Former good articleRhode Island was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 16, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 9, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 18, 2011.
Current status: Delisted good article

Clear the area

edit

1. In the legend at top, you tell me how 1,055 sq. mi. land area plus 169 sq. mi. water adds up to 1,545 sq. mi. total.

2. In the text you state a third figure, 1,214 sq. mi. What does that mean?

3. 1,055 plus 169 equals 1,224, not 1,214. Is that what you mean?

Fix this mess.

Jimlue (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good catch! The top infobox used to say 1055 + 169 = 1214, cited to the website of the RI Secretary of State website. That same ref is used for the still-present 1214 value you saw as #2. But that source actually says 1045 not 1055, seems like a simple transcription typo, as you note in #3. But then in March 2023 it was changed to 1055 + 169 = 1545, cited to the US Census website, which makes no sense. That source actually says 1034 + 511 = 1545, which is sensible but the article does not look like a simple transcription mistake from that. Easy enough to get them all consistent and matching a source. But which source is more reliable? DMacks (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States pinged for assistance. DMacks (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The US census bureau says this
https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-files/2010/geo/state-area.html Mickey J. Hartford (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also fixed land area to make it make more sense Mickey J. Hartford (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Land area

edit

I don't found any areas in this article. 2001:448A:11A3:1039:FDF7:E9C:8899:6659 (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is contradictory information in various sources. See #Clear the area above. DMacks (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I know that's it. I know that it has already mentioned above. 2001:448A:11A3:1039:FDF7:E9C:8899:6659 (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

actually useful map of the state?

edit

The map in the infobox "zooms" in on the state, but details remain pitifully small. Scrolling down, there really isn't any useful map giving overview of the state.

Compare the map in the Aquidneck Island article. Immediately much more useful scale, though perhaps lacking even the bare amount of details (since its only purpose is to compare the island to the state).

CapnZapp (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are multiple maps of the state in the geography section, including a map showing highways and cities, and a topo map. Perhaps a newer instance of the political map would be useful. The infobox map is the same type used for every single U.S. state. Rhode Island is the smallest state, of course it will not show up large on that map. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

0.0% population growth from 1970 to 1980 can't be true

edit

I found this in the population growth chart:

1970 946,725 10.1%
1980 947,154 0.0%

This can't be right. There is a definite population growth of about 400 in the 10-year difference. It's a very small change in this context, but can't be 0.0% is impossible. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how to edit tables. Can somebody fix this? Thanks. TheFluffyProto (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)TheFluffyProtoReply

I did the math and that is a 0.045% change in population. That rounds to 0.0% with the number of significant figures used in the table. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Two paragraphs hidden in 'growth' section; do not fit in section

edit

I have hidden two paragraphs in the growth sections. Two disasters have nothing to do with growth. Possibly not even in the article. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 16:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply