing should proceed a paragraph or small section at a time, with the edit comments stating "added source Bloggs 1986", "rewritten using Smith 2021" and the like. That should be hard to disagree with.

Then if there are any specific difficult decisions to be taken, such as replacing favourite images, they can be discussed here, or the tried-and-trusted BRD process can be attempted on those, one at a time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that editing should proceed a paragraph or small section at a time. Large bold edits make it easier to see what changes have been made, instead of several iterative edits. People can then make changes to the new text without reverting the whole thing. Copying an entire article into your sandbox, working on it for a few months, and then changing the whole thing in one go is perfectly valid. If people have issues with small parts of a large edit, they can change it and discuss on talk page. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you, but in the interest of negotiation (and not edit warring) I have managed to accomplish the changes section by section over the course of a couple weeks. I basically would have had to achieve consensus for my version, which could take a while. ForksForks (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a small subsection to verify content in the lead, and redid the 'source of rivers' section. Propose adding to this section to illustrate drainage basins. ForksForks (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how few river-basins can drain a whole continent. Interesting image. Go for it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We may wish to cut 1 or 2 images from the lead to prevent clutter, and maybe provide room to make the lead image larger. ForksForks (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose a new lead image. The Elwha River photo is nice, but I think I'd like to show a photo of a more major river, in higher fidelity. The cloud cover in the current photo gives the photo a dimmed appearance, something with some visual appeal would be nice. I like this photo of the Missouri River. However, if people have other ideas, please share! ForksForks (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I also like the 2nd image, but I think it needs to be zoomed in a little bit? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers are a phenomena observed around the globe. Looking at the page, we have 24 images, and 19 are photos or satellite images. Of these, 8 are in the United States, and 9 are of North America, and 15 are of North America or Europe. Wikimedia Commons has many great images of Rivers from around the world. I would suggest trying to find images from other countries/places to round out representation. For example, the Three Gorges Dam in China, Blue Nile, Congo River, Amazon river, and Yarra River could round out the geographic representation of rivers in the world. We could include a Gallery to organize these images a bit, as seen below as an example with photos of things I mentioned.

Three Gorges Dam China

Bridges across the Blue Nile Gorge

International Space Station image of the Congo River. The smaller city is Brazzaville

Amazon boat

CAÑO CRISTALES, EL RÍO DE COLORES

Yarra Night Panorama, Melbourne - Feb 2005

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am pro-gallery but given the pushback I got earlier I didn't want to change the article from no-gallery to gallery. If you added one, I would not oppose it myself.

Do you have specific thoughts on a lead image? I am willing to sign onto a non-Western lead image if you're interested in picking one. ForksForks (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of rivers for the lead, the Amazon, Nile, Yangtze, Yellow, Mississippi, and Congo would be good examples. I'd likely go with the Nile in terms of historical significance. Another fun one could be to use a photo of the Colorado river like the one here of Horseshoe bend

. The Colorado has some really dramatic erosion examples. Then we could swap out some of the other photos with ones from outside the US. If we go with the Elwaha River, Missouri River, or whatever we should probably change out some North American examples is my main point.

Also, fun photo I found on Wikimedia showing river valley networks on Mars.

A gallery would be a nice inclusion but we'd need to find a good justification for what is included, for example "Gallery of the largest rivers by Continent" could be good, but the word "continent" is pretty fuzzy in of itself. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is cool. So is the mars river valley from water? It may be worth mentioning in the article, but we are defining rivers as water-only. The previous version of the article had an image of a methane "river" on a moon (cool) but that's not a river under the definition.

I can look at swapping some images later, but feel free to do whatever. ForksForks (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a gallery section. Bold edit and all that. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to add the Mars photo flies afoul of MOS:SANDWICH. Make sure to view the article in standard mode and wide mode on desktop to make sure it fits. We may have to remove the Mars image for now if there's no space. ForksForks (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made it a bit better by moving the Nile image a bit. I think it's better, the Grand Canyon image seems a worse offender at the moment in terms of layout. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, Mars erosion is thought to be from water as opposed to flowing methane. Mars was once very wet based on the current scientific consensus, and water may still flow on the surface in liquid form sometimes. These features are thought to be from water. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's been a few days since the last comment, but I just want to say that a featured picture would probably be better to use as the lead, whether it would be on Commons or on the English Wikipedia. _ZZ^Z'S 20:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

here’s a FP from New Zealand. What do you think? ForksForks (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the trouble is we want a picture where the subject of the photo is a river. Can be hard ForksForks (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not showing much of the river, and the position is a bit awkward. Perhaps an aerial view or a photo from higher ground would be better. _ZZ^Z'S 21:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, something that I think will please everyone. This is non-western, a featured picture on commons, substantially features the river as the subject of the photo, and has a nod to human activity. I've added this to the article. ForksForks (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! Thanks! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 02:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that rivers form up to 23% of international borders?

• Source: [2]

• ALT1: ... that when fertilizer leaks into a river, it can create a "dead zone" that supports little aquatic life? Source: [3]
• ALT2: ... that rivers with a larger discharge can support more species of fish? Source: [4]
• Reviewed: [[]]
• Comment: Feel free to suggest alts, I'm not picky.

Improved to Good Article status by ForksForks (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

ForksForks (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Adjusted the Wikilinks in the hooks. GA promoted two days ago, on 14 August. References were spot-checked for verification; no issues arose. I prefer the original hook. Yue🌙 22:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Submarine River Picture caption is wrong as it is not san jose california but san jose in the phillipines which is under the picture caption.

Change the place name in submarine river caption from San Jose California to San Jose, Quezon, Bukidnon 2600:6C50:5A3F:D54B:3C2C:B26B:84BA:EB61 (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ⸺(Random)staplers 02:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they were referring to this file in this section. Its caption says that it was taken in Quezon, which is in the Philippines. Since their edit request does not require reliable sources, I've went ahead and changed it. _ZZ^Z'S 03:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]