Talk:New River (Mexico–United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee New River (Mexico–United States) was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
February 21, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject California / Southern California (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Southern California task force.
 
WikiProject Rivers (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Mexicali is most probably colloquial, at least I didn't recognize it. Is that Mexican California, the border area? Is it ethnic or geographical, that is not clear.
It is geographical: Mexicali is a city and capital of the Northwestern state of Baja California, Calexico is a city in California accross the border from Mexicali; I've added the term "city of" to clarify this. --Berimbau1 23:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The copied and pasted text of the legislation is unnecessary, sum it up in prose. Not only that but as is it is most likely a copyright violation. The article will never become GA with that in there as it is now. The blocking of the text to the bill also leads to some formatting errors that are probably unbecoming of most GAs.

2. Factually accurate?: The section 'Environmental justice' is lacking citations, two is probably not enough for all the assertions of fact in that graf.
3. Broad in coverage?: This would imply that the river has always been polluted but the article states that was recognized in 1940, what about 1905-1940? Was the river ever clean?
4. Neutral point of view?: Citations are necessary in statements such as this: "Since the passing of NAFTA in the 1990s, industrial manufacturing also became an increasingly significant contributor to pollution. Mexico's relatively lax environmental regulations on manufacturing plants or maquiladoras has allowed these plants to use the New River as an industrial waste drainage system over the years. Mexicali has become a bustling border city with over one hundred maquiladoras."

Another example: "Scores of immigrants are also exposed as they use the river to enter the U.S.; immigrants often evade the Border Patrol because agents will not risk their health by entering the water to detain them."

5. Article stability? Appears to be stable.
6. Images?: The copyright on the image from Calexico New River Committee may not be accurate. Research and a statement from the author may be required.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --A mcmurray 12:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good to see. That was kind of nitpicking and had little to do with the fail actually, the other concerns are more important I think. Good luck. : )A mcmurray 23:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does this article link to an unrelated river in Jamica?[edit]

I disagree with editor(s) who insist on linking to a completely unrelated and practically empty article about a river in Jamaica to this article. Quoting from Wikipedia's Disambiguation guidelines at WP:DAB

"There is no need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term. For example, Solaris (1972 film) is clearly about one specific movie and not about any of the many other meanings of "Solaris". It is very unlikely that someone arriving there from within Wikipedia would have been looking for any other "Solaris", so it is unnecessary to add a link pointing to the Solaris disambiguation page."

Unless someone can provide a valid counter-argument I belive the reference to a stub article in Jamica should be removed from an article about a river in California. Dave (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more. I think the right thing to do is have Rio Nuevo, and Río Nuevo redirect to New River. If that is done, no hatnote is required for this article at all. I'll consult with WP:Disambiguation and see what they think. Dave (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
One hatnote is sufficient. It can be formulated as either
"Rio Nuevo" redirects here. For other uses, see New River (disambiguation).
or
Not to be confused with Rio Nuevo (Jamaica) or Río Nuevo (Puerto Rico).
but including both is redundant. olderwiser 01:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)