Talk:Gauley River/Archive 1

Archive 1

Advocacy much?

The access section seems like pure advocacy of a highly POV issue. It is completely unreferenced and highly biased. I have removed it as such per WP:GREATWRONGS. Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Classes

i think the class of the river sections is debatable. i've heard people claim that the rapid "Pure Screaming Hell" on the lower section is class V, and some people claim that all waterfalls, without exception, are class VI (i personally disagree with this, but i've definitely heard people say it).

also, i think that the story about the name of the rapid "Insignificant" isn't necessarilly true - the only people i've heard say that are raft guides, who, in general, are only trying to make the experience enjoyable for the rafters so they can get them to come back or spread the word. i've heard a lot of kayakers and canoeists say that the rapid is named "Insignificant" because that's how it makes you feel. not to mention, the idea that someone would claim that everything above Pillow is Insignificant is thoroughly unbelievable, considering that, with the exception of the big five, those are some of the more difficult rapids on the river.

--141.158.40.25 23:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Class of river sections, and rapids, is always debatable. It's silly to say that all waterfalls are VI; that sounds like something out of the 1970's, and it's hardly worth paying any attention to in the 21st century.

American Whitewater addressed this issue, to some degree, by compiling a list of "Standard Rated Rapids" in 1997-8. See the Class-IV and Class-V sections. According to that survey, PSH is a IV; the major rapids of the Upper Gauley range from IV to V. Thus, AW rates the Upper as IV-V and the Lower as III-IV.

I don't know about the veracity of the story about Insignificant. I figure that the first party may have seen the river at a level lower than the typical Fall release level of 2800 cfs. At 1000, Insignificant loses a lot of its punch, so I believe the story (which, by the way, I've heard from kayakers) may well be true.--RattBoy 12:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I looked it up. In the Summer, 1973, issue of the American Whitewater Journal (page 62), Charlie Walbridge wrote:

 "Then comes 'Insignificant,' so named because one party, 
 told that there was no significant rapids above Pillow Rock, 
 was suitably impressed by this one and gave it a name."

Charlie Walbridge is a credible enough source for me.--RattBoy 12:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy

Some of this article still reeks of advocacy or self-interested promotion (as opposed to commercial promotion). Including this statement which is only one of two sentences of the lead: "[Gauley River] is one of the most popular advanced whitewater runs in the Eastern United States." Words like 'popular' and 'advanced' are opinion or judgement, unsupported by citation. It would be factual to say "x many thousands of visitors run the rapids each year" (cited, of course), or "the rapids are quite steep, falling x feet in x meters/kilometers" instead. Even if words like 'popular' and 'advanced' can be sourced, I'd still say they need to be factually supported (sources can be opinion, too), and where are those facts?

And I just don't think the second sentence of the lead is one of the two most important facets of the river. It should logically be relegated to the text of article Gauley River National Recreation Area as the sentence itself suggests. Sbalfour (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)!

Here's another how-to or advice type statement in section Whitewater paddling: "The Gauley has two commonly run sections: the more difficult 9.8-mile (15.8 km) Upper Gauley (Class IV-V),[5] and the easier 11-mile (18 km) Lower Gauley (Class III-IV, V).[6] Portions of the 5.5-mile (8.9 km) Middle Gauley (Class III+, IV)[7] are commonly run in conjunction with either the Upper or Lower Gauley, and it is sometimes run alone as a milder alternative." There are ostensibly three citations, though all are from one article/passage (that's really a single citation) by American Whitewater, a recreational/promotional organization. I'm dubious that this qualifies as a WP:RS. Who vouches for this organization? Class as pertains to whitewater rafting is jargon more-or-less, that needs wikilinked or defined in the article, preferably both. Or better yet, omit jargon from the article. It might be appropriate to have terms like this in an article on whitewater rafting. I just think this sentence is more "how-to" or advice, rather than scholarly diction. Sbalfour (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)