Talk:Missouri River/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are stuck with me and I am a tedious reviewer. Expect this review to take weeks. However, since you have been through two WP:FACs, I am sure you will be able to deal with me.
  • My initial take of the WP:LEAD is that I can not tell which cities it actually passes through or borders. Also, why do all the river articles have random pictures for the main image instead of the encyclopedic maps?
  • Also, is it possible to make the river a different color than its tributaries in the map.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No clue, but that's the way it tends to be. Would a satellite image or something from NASA Blue Marble be better? Awickert (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You would have to show me a particular image. P.S. don't strike my concerns. Protocol is that the person who has the concern strike things himself so that we can be sure his concern has been fully addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In general, yes, though all I struck were "linking" ones, which are pretty unambiguous and helped keep me organized. But as you wish. PS: It is good manners to at least give someone the courtesy of a brief reply when you make them waste 15 minutes explaining themselves because you told them that they can't be right i.e., here, and especially before you ask them to explain themselves again. Sorry to be snippy, but geez louise, I'm trying to help and actually do have a clue of what I'm doing. Awickert (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC) [OK, venting done, I feel better. Awickert (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)][reply]
        • For the image: if it's not clear if it would be an improvement, I won't make it. It takes a while to do. Awickert (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other thing. Try alternating sides of image space. In some spaces you might want to use Template:Multiple image. Remove the mid article image gallery and rearrange your images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link meanders.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is looking like an easy review. Two FACs has cleaned up a lot of issues.
Watershed
  • put the opening quote in a quotebox.
  • What is a catchmen? hydrologic source?
    • Catchment = watershed = drainage basin. Linked. Not sure about hydrologic source - the definition of the source of the Missouri is weird... Awickert (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Longest and largest tributary info repeats in this section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC
Geology
  • link headwaters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section would be better with citations immediately following facts rather than blanket paragraph citations. E.g., I am uncomfortable with the first paragraph.
    • I think this is solved in everything but the last paragraph now. Awickert (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the term upwelling mean?
  • In fact, I don't understand this whole sentence: "Upwelling of molten rock from underneath North America forced up by the remains of the Farallon caused the Sea's banks to encroach on it on both sides."
  • If Stable Interior is a term, shouldn't we have or expect a link?
  • Link bedrock, seismic, magma, Montana Dome, the Transcontinental Arch, Ice Ages, sediment, glaciation.
    • I am unsure why you have removed these terms rather than link them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because they have little to do with the development of the Missouri River, and many were used anachronistically. Awickert (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a geological term for snow and ice melt that should be linked?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing I can think of that would be helpful; special term is "ablation", but it's used more frequently in the context of mass balance on modern ice sheets. "Retreat" applies to ice sheets, but we haven't talked about that here. Awickert (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost the entire geology section is wrong. I'm sure that this is not for lack of trying to do it right, but for lack of sources, etc. I think that we should put the GAR on hold for the moment as we try to do it right. I am going to open a section at talk, as I'm not sure what the goal of the geology section is and I don't want to trample all over the article. I will be happy to help make it better. Awickert (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been through 2 FACs. I find it hard to believe it could be that wrong.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's absolutely unbelievable and really unnerving. Please please please grab me or Vsmith or Mikenorton or someone if you have questions about a geology section, because the timing of Rocky Mountain uplift (off by >50 million years), the cause of the mid-continental seaway, the characterization of Cretaceous North America (NOT a low-lying swamp), the characterization of the "stable interior" as sedimentary basins, invoking magmatism related to the seaway, totally missing the actual uplift of the rocky mountains, rerouting the Missouri River in the last 20 ka (actually >200 ka), and many more are all incorrect/issues. I do not want to give Shannon a hard time because she writes great, great river articles. But the fact that something like this can be through FAC twice really indicates a problem in our ability to assess fact in what should be the pinnacle of Wikipedia articles. So please believe me; I wouldn't be taking your (plural) time if it weren't significant. (And I actually do research in the Western US and the Mississippi River basin as a geologist, so sadly, I do know what I'm talking about. But I feel guilty giving people a hard time without pitching in, so I'm on the train to get this thing whipped up into shape.) Awickert (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Think I got it. Not perfect, could add some Quaternary stuff, but good enough for the moment. Awickert (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Greatly improved. And yes, it was that bad ... sorta highlights a problem with FA/Ga process when a reviewer makes a comment like that. Subject matter "clue" is critical. Vsmith (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First peoples
Early explorers

–Joliet and Marquette

I'd say that Vermillion/California Sea refers to the Pacific Ocean. Shannontalk contribs 01:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

–Bourgmont

  • You mention an early map, which makes me think that there should be an early map and maybe a more recent map from before the rerouting of the river. It would be good to see the natural river course and the synthetic course in one image.
  • Could you expand "Bourgmont established Fort Orleans" to say "In current day region (such as southeast) Missouri, Bourgmont established Fort Orleans".
  • Even if Brunswick village does not have a link, describe it region.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

–MacKay and Evans

–Lewis and Clark

American Frontier

–Fur trade

–Settlers and pioneers

  • What does this mean: the western approach of the First Transcontinental Railroad was a ferry ride across the Missouri
  • Link Independence and clarify its relation to the river.
  • naturally and "Had to be" in para 4 sound POV--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last one fixed Shannontalk contribs 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dams and engineering
For the money conversion you mean this link? I don't know how to use it... Shannontalk contribs 06:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. See Bobby Orr. I forgot how to do it myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done... Shannontalk contribs 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red XN--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's done. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 13:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Shannontalk contribs 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link and define abbreviation at first use. Abbreviate thereafter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation
  • What is a bull boat?
  • Link steamboat, dredging, revetments.
  • Does Independence have a link? It sounds famous.
  • There most of these needs a comma after there.
  • navigation channel?
  • I think Then in 1927 needs a comma after Then.
  • You use the full U.S. Army Corps of Engineers three times and then switch to initials without defining them.
    • You should explain the initial on first use (in the LEAD, not here).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't need to define the term twice. Once you define the initials don't go back and forth on using the full term and the initials. Define the initials once and then use only the initials afterwards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also link U.S. Army Corps of Engineers both of the first two times and a total of three times in the article.
  • "the sealing and cutting off of meanders and side channels" seems ungrammatical. Might be better without the leading the and not sure what form meanders should take.
  • Tons need conversions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ecology and human impact
  • minks, river otters, beavers, muskrats, and raccoons are all linked here. Remove redundant links with above.
  • The following sentence could use a map for support. You may want to talk to the WP:GL. "The Missouri River basin is divided into three freshwater ecoregions by the World Wide Fund For Nature: the Upper Missouri, Lower Missouri and Central Prairie." (done)
  • "whole Missouri watershed" sounds like a different claim than of the three ecoregions.
  • How has channelization affected the flood plains in terms of high risk flood zones?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Last done)
Tourism and recreation
See also

Do we expect an article for the boat Yellowstone?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

I see this as a high quality article in need of direction. Hopefully, my comments can prepare it for a successful run at WP:FAC.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    There are a lot of unfamiliar terms that I have requested be linked.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I have left a lot of questions about various issues above.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Captions need work. Notable terms such as Mississippi River or Lewis and Clark should be linked. Basically, link most terms you would link in the main text. Even things like Pick-Sloan. Also, read WP:CAPTION#wording. If it is not a full sentence, it should not end in a period. I am also unsatisfied with the following captions: File:MNRR At the North Alabama wreck site 20070807171612.jpg, File:SunRiver.JPG, and File:Omaha, Nebraska (OMA).jpg and am unsure if the following image is being credited properly: File:Gavins Point dam2.JPG.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    This needs some work, but it will be GA-worthy with some tweaking. I will be following along. If progress is not made within a week, however, I will reconsider that assessment. I am putting this on hold for 7 days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going through all issues to summarize outstanding issues.

General
LEAD
  • My initial take of the WP:LEAD is that I can not tell which cities it actually passes through or borders.
(Done)
  • Also, why do all the river articles have random pictures for the main image instead of the encyclopedic maps?
They just do. Ask the people at WikiProject Geography.
Watershed
  • put the opening quote in a quotebox like at Clint Eastwood that does not break the text.
  • What is a hydrologic source?
  • Longest and largest tributary info repeats in this section.
I dont see this... Shannontalk contribs 02:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The major tributaries subsection repeats the content in this section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried and tried, but it just doesn't work. The sort func works for the list of dams, though... weird? Shannontalk contribs 02:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can figure it out looking at the table here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that each sort button is in a box that spans two columns. Is this allowed for sorts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Early explorers

–Joliet and Marquette

I'd say that Vermillion/California Sea refers to the Pacific Ocean. Shannontalk contribs 01:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

–Bourgmont

  • You mention an early map, which makes me think that there should be an early map and maybe a more recent map from before the rerouting of the river. It would be good to see the natural river course and the synthetic course in one image.
  • Even if Brunswick village does not have a link, describe it region.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Shannontalk contribs 02:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I see is "Bourgmont was living with the Missouri tribe at its Brunswick village with his Missouri wife and son." Either provide a link or describe where this village is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

–MacKay and Evans

  • This also mentions an early map.
The early maps probably wouldn't be proportionally accurate enough to overlay on the present course of the river... might want to ask Kmusser or someone who actually can make maps...
Basically, my interest in early maps is in providing the reader with a visual depiction of the natural course of the river and its current course in a way that provides encyclopedic content. Is there any way that you can help the reader to understand the changes in the river's course.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, look at the Lewis and Clark map. The locations of the rivers proportionate to each other aren't accurate enough to be overlaid on a modern map. Shannontalk contribs 21:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dams and engineering
  • Link barge, hydroelectric plan (link first instance and delink later ones.)
(done)
Not third instance. First please.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok found and done. Shannontalk contribs 02:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. That is not a section about the largest reservoirs. There are sections that have text that reads "largest reservoir systems of North America" and such. Basically, what I am saying is that the text should have one or two reservoir links piped and one or two dam links piped in a way that is helpful to the reader. This is a section about Dams and engineering of the Missouri river ant the see also is not correctly added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Shannontalk contribs 21:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(moved from malplaced location) Shouldn't this article inform the reader that the Missouri hosts some of the largest and tallest dams in the world? (with a citation to that effect)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, added link to List of largest dams in the world within prose. Tallest dams list not so relevant; the dams on the river are simply large as in length and volume as well as the size of the reservoirs they create, but aren't so impressively tall. Shannontalk contribs 02:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
  • After introducing and linking the term either consistently refer to it as the Pick-Sloan Plan or the Pick Plan and don't switch. I see Pick-Sloan Plan, Pick-Sloan plan, Pick-Sloan project and Pick plan now. Get this organized.
(done)
Captions should be adjusted too. PS project remains in a caption and PS legislation remains in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, Pick Sloan Legislation refers to a separate entity. Shannontalk contribs 02:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really done.
  • If you intend to use the abbreviation BoR, you must put (BoR) or (henceforth, BoR) after first spelling it out. Link and define abbreviation at first use. Abbreviate thereafter.
(done)
This is like pulling teeth. Like I said preiously (03:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)). Link and define abbreviation at first use. Abbreviate thereafter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected to 15... see the navbox I created recently at the very bottom, it has all 15. Shannontalk contribs 02:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to add anything to the main body. How about a simple table listing the dams with two or three columns of info (Municipality, date of construction or opening, size).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will start working on that this noon. Shannontalk contribs 20:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Whew! What a bit of work Shannontalk contribs 04:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I understand where all the dams are, I am left with the natural question of why there are none in the lower half of the river.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lower half is used for navigation more than storage and power generation; I will try to word that in. Shannontalk contribs 20:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a source for that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation
  • Not sure "Further information: Steamboats of the Mississippi" will fly at FAC, which is what I think you really are shooting for.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should I remove the link, or change format? Shannontalk contribs 01:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is that that particular link be merged into the text. If it were "Steamboats of the Missouri" maybe, but that article is not a more detailed account of this section. Figure out what point in that article might be relevant here and use that link in a sentence or omit it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link steamboat, dredging, revetments. (done)
  • There most of these needs a comma after there. (done)
  • navigation channel?
Clarify? Shannontalk contribs 21:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have a link? What is it?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only name I can figure out for it would be Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, which is linked, but otherwise it dosen't have an official name. Shannontalk contribs 03:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term needs explanation. If you can't link it, explain what it is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are making progress. "Certain size" is not so helpful. I would expect the term to have a definition, like that portion of the river safely navigable by ships with XX' of submerged depth or something that a reader can latch on to. I imagine there is a clear definition of a navigation channel somewhere now that I understand what you are talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the full U.S. Army Corps of Engineers three times and then switch to initials without defining them. You should explain the initial on first use (in the LEAD, not here). You don't need to define the term twice. Once you define the initials don't go back and forth on using the full term and the initials. Define the initials once and then use only the initials afterwards.
    • Doesn't the reader need a bit of reminder what USACE stands for, so far between the lead and this section?
      • (In the current version of the article you use the full phrase 3 times and the initials at least a half dozen times. With all these uses of the term the reader will understand he should go back to its first use and remind himself what it means. If you are going to use initials at all use them in all instances other than the first, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Shannontalk contribs 02:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also link U.S. Army Corps of Engineers both of the first two times and a total of three times in the article. (Fixed)
  • "the sealing and cutting off of meanders and side channels" seems ungrammatical. Might be better without the leading the and not sure what form meanders should take. (Done)
  • Do we expect an article for the boat Yellowstone (the steamboat )?
    • I did link this, but there ain't a page for it... Shannontalk contribs 05:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
      • At FAC (If you intend to go there again), you might want to stub out Independence and Yellowstone.
Ecology and human impact
  • How has channelization affected the flood plains in terms of high risk flood zones?
Think I'm done, but clarify? Shannontalk contribs 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it. Which paragraph?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3rd paragraph, about 1/3 down. Shannontalk contribs 20:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about "Additionally, development of the floodplain has led to more and more people and industries within areas at high risk of inundation.", that does not answer my question. That sasy that Evolution has led more business and commerce to be located in high risk areas. My question is whether channelization makes the high risk areas less risky?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finished. Shannontalk contribs 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who understands the field, I am sure you understood my clarification and did your best. I had hoped for something else, but I will take that.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tourism and recreation
Done, the first recurrence was in a caption in the Navigation section. Shannontalk contribs 02:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first occurence in the text should also be linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also
  • Why is one flood listed?
Linked earlier in article, removed. Shannontalk contribs 03:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both added to prose, removed from see also. Shannontalk contribs 18:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all major issues have been responded to... Shannontalk contribs 03:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another runthrough of issues[edit]

  • Fix the disambiguation links in the GA page toolbox.
  • Captions need work.
    • Notable terms such as Mississippi River or Lewis and Clark should be linked. Basically, link most terms you would link in the main text. Even things like Pick-Sloan.
      • Look at each Caption as a separate article and link each item that you would if the reader were only reading that caption.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What if Mississippi River is already linked the first time it appears in a caption? Shannontalk contribs 00:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be linked in each caption.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Words like silt, Fort Pierre, riprap, Ecoregion, should also be linked. Even consider the word tributary, but I am not sure about that one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. Shannontalk contribs 00:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to pass this article now. I would like to commend the author for diligence in responding to my pesky concerns. Of all of the articles that I have reviewed at GA, the result of this review is the one that I think is most ready for a run at WP:FAC. I would caution the author, however, that he may run into objections based solely on the rate at which he addresses concerns. Otherwise, best of luck.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Missouri_River/GA1&oldid=1142442604"