Talk:Raging River
Add topicRaging River is currently a Geography good article nominee. Nominated by Generalissima (talk) (it/she) at 16:08, 2 September 2026 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review this article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor. When complete, this review will be closed by the reviewer. To view the review and add comments, click discuss review. |
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
[edit]
- ... that during floods, the Raging River (pictured) can reach flow rates over 300 times its summer average?
- Source: Bunn, Jeremy (2019). Raging River Channel Migration Study. pp 23-24 your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-and-land/flooding/CMZs/raging-river/2019-raging-river-cmz-study-wmaps.pdf
Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:38, 3 September 2026 (UTC).
- Starting review--Kevmin § 17:04, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: Any update on this? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:13, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: My apologies, was taken away from Wiki by life. Im working on it now.--Kevmin § 17:38, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Article expansion new enough and long enough. Article is well cited and neutrally written. I see the data from the hook source in the source and the article, but I don't see the 300 times in either. I assume we are going with it being a CALC situation between the 10-20 and the 6000+ numbers, but I suspect we should have the 300 times wording in the article along with a sentence more explicitly calling it out.--Kevmin § 17:57, 12 September 2026 (UTC)- @Generalissima: for visibility--Kevmin § 15:59, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: Ty for the ping! Fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:07, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: No worries, don't forget the ref placement at the end of the hook sentence. Then we should be good.--Kevmin § 16:26, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: oops. Fixed now! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:28, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: My apologies, was taken away from Wiki by life. Im working on it now.--Kevmin § 17:38, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Article expansion new enough and long enough. Article is well cited and neutrally written. no policy issues identified in the article, hook now in article with citation, hook fact is basic CALC, and follows citation. Images are main page complaint. We are good to go.--Kevmin § 16:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
GA review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Raging River/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 16:08, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 03:07, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Claiming. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees on review
- Start-Class River articles
- Low-importance River articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Start-Class Washington articles
- Unknown-importance Washington articles
- WikiProject Washington articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Articles that have been nominated for Did you know
