Talk:Zarqa River

Zarqa River has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 25, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
September 23, 2017	Good article reassessment	Kept

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 31, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Zarqa River, which is Jordan's third largest, is so polluted that it is considered an "environmental blackspot"?

Current status: Good article

Jordan Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jordan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jordan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JordanWikipedia:WikiProject JordanTemplate:WikiProject JordanJordan articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks YOU can help with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Rivers Mid‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Etymology[edit]

Need etymology. Badagnani (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Jabbok (primarily) discusses the biblical references to Jabbok, so I think it is inappropriate to merge this article into it. Perhaps we can do the reverse - merge the material from Jabbok here, into a 'Biblical references' section. NoCal100 (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and merged, per the above. NoCal100 (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I support the merge. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look merged. Am I missing something? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the merge because there was text from the Jabbok article that didn't make it over here. The merge should be done right, if done, with no text from the Jabbok article disappearing before it makes it over here. Badagnani (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been more helpful if you had simply merged whatever sections you felt were left out, rather than undoing my work, especially since "merge" does not mean a copy and paste of every character in the article being merged from. In any case, I've re-merged, and included an etymology section that covers the previously missing content. NoCal100 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article[edit]

The article is being reviewed here. Livna-Maor (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review transcluded below (and still open). Geometry guy 22:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

The article could use quite a few more images for GA.Shannon1 ^talk ^contribs 17:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zarqa River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.csbe.org/news2005/january/newcom.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Zarqa River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Community reassessment[edit]

Zarqa River[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept I can't find any evidence that the sockpuppets were the same people. Unfortunately sockpuppeteering is rife here so it is possible for these to be all unrelated. The article itself is not perfect, but we are not looking for perfect (some more references would be nice). Without further comments on it failing to meet the criteria I am closing this as kept. AIRcorn (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to translate this article to another Wikipedia project seeing this as a Good Article, but after reading for a while I felt like this might not fit GA standard. It wasn't until now that I realized the original GA review discussion was only participated by users who have abused sockpuppets and have been blocked indefinitely. Only these users participated in the review:

These accounts also majorly edited the article in its early phase (2008-2009). Now I would like a reassessment by community to see if this article meets GA standard. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 19:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PlyrStar93: It is strange that all participants were sockpuppets, but as far as I can tell none were sock puppets of each other.It has happened before that someone has nominated an article and then passed it themselves (which is an instant delisting), but in this case the reviews was probably a different person. Although given the history of one of those accounts I might investigate a bit more. Is there anything specifically in the article that you are concerned about related to the WP:GACR. I will give it a quick look through for any obvious failings. AIRcorn (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue[edit]

Is it the "river of the blue city" (intro) or the "blue river" (name section)? Lesgles (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]