Jump to content

Talk:Missouri River

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMissouri River has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 30, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
December 15, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 16, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 6, 2011Good article nomineeListed
July 10, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 16, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 22, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article
Toolbox

Broken Reference

[edit]

The first reference USGS GNIS: Missouri River is broken. I cannot figure out how to fix it. I believe the link should be: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:756398 --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brentl99 2009-06-23 14:40 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The reference is fixed. --HYC (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tributaries

[edit]

In the picture next to the Tributaries section there is the caption: "The James River, a Missouri River tributary, in Jamestown, North Dakota" but in the list of tributaries in North Dakota the James river is not listed. Looks like the list is incomplete. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.162.51.213 on 2008-08-09 04:26 (UTC)

Map

[edit]

I like the geographic map at the top, but I'd also like to see a map of the river with state borders so I can quickly graphically see what states it goes through. --zandperl 15:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longest River?

[edit]

Missouri the "longest". See: List of rivers by length for discussion of considerations taken into account. Jerry picker 18:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 72.40.135.7 22:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)uuuuuuuuuuuuuuh72.40.135.7 22:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the longest river in the United States, the Mississippi or Missouri? Two different Wikipedia articles have different answers:

The Mississippi? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River; "is the longest river in the United States; the second-longest is the Missouri River, which flows into the Mississippi")

The Missouri? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_River; "it is the longest river in the United States ")

The United States Geological Survey, a bureau of the Department of the Interior and official surveyor of the U.S. Government says it's the Missouri: ("http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/riversofworld.html").

georgephawley@comcast.net 216.241.240.30 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the reason for this discrepancy rests in the underlying assumptions. When these assumptions are laid out, the reader can decide for themselves according to which basic principles they choose to subscribe. An absolute distinction is somewhat arbitrary and academic; it is clear that the Missouri is either the longest or second longest river in the US, and the difference is so close that it comes back to which set of criteria one wishes to apply. It is more educational and to-the-point to lay out these criteria for the sake of a thoughtful and applied geographical consideration of the question. The current language has been chosen with this in mind: "At about 2,315 mi (3,725 km) in length, it drains approximately one-sixth of the North American continent. Depending on whether its length is reckoned from the headwaters of its sources (as the Mississippi's length is reckoned from Lake Itasca, Minnesota), or from their confluence where the Missouri is first so-named (at Three Forks, Montana), it is currently either the longest or second-longest river in the United States. Prior to the Pick-Sloan Program and channelization, it was unquestionably the longest river in the US." Jerry picker 02:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discharge?

[edit]

The article lacks actual stats on the average discharge of the Missouri, something that most of the articles on major rivers seem to have (rather just having unquantified comparisons with the upstream Mississippi and the Ohio). Can anyone provide? Alai 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to a statement from the Army Corps of Engineers, "In an average year, the Missouri River provides about 45 percent of the flow of the Mississippi past St. Louis. During times of drought, that contribution could rise to as much as 70 percent." http://www.ibjonline.com/print_reducing_river_flow_levels.html Jerry picker 22:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC) =)[reply]

Confluence of Missouri and Mississippi above vs. north of St. Louis

[edit]

This has been changed back and forth several times between "above" and "north of". Please note that one formal definition of "above" (prep.) is "upstream of", which may more accurately describe the geographical situation of the Mississippi at its debouchement by the Missouri.Jerry picker 23:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Debouchment"? Wow....I thought I had a pretty good vocabulary, but you just sent me scurrying to my dictionary....  :-)
--The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.66.193 on 2007-04-06 15:39 (UTC)

The picture downstream to the south showing the confluence of the Mississippi & Missouri rivers is NOT the confluence. It is the I-270 bridge & the old Chain of Rocks bridge (US 66) crossing the Mississippi from Illinois to Missouri several miles south of the confluence. There is a fine picture of the actual confluence in the Wikipedia article on the Mississippi river looking upstream that clearly shows the Missouri flowing into the Mississippi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cngresick (talk • contribs) 14:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the picture being referred to this one: File:Missouri-Mississippi confluence.jpg? If so, that is the Missouri-Mississippi confluence. Same imagery, USGS DOQs, via ACME Mapper here. Pfly (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian drainage into the Gulf of Mexico

[edit]

Note: I've made a relatively minor edit to the main article to correct a misunderstanding that although the Milk River is the only river in Canada that drains into the Gulf of Mexico via the Missouri, it is not the only watershed in Canada that drains into the Gulf. The Poplar River (Saskatchewan-Montana) watershed extends into Canada even if the river itself does not. See also http://www.swa.ca/Maps/ (Saskatchewan Watershed Authority) Dzubint 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC) JeNnIiEe fErGgHy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.255.48 (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correctness

[edit]

Wow. This article is pretty well written. It looks pretty good. The picture describes the article. (Well) :) Atm153 00:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a slight problem in the opening paragraph, but I don't see an edit link there. Maybe someone who knows how to make the change will read this.

The first paragraph says that the Missouri River drains 1/6 of the land area of the North American continent. There's no way that can be correct. Indeed, when you click on Footnote 1, the original government source says "1/6 of the United States." -- Bill B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.86.189 (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The edit link for the whole article is found at the top of the page. --HYC (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True source

[edit]

I understand the logic behind the idea -- that a river's "true source" is that of its longest contributing tributary. But the term "true source" strikes me as odd. Many or even most rivers begin at a confluence of headwater streams. Perhaps it is the word "true" -- implying that the statement that the source of the Missouri is the confluence of the Jefferson and Gallatin is false. The atlas I have in front of me says right at the confluence "Missouri Headwaters". As a counter-example, is it false to say the Tennessee River begins at the confluence of the Holston River and French Broad River? Or better yet, is the "true source" of the Mississippi River Brower's Spring. Anyway... I almost edited the statement to be less absolute, without the word "true", but couldn't think of a good way to phrase it at the moment. Thoughts? I know it is a bit pedantic, but there must be a better way to say it, no? Pfly 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia...just say what YOU believe is the most accurate, and let the vox populi editors decide! Jerry picker 12:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a quick try, calling it the "hydrologic source" and moving it down in the article. I'm inclined to think that the spring is best discussed in the "course" section, so that the intro/summary will make clear to the reader that the main topic discussed in the article is the river that begins at the Jefferson/Gallatin confluence. Does this help? --Malepheasant 14:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the statement that 'the source of the Missouri is the confluence of the Jeffferson and Gallatin' is false! A river source is defined as 'the farthest point of the river stream from its estuary or its confluence with another river or stream' (with exceptions sometimes being where one confluence starts higher than another. The 'source' of the Missouri as given now is simply a tradition based on the fact that someone decided not to call the Jefferson the Missouri. But this is normal, because when tributaries are named often nobody knows which one will lead to the source. Compare the Amazon whose source is on the Ucayali river. Nobody would consider the source of the Amazon the point at which the Ucayali joins it. The same here. As a test, wade into the rive at the confluence of the Gallatin and the Jefferson and you'll find you can wonder a few more meters up the river :-) So in fact we should call the Brower's Spring just the source and the confluence as the traditional source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.133.86.108 (talk • contribs)
The page river source seems clear to me. The first sentence is "The source of a river or stream is the origin of water flow that initiates the subject watercourse." On the subject of the watercourse named the "Missouri River", its source is the water flowing into the watercourse named "Missouri". That it is the confluence of other streams rather than water springing out of the ground doesn't matter. The source of the river called "Missouri" is that confluence, just as the source of the Ohio River is the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers. This is the normal meaning of the term "source". When people calculate a river's total, longest length, regardless of the names of the upper tributaries, the term "source" is often used the way you describe. That usage is the exception, and when used one ought to mention the names of the upper streams. I agree that this kind of "total length" calculation is common for the longest rivers of the world or of a continent, like the Amazon and the Missouri. Still, just because the Missouri is very long does not change the normal meaning of "source". Just for fun, using your definition of "source", can you tell me where the source of the Potomac River is? How about the Tennessee River? The Mobile River? Pfly 22:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A river is defined as a linear geographic feature, with only one mouth and only one source.
  • "Largest Rivers in the United States" (HTML). United States Geological Survey.

For an example, please note how the Mississippi River and Missouri River sources are officially defined:

Yes, the current length is actually shorter than most officially-published lengths due to channelization. LeheckaG (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation is to cite the origin or source (of the river) as the officially-published (USGS) one. Within the text of the article, someone can elaborate about the origin or source of the river-system or watershed. For the Missouri River: the USGS made an official determination that the Missouri River source is the (Gallatin-Jefferson-Madison) confluence. The reasons why are both geographic (directionality) and hydrographic (water flow volume). LeheckaG (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Dams

[edit]

There are more dams on the Missouri than just the Ft. Peck Dam. Great Falls, MT has five dams near the city; the Black Eagle Dam, Rainbow Dam, Cochrane Dam, Ryan Dam, and the Morony Dam. Upstream of Great Falls are the Holter Dam, Hauser Dam, Canyon Ferry Dam, and the Hosten Dam. See List of crossings of the Missouri River.Andercee 23:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction of definition of Source

[edit]

Here is the Wikipedia article on river source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_(river_or_stream)

"More specifically, a source is defined as the most distant point (from the river mouth) in the drainage basin from which water runs year-around, or, alternatively, the furthest point from which water could possibly flow. [1] This latter definition includes sometimes-dry channels and removes any possible definitions that would have the river source "move around" from month to month depending on precipitation or ground water levels. This definition, from geographer Andrew Johnston of the Smithsonian Institution, is also used by the National Geographic Society when pinpointing the actual source of rivers such as the Amazon or Nile.
Other authoritative geographic definitions agree, stressing that a river source is never a confluence but is in a location that is the farthest, along water miles, from where that river ends."

I think that makes it pretty clear that the source of the Missouri is not the confluence of 3 rivers but likely to be Brower's Spring —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macgroover (talk • contribs) 08:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

[edit]

This article is too developed to be a Start Class. It should be reassessed to a C or B Class. serioushat 06:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis

[edit]

Sort of a minor issue - but should St. Louis be listed among the other cities in the infobox? I realize the river's proximity and importance to the development of the city, but the Missouri's mouth looks like it's 5 or 10 miles north of the city. AlexiusHoratius 17:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know -- the Missouri River does flow through the metro area of St. Louis but passes a few miles north of downtown. I think 5-10 miles is an acceptable distance, but for instance 50 miles would not. Feel free to change as you wish - I'm not sure about this... Shannontalk contribs 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine - I'm cool with leaving it in, just thought I'd mention it and see what others thought. I was trying to think of a good comparison and couldn't at first - maybe it's like saying Houston is on the Gulf coast - it technically isn't but essentially is, sort of. Either one is fine with me. AlexiusHoratius 18:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I’m very late to this debate, but one of St. Louis’ defining characteristics, and the reason it was founded, is it’s location at the confluence of the two rivers. In addition St. Louis is the city with the most historical importance to the whole Missouri River catchment, as there defacto capital of the fur trade in the 18th and 19th centuries then as the major departing point for the west in general, the Missouri River and associates land trails were the the reason for this and the cities nickname “Gateway to the West”. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Missouri River/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

Watershed
Geology
  • 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]
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

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
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]
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
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?
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 )?
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.
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]

Geology

[edit]

Yikes! The geology section has major issues. I will rewrite it, as the amount of time I would spend here on everything would be more than it would take for me to do it. But I want to know: what is the overall goal of the geology section? Currently it tries to say that vast regions were one thing, which is where it hits some factual issues.

Y'know what? I'll take a stab at it until I fall asleep. But please, let's iterate on what is wanted here. Awickert (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the section was written by me, and I'm not a geologist, I'm just a student not planning to major in geology. Could cut down with some of the earlier things, but some of those explain how the river actually formed first... I'm not really sure, as there are no articles I found that specifically describe the geology of the river. Shannontalk contribs 00:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - it is hard when you can't find good sources, and there are surprisingly few recent ones about the geologic history Missouri. And I think it's great that you're tackling this article!
I think that the most logical place to start would probably be the raising of the Rockies; we could go back to the Western Interior Seaway with a sentence, since it's there already. I have a few books in my office that I could look at for more info, though I don't know if I'll be back there before Monday. Awickert (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done; hope it looks all right to you. Awickert (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but we lost my fav sag & stuff. Vsmith (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know :(. I was going for speed, and the sag wasn't on the tip of my brain and I'm not sure where I put the papers about it. You should put it back in! Awickert (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I will ... later. I've checked your ref verif notes -- shifted one to better loc. and added P.B. King's Evolution of North America as it covers several of the points (bit dated 1971, but good; plus I have a copy:) ... onward. Vsmith (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! I have a couple good old books and some more recent papers in my office that I'll check out this coming week as well. Awickert (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing picture

[edit]

This photo, File:Missouri River joins the Mississippi River.JPG, is a bit confusing. The caption was just changed to what I think it probably correct, but it is still confusing. The small stream in the foreground stands out as the subject of the photo, but as far as I can tell the Missouri is across the Mississippi, almost invisible (at least in thumbnail size). The identity of the foreground stream is a mystery. From looking at a topo map I'm guessing is it the "Cahokia Diversion Channel", and the photograph was in the Lewis and Clark State Memorial Park. In any case, I'm wondering if maybe this photo is too confusing and should not be included on the page? Pfly (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oop, just noticed the photographer is still active, so I just asked him about it. Pfly (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The picture in question was taken from the Illinois State Park, where Camp DuBois existed. The last place in the U.S. before setting off, up the Missouri River. The river in the forground may be the modern division ditch, but oringally it was Wood River on the Mississippi, across from the mouth of the Missouri. The nature of the two rivers, i.e., the Mississippi (from right to left) and the Missouri (center back), is hard to see from ground level. An additional 20 feet higher would make it more apparent, but that wasn't possible without special equipment. A less confusing image may be possible from the west bank of the river junction, but there is no public land, nor a public road within a mile or two of that spot. It shows the expanse of water at the junction, but if the group feels it's too confusing, I can accept it's removal.
Note: the small stream was included to provided a forground and some depth to the image. --Chris Light (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Labels on bar charts

[edit]

I notice that the bar graph showing the monthly discharges at Herman and that showing the average discharges at selected cities do not have labels on the Y axis. Why? Surely labels and units would improve the graph. I've created figures with labels using the timeline routines – see Lake Faguibine and Bani River (bottom figure – other is a svg created before I understood the software) Aa77zz (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding paragraphs on recent National Research Council report

[edit]

I'm proposing adding the following paragraphs to the "Ecology and Human Impacts" section. The paragraphs are about a 2010 National Research Council report on sediment in the Missouri. The report is called Missouri River Planning: Recognizing and Incorporating Sediment Management and can be downloaded here: http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Missouri-River-Planning-Recognizing-Incorporating/13019

The numerous dams and river bank control projects constructed along the Missouri River and its tributaries in the early and mid-twentieth century have significantly reduced the volume of sediment transported downstream by the river, and ultimately delivered to coastal Louisiana wetlands and the Gulf of Mexico. This has transformed the landscape in many stretches of the river, and affected the habitat of some native fish and bird species.
Declines in populations of these species prompted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a biological opinion in 2000 (amended in 2003) [1] recommending restoration of river habitats for federally endangered bird and fish species. In response, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began constructing restoration projects along the lower Missouri River in the early 2000s, remobilizing some of the sediments that had been trapped behind bank stabilization structures. The restoration projects prompted concerns that nutrients carried with the re-introduced sediments could exacerbate nutrient and sediment pollution, both locally and downstream in the northern Gulf of Mexico.
The 2010 National Research Council report Missouri River Planning: Recognizing and Incorporating Sediment Management [2] assessed the roles of sediment in the Missouri River, evaluating current habitat restoration strategies and alternative ways to manage sediment. The report found that a better understanding of sediment processes in the Missouri River, including the creation of a “sediment budget”—an accounting of sediment transport, erosion, and deposition volumes for the length of the Missouri River— would provide a foundation for projects to improve water quality standards and protect endangered species.

Please let me know if anyone has any comments/suggestions on this. Thanks, Earlgrey101 (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might be good, except that the first paragraph seems to repeat some of the info already in the section. Also the references need formatting. Shannon+º! 17:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you mean--it is quite repetitive with the last paragraph of the section, but I was trying to bring out the point about the reduction in the flow of sediment. I’ll think about how to fix this.
The last sentence of the section mentions restoration of riverside floodplains – is this the same U.S. Army Corps of Engineers work I’m mentioning, or something different? Thanks for your input. Earlgrey101 (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


To avoid repetition, I've tried merging the last paragraph of the current Ecology and human impact section with the text I wanted to add.
Channelization of the lower Missouri waters has made the river narrower, deeper and less accessible to riparian flora and fauna. Numerous dams and bank stabilization projects have been constructed to facilitate the conversion of 300,000 acres (1,200 km2) of Missouri River floodplain to agricultural land. Channel control has significantly reduced the volume of sediment transported downstream by the river and eliminated critical habitat for fish, birds and amphibians. By the early 21st century, declines in populations of native species prompted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a biological opinion recommending restoration of river habitats for federally endangered bird and fish species.
The USACE began work on ecosystem restoration projects along the lower Missouri River in the early 21st century. Because of the low use of the shipping channel in the lower Missouri maintained by the USACE, it is now considered feasible to remove some of the levees, dikes, and wing dams that constrict the river’s flow, thus allowing it to naturally restore its banks.[203] As of 2001, there were 87,000 acres (350 km2) of riverside floodplain undergoing active restoration.
Restoration projects have re-mobilized some of the sediments that had been trapped behind bank stabilization structures, prompting concerns of exacerbated nutrient and sediment pollution locally and downstream in the northern Gulf of Mexico. A 2010 National Research Council report assessed the roles of sediment in the Missouri River, evaluating current habitat restoration strategies and alternative ways to manage sediment. The report found that a better understanding of sediment processes in the Missouri River, including the creation of a “sediment budget”—an accounting of sediment transport, erosion, and deposition volumes for the length of the Missouri River— would provide a foundation for projects to improve water quality standards and protect endangered species.
Any comments or suggestions on this would be appreciated. Earlgrey101 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.fws.gov/feature/pdfs/FinalBO.pdf
  2. ^ http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Missouri-River-Planning-Recognizing-Incorporating/13019

Numbers right?

[edit]

In the article's subsection headed "Passage to Sioux City," the length of the river's navigation channel -- from Sioux City to St. Louis -- is given as 735 miles. In the same subsection, the channel's portion from Kansas City to St. Louis is given as 553 miles. Unless I'm missing something, that makes the difference -- i.e., the portion from Sioux City down to Kansas City -- less than two hundred miles (735 minus 553); but even in a straight line -- i.e., without consideration of bends in the river -- the distance between those cities appears to be at least two hundred fifty miles (closer to three hundred) on Google Maps.108.36.209.26 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The Missouri River mile marker (which is based on the length from the mouth) at the Kansas River in Kansas City is 367. Adding insult to injury is that the mile marker for Sioux City is 753 (not 735 as described) although the river is technically navigable all the way to the Gavins Point Dam and Mile Marker 811. It seems like a lot of factual errors have been introduced into this article since I last extensively edited. They are serious enough that this article may not deserve "Good Article" status.Americasroof (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt and thorough reply. I'd been wondering, too, about that additional question, i.e., how far above Sioux City the river is navigable. Without getting into details, I'll say I can sympathize with your distress at the disruption of an article with which you've taken care. I'll leave you to make the changes, if any, you think necessary in response to my question.108.36.209.26 (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the mile 735 marker is a little upstream of Sioux City, I don't know how you guys got a figure of 753 miles, but I got mine from the USGS topo map of the area. Sioux City sits straight on mile 732. And yes, it's the figure from Kansas City to the mouth that's wrong. The Kansas River comes in at mile 368. Shannºn 07:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I didn't "get" any figures at all. I just asked a question.108.36.209.26 (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How long is a mile?

[edit]

This article (which is great) says the Missouri "is joined by the Gallatin a mile (.6 km) downstream." I'm not sure what the actual facts are, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Could someone check? · rodii · 22:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was wrong. I've thought it was weird for a while, I just fixed it Shannºn 23:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, 1.6., duh! Thanks. · rodii · 01:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Missouri River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Missouri River/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There is a comment regarding the flow of the Missouri river from its headwaters, "from this point it flows through its valley south and east into the Missippi", technicaly this is not true for it flows many miles north and east before it turns south.

Last edited at 21:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 00:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Missouri River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Missouri River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Missouri River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Missouri River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious statement

[edit]

The following statement has been repeatedly added by (an) IP editor(s) and then removed as not needed here, original research, unsourced commentary or as an unsupported claim by other editors, including me:

Depending on the time of year, the Missouri River basin often contributes more water to the Lower Mississippi River just north of St. Louis, than the Upper Mississippi River, meaning the Missouri River could and often is considered the true chief river, not the Mississippi River.

The IP(s) have not discussed the text except in a comment that states I added in a factual statement, which is backed up by the National Park system. https://www.nps.gov/miss/riverfacts.htm, and another comment which is not pertinent to the content. I was unable to substantiate the claim in the reference given, and have brought the matter here for discussion. I ask that the IP does not add this text to the article again until some consensus can be reached in a discussion on this talk page.

My initial opinion is that if this text is actually relevant to the article, and it is not yet clear that it is, then it must be supported by a reliable source. Poltair (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri_River#Navigation table

[edit]

There is an issue with how the table in Missouri_River#Navigation is aligned with the text. The text seemingly sticks to the table. I don't know where the problem lies. Somebody who does know; please fix it. - thx! -- Isidor Welti (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Average Precipitation in the Watershed

[edit]

The article currently says:

Most of the watershed receives an average of 8 to 10 inches (200 to 250 mm) of precipitation each year. However, the western most portions of the basin in the Rockies as well as southeastern regions in Missouri may receive as much as 40 inches (1,000 mm).

Both of these statements cite the same reference, a 2006 report by the US Army Corps of Engineers. But the relevant passage in that report appears to be:

Normal average annual precipitation ranges from as low as 8 to 10 inches just east of the Rocky Mountains to more than 40 inches in the southeastern part of the basin and in parts of the Rocky Mountains.

It's much different to say 8 to 10 inches is the average than to say 8 to 10 inches is the lower bound of the precipitation range. (8 to 10 inches is quite dry, drier than the state average of Nevada, the driest state in the Union.) 128.187.112.28 (talk) 128.187.112.28 (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"much longer" than the Mississippi?

[edit]

The first paragraph states that the Missouri is much longer and cites geographical data that doesn't explicitly state it as such. The article, List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem), has their length 1 mile, or 2 kilometers, apart. While the definition of the word "much" may be in question, I do not see evidence to suggest that the Missouri River is significantly longer than the Mississippi River. A better wording here may be "nominally larger." FortySeven90K (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change made by another Wikipedia user in April resolves this topic. FortySeven90K (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is late, but the Missouri is indeed much longer (by about 250 miles) if measured to the furthest source. The main-stem length is pretty similar, though, and I assume that's what is in question here. Shannon [ Talk ] 16:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tributary of the Mississippi

[edit]

If it's longer than the Mississippi and carries a comparable amount of water, as the lead states, why is the Missouri the tributary rather than the main river? Is there some hydrological definition that makes it so, or is it just historically so? Could the article explain this? Furius (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Missouri_River&oldid=1212262575"