Talk:Ombla

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ombla/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 20:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments before final review

I have nearly finished my review of this article, and am pleased that it meets the requirements for GA; however, there is one minor detail that needs to be taken care of before I can give it the final seal of approval. There is a link to a disambig page located in the "Discharge" section of the Geobox template. I intended to correct this myself (simply changing "source" to "river source"), but the linking seems to be an automated thing that is part of the template. I'm not exactly sure what is meant by the template, so I would appreciate if someone who has more familiarity with the template could fix this. I'll put the article "on hold" until this is done.

I have little else to comment on as to what further improvements could be made to the page since it seems to have an appropriate breadth of scope. The only suggestion I have is about its economic use. In the "economy" section, it is mentioned that back in 1897, 960 cubic meters of water was used each day. It is known how much water is used today? If there is a source for such information, it would be relevant to include it. --Tea with toast (話) 17:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the "discharge" parameter seems to be autolinked. This is not the best of solutions, and I've just inquired about it in the template's talk page. GregorB (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the present-day water supply capacity: it is 560 l/s, as stated in the article. That would be c. 48 thousand cubic meters per day, but this is obviously not directly comparable with the 1897 figure (maximum capacity vs the actual volume). Could not find data on the actual volume of diverted water at present time (I'm going to look some more though). Future construction is expected to increase the maximum capacity to 1500 l/s, which is now noted in the article. GregorB (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Current consumption of water is now in.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Geobox template, I posted a request at the template talk page to redirect the link to Source (hydrology). Unfortunately, editing of the template is restricted to administrators (which I'm not), so I'm afraid that objection, as valid and sound as it may be, is not actionable on my part. I'll follow that template talk page though to make sure the objection gets noticed and acted upon.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Geobox template has just been fixed, inasmuch as the wikilink is now correctly formed and points to river source. The displayed text is just "source", rather than "at the source" or something like that - in absence of editor feedback on this issue, I deferred to what template did for the mouth. GregorB (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice work, thanks guys. --Tea with toast (話) 22:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well done!

Query

• The article says "The river rises as a karst spring fed by groundwater replenished by Trebišnjica, which is an influent stream flowing in Popovo Polje,". As the Ombla has such a big flow, is this "groundwater" actually an underground river in a cave? If so, the Ombla is merely the lower end of the Trebišnjica. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's not as simple. There's no underground river in a cave, but a spring in a cave metres from the place where the water clears surface. Trebišnjica sinks in series of ponors and that water reemerges in a considerable number of springs. Ombla is fed by one of those, but the largest one forms Buna (Neretva) and there are many more. The above statement that Ombla "rises as a karst spring fed by groundwater replenished by Trebišnjica, which is an influent stream flowing in Popovo Polje" is quite accurate as Trebišnjica really replenishes an aquifer in Popovo Polje area (depicted on a map in the article) which is in turn source of a number of karst springs and underwater springs (vrulje) in the Adriatic Sea - there is no single line of water flow (i.e. underground river) between Trebišnica's final ponor and Ombla spring. IMO the article accurately says where the water comes from - and yes, that's Trebišnjica - and it also describes how it gets to the place where it's called Ombla.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Exact location of river mouth

Can we consider the weir (30 meters from spring) as the river mouth? About 80 meters from the weir downstream there is a bridge with title "Ombla", and 15 meters from the bridge you can see the point where the water flow from spring mixes with the water flow from the direction of sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.197.142.62 (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The article reflects contents of reliable published sources. Bridge names, on the other hand, may be entirely arbitrary. Find reliable published sources presenting information to the contrary and I'll see to it that both points of view are presented in the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)