Talk:River Usk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Rivers, a WikiProject to systematically present information on rivers. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] | |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. | |
[edit] 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 on 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)
- 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)
- The first step is to remove unverified claims and assertions, and stick with facts (NPOV). Why make claims unless the article is really only trying to serve as a promotional piece, or hyping the importance of the subject. If this river is really the deepest in the British Isles, then this is an important fact and would belong in the article, and should be put in. It's better to apply small corrections to overall improve the article rather than ask for the entire article to be deleted. Bardcom (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- The first step is to remove unverified claims and assertions. Well remove all the others then, otherwise I'll put the disputed ones back and tag the entire article as needing citations. 86.27.186.36 (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- The first step is to remove unverified claims and assertions, and stick with facts (NPOV). Why make claims unless the article is really only trying to serve as a promotional piece, or hyping the importance of the subject. If this river is really the deepest in the British Isles, then this is an important fact and would belong in the article, and should be put in. It's better to apply small corrections to overall improve the article rather than ask for the entire article to be deleted. Bardcom (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
