Talk:River Usk: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:21, 19 April 2008

Rivers Unassessed

	Geography portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources

I am struggling to get my head round the below fact

It is the deepest river in the British Isles at its mouth^[1] and the River Severn into which it empties has the second largest tidal range in the world after the Bay of Fundy in Canada,^[2]

^ "River depth".
^ "Coast: Bristol Channel". BBC. Retrieved 2007-08-27.

Surely the mouth of the River Usk (just below Newport) is part of the River Severn?
Reference 2 (clearly a more reliable source than a tourist guide) states the Bristol Channel - not the Severn (or the Usk) has the second highest tidal range.
Therefore Reference 1 is factually incorrect - Period.
Reference 1 is verbatim of an earler Wikipage [1] - including factual inaccuracies - where did they get their information?. Where did we get our information?
Competing Claim
If the Usk holds this record should it not referenced by more than a Tourist Information (WP:RS) site/possible mirror - someone must have measured the depth. What is it?

Aatomic1 (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the above, I suggest the article is deleted. Every single "fact" given in the text is currently unverified, so why single out the few facts that did have a reference, albeit not the best of references, for removal? Another way forward is to re-instate the deleted facts and ask for references. Which do you prefer? Why did you pick on those particular facts, rather than any of the other totally unreferenced stuff? 86.27.186.36 (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "River depth".

[2] "Coast: Bristol Channel". BBC. Retrieved 2007-08-27.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 #If the Usk holds this ''record'' should it not referenced by more than a Tourist Information ([[WP:RS]]) site/possible mirror - someone must have measured the depth. What is it?
 [[User:Aatomic1|Aatomic1]] ([[User talk:Aatomic1|talk]]) 00:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
+:In the light of the above, I suggest the article is deleted. Every single "fact" given in the text is currently unverified, so why single out the few facts that did have a reference, albeit not the best of references, for removal? Another way forward is to re-instate the deleted facts and ask for references. Which do you prefer? Why did you pick on those particular facts, rather than any of the other totally unreferenced stuff? [[Special:Contributions/86.27.186.36|86.27.186.36]] ([[User talk:86.27.186.36|talk]]) 10:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)