Talk:1997 Red River flood in the United States

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1997 Red River flood in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: North Dakota High‑importance

	United States portal 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.
	North Dakota portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Dakota (assessed as High-importance).

Minnesota High‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Non-tropical / Floods High‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Floods task force (assessed as High-importance).

1997 Red River flood in the United States has been listed as one of the Natural sciences 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
Date	Process	Result
November 19, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed

GA Status

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

The article has passed Sections 3), 4) and 5). Corrections are needed on Sections 1), 2) and 6).

Overall, the assessment is ON HOLD.

The assessment is, as follows :

1) Written Quality

The Flood in Greater Grand Falls section - No contractions allowed in Wikipedia. Replace "didn't" and "couldn't".

Fixed by JWGreen.

Downtown Grand Forks fire section - rewrite the split infinitive "to immediately begin"

Fixed by JWGreen.

Donation and damages section - replace "didn't"

Fixed by JWGreen.

2) Factual Accuracy

Lead :

Superlatives are discouraged on Wikipedia. Give a reference for the claim ." it was the most severe flood of the river since 1826".

Moved the statement to "The flood in Greater Grand Forks", since it appears the claim was only related to the Grand Forks area (according to the source). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Give a reference for " none so greatly as in Grand Forks,,,,,," Rewrite both senteces so as to remove superlatives.

I reworded it somewhat, let me know if it needs to be changed further. For a reference, I don't think that one is needed since the rest of the article's sources show the extensive damage in the the region. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Federal and state response and assistance section - Add and reference a sentence explaining why "the bill was initially vetoed by Clinton" Add President to Clinton.

Fixed, the information has been expanded from the source; didn't include it initially. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Future Flood Prevention section - name the other communities in the sentence "has been used as a model by other communities,,,,,"

Put in hidden comment until another source can be found, since current source links to an unrelated article, and the past article requires a payment to read the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Readded and included information about GF's efforts with an adopted city. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The most salient fact about the article - one that leaps at a reader - is the claim in the Infobox that the flood caused $3.5 billion damage and "0 fatalities". The lack of fatalities can only be explained by efficient evacuation procedures. However, the evacuation procedures are scattered throughout the article. Bring them all together in a new section entitled "Evacuation procedures". Include and reference any complaints of the evacuation procedures.

Will work on this later this weekend. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I created a new evacuations section and included all relevant information, and also added some more. I couldn't find any direct criticism of the evacuation itself, but I did include a quote about the anger over the incorrect prediction of the height of flooding which impacted peoples' decisions to evacuate. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

3) Coverage - Article is broad in scope and stays focused on the topic.

4) Neutrality - Article is written without bias to any particular side.

5) Stability - Article is stable with no major edit wars.

6) Photos

For a reader unfamiliar with the geography of the area, use this image in the article, Image:Redrivernorthmap.png. This image is aready used in the Red River article but it is needed in this article too, for the sake of completeness.

Fixed by JWGreen.

The corrections specified above must be done within seven days. Contact me when they have been and I shall re-assess.

Tovojolo (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe that the above issues have been addressed, thanks to JWGreen for assisting. Please mention if there are any issues that need to be addressed further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I note that the corrections, that were required, have been carried out, I am, therefore, pleased to announce that the article has achieved GA Status.

Congratulations,

Tovojolo (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick review and for everybody that helped to bring the article up to GA status. Please add it to your watchlist to keep an eye on vandalism and ensuring all new information is properly sourced. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed merge with 1997 Red River flood

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Oppose. There's lots of detail here that would excessively lengthen the 1997 Red River flood article. Parts of this article redundant with 1997 Red River flood could be trimmed out of here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. For the amount of information present for the "in the U.S." article, I believe it is justified to have its own article. If you look at some major hurricanes, you can see separate articles for the impact of the storm on different states or regions (examples include: Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Mississippi, Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Georgia, Effects of Hurricane Noel in the United States, Effects of Hurricane Wilma in Florida, or Effects of Hurricane Wilma in The Bahamas) Due to the amount of information for "in Canada", it may possibly be merged back into the original article (and possibly split off again when there is significant expansion on it in the future). However, I think "in the U.S." should remain separate due to its current size/coverage. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. The information here is too detailed for the main article, and as Nehrams2020 mentioned, there is precedent for pages such as this. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply