Talk:Potomac River

Pronunciation discrepancy

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)

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)

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

Article issues and classification

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)

Dubious, unsourced claims re: river size

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)

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)

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

New article section

The recent sewage spill incident for this river is listed under 'hydrology' but I wonder if it is better to put it under a possible new created section called 'incidents' Wobs100 (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Some other river articles (including nearby Anacostia River) have a section named "Pollution". That would be an appropriate section title. Moreau1 (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thats a good idea too! Wobs100 (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2026 (UTC)