Seventy rivers and creeks of at least 50 miles (80 km) in total length are the longest streams of the U.S. state of Idaho. Sound familiar? It's very similar to the list of longest streams of Oregon which passed its FLC nearly three years ago. There's two major differences: all of the streams' lengths were calculated from the same source, the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), and I moved the gallery to beside the table rather than above it. I think it meets all of the criteria. Cheers, LittleMountain5 22:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Support with a few comments and quibbles. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I'm a member of WikiProject Rivers and that I collaborated with the nominator on the list of longest streams of Oregon mentioned above but not this list. This list has no dabs; alt text looks fine to me; citation format looks fine; the prose is excellent; the list appears to be comprehensive. Here are my quibbles:
The [n] might be confusing as a key symbol. What if someone later adds a note in a different column?
The clickable map has three problems, I believe. Hangman Creek links to Latah River but should link to Latah Creek. North Fork Coeur d'Alene River should probably link to Coeur d'Alene River as it does in the table. Goose Creek (Snake River) is mislinking because River is misspelled as Rlver.
The image licenses look OK to me. I always yearn for higher quality images, but so far I have not found any better than the ones you've found. Finetooth (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your support! I was attempting to reduce clutter by using the [n] as a key symbol, but I see your point about possible confusion, so I added daggers like the Oregon list has. I also fixed the three typos on the image map, so that should be good now. I know that many of the images are fairly low quality, but as you said, there aren't too many options, unfortunately. Cheers, LittleMountain5 19:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Comments: I've helped with the intro a bit. There are 29/70 entries with yellow labels. Why not add a separate column for the length within the state only? Also, the total length reference is a bit awkward. For example somebody could come in and change one of the numbers randomly and a new editor would have a very hard time to double-check the new number. Isn't there a website with the lengths given for at least some of the longest streams? Nergaal (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedit! I actually thought about adding a "Length within Idaho" column (and doing away with the key and notes), but I didn't because I'm not sure if there's enough room. What do you think? As for the reference, I don't know how to make the NHD more accessible, unfortunately. I'm not aware of any other websites that list NHD lengths of streams. I'm open to suggestions. Cheers, LittleMountain5 06:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I added a "Length in Idaho" column in my sandbox to see what it would look like. There's definitely not much space, but when I removed the source and mouth elevations, it looks much better (see here). Thoughts? LittleMountain5 21:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I prefer that version. I remember in the past that there was a trick to put the ordering arrow below the text with something like <br> but it doesn't seem to work anymore. That way, the table would appear more narrow. Nergaal (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the Salmon River link, swapped "rivers and creeks" with the all-encompassing "streams", and changed the Snake River image. I'm not really sure how to improve the image captions other than adding the streams' lengths, but that seems redundant. What did you have in mind? Also, I would really like to incorporate the images into the table, but only about half of the streams have images, and even less have good ones, unfortunately. Thanks, LittleMountain5 04:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Re: captions, I was wondering if you could say something interesting about them, but if you think there's nothing beyond the length, then fine. Even if you had images for say half the streams, it may be worth incorporating them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Note, I'd be happy to support if the captions were interesting. Otherwise it's just a "meh" from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I expanded the captions a bit, take a look. Cheers, LittleMountain5 21:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Support now that the yellow boxes are gone. --PresN 23:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)