Talk:River Stour, Kent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Kent WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the county of Kent in South East England. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.) |
||
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid-importance for Kent-related articles. | ||
 |
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations | ||
|
Article Grading: WikiProject Kent tasks:
|
|||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Rivers, a WikiProject to systematically present information on rivers. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] | |
[edit] Why not...
... one comprehensive article about the various parts of this river? The fact that there is a box listing all its components, with a separate article for each, makes for very complicated reading - and the whole thing is less than 100 miles* from start to finish at its longest. The River Medway article does that - why not these? Peter Shearan (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite and copy violation
I have now rewritten the entire article, so that we now have an overview of the whole river system. IMO the existing idea that for every tributary (well not every - there are some missing, such as the Sarre which is the third longest!) there is a need for a separate article is somewhat puzzling - especially since this is no proper summary for them all. The Environment Agency (EA) is quoted again and again, yet it carried out a Study Plan for the River Stour (using that title for the entire river) on this area (September 2006) Catchment Flood Management Plan, which gave quantities of information and showed the river as a whole and not made up of individual parts - it also listed every tributary and gave its exact lengths and gave the size of the catchment area - taking the River Stour as an organic whole.
It is important, too, that a proper map of the river is part of the article. The map shown is not at all accurate - and shows few names. It is the only way that a reader can see what the picture of the river system looks like.
In addition the table and its preceding paragraph is lifted whole from the Grove Ferry club - a copyvio. I have removed it.
- it is 73.7 (117.9km) including every tributary!
Peter Shearan (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Further thoughts
I am copying the following taken from that that I posted on the River Great Stour article.
I really cannot see why we have to keep perpetuating the idea that in some way this river is three separate ones! I realise that there is some disparity with what the Environment Agency says in different references: this one, for example, certainly shows the Great Stour as one of those listed; however the Internal Drainage Board specifically local, says that it is responsible for the River Stour, and both have a map which shows the entire length of the river. IMO the fact that different names are given to parts of the river - the Upper Great Stour; the Great Stour itself; and then the River Stour cannot hide the fact that the same water is flowing through all of them. So this one cannot be a source of the Stour - it is surely just part of the river with a different name? Nor can this have an estuary like it says - it isn't the end of the river by any means. Finally the University of Liverpool study, with its map so much better than ours, says exactly what I am saying.
It seems to me that we need one article (River Stour, Kent) which includes the whole river from Lenham to the sea. In it we use the recommended layout in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Article Structure for that task. This includes the suggestion that a list of all tributaries is included:
- that should include at least three before Ashford (names?) coming off the Greensand Ridge , which is where the river starts
- the four tributaries S of Ashford, including the first major one, the East Stour. They should be in some sort of order (clockwise?)
- the four tributaries N of Ashford (Brook Stream etc)
- Sarre Penn & Wantsum
- Little Stour
- all tributaries of those directly entering the S main river must be included
Once we have done that article (and I have begun work on it) then all the others should follow - if it is considered to be necessary. The Kennington Stream is only 1.1 miles in length...
Peter Shearan (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say that the Stour rises at Lenham (furthest from mouth). The tributaries are easy to deal with, just list them in the order they feed in from source to mouth, with left and right bank as though one is facing downstream, as per the article on the River Medway. As to whether each tributary needs its own article, I'd say yes, it allows them to be covered in greater detail without dominating the article on the main river. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
