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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Great article, but noticed The Savannah is listed here as the 44th volume and my hardcover from 1951 calls it the 43rd Volume. --Jolomo (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Compared the whole list. Looks like Rinehart didn't count the "Songs of the Rivers" volume in their enumeration of the series. So, on the wikipedia list, everything from #22 on will probably not match up with the publisher.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Re: this diff. This wasn't vandalism, it was a typo that I made during an extensive clean up (and note that typos remained after this edit--which was obviously an honest mistake). Please see WP:AGF for more information. Katr67 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I've made a number of clean-up attempts over the last year and have tried to bring this latest one to include a couple of inline citations. I initiated an undo of the attempt, when the result was an elimination of 9/10s of the article.CDSblair (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'll fix it. Katr67 (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
The problem was a typo in the </ref> tag--it had a comma instead of a "<". Broken tags tend to make all the text after them disappear. Katr67 (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
