From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineePotomac River was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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
February 19, 2008 Peer reviewReviewed
May 24, 2019 Good article nomineeNot listed
July 14, 2021 Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

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) reply

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

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) reply