Talk:Potomac River

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Potomac River was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 19, 2008 Peer review Reviewed May 24, 2019 Good article nominee Not listed July 14, 2021 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hampshire County, West Virginia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire County, West Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire County, West Virginia 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.Hampshire County, West VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject Hampshire County, West VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject Hampshire County, West VirginiaHampshire County, West Virginia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Maryland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Virginia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: District of Columbia / West Virginia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (assessed as High-importance). Rivers High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The lead tells us that /pəˈtoʊmək/ is the correct pronunciation of the name, but in the accompanying audio file, it's more like /pəˈtɒmək/. Clearly one of these needs to be corrected. Zacwill (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that there's a discrepancy. I swapped it out for File:en-us-Potomac.ogg, which has a pronunciation that matches the IPA (and what I, as someone who grew up near the river, recognize). Vahurzpu (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Zacwill (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, the B-class criteria (#4) states: The article is reasonably well-written.. A July 2021 "This article may need to be rewritten" tag is not indicative of being well written so I have reassessed the article.

A couple of things I saw were a large number of images. Almost everyone loves pictures but at a point, an article can be overloaded. The "See also" section needs to be trimmed. A long "List of" is not necessary as it does not enhance the article. We do have categories for a reason.

There is an abundance of added material in the "Notes" subsection. This information is sourced (with one exception) and should be incorporated into the article where it belongs.

The biggest sore thumb is the "External links" section. It is one of two that is the worse I have seen and needs to be trimmed with a bulldozer. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.

In fact, I will just crop all but the top three (as maintenance, that is not subjected to BRD), and let any future discussion decide on changes. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph claims without citation that the Potomac is "the fourth-largest river along the East Coast of the United States and the 21st-largest in the United States". "Largest" is not well-defined, but this statement does not seem to hold under any of three common definitions (see Largest rivers).

According to the citation-based List of U.S. rivers by discharge, the Potomac is not in the top 56 rivers in the US by average discharge. The Potomac has a smaller average discharge than at least the Hudson River, Connecticut River, Susquehanna River, and Delaware River, as well as possibly the Savannah River - so does not appear to be the 4th largest river on the East Coast of the U.S. by this measure.

According to the citation-based (List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem)), the Potomac also is not in the 38 longest rivers in the U.S. and does not have more than the 33rd largest watershed - though it may have one of the largest watersheds on the East Coast. Moozle14 (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 21st claim entirely, it's unsupportable, and added a fact tag for the 4th largest on eastern seaboard because maybe? Either way, neither claim is mentioned in the body of the article. The lead section is a summary of the most important and best sourced facts from the body. Whenever you see facts in the lead not mentioned in the body, that is a red flag, best action is delete the lead and wait until the body has matured enough to support it. -- GreenC 18:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, both claims seem dubious. Acroterion (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]