[theurerjohn3]

I feel its worth asking questions about the talk page. Specifically:

> Most of the data in this article is sourced from somebody calling himself Intergalactic Power and Light. Some random guy's personal web page does not constitute a reliable source. Dricherby (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The link is unfortunately broken, but if anyone has more details that would be fascinating.

[helsinkiandrew]

The individual pages for each of the rivers (or atleast the first three I tried) have the discharges with different seemingly more trustworthy sources, if anyone wants to edit the page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_River

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_River

[scanny]

Last valid Web Archive capture was on August 5th 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/20110805041437/http://home.comca...

"Page created 2003-08-23 and last revised 2005-07-31."

Page also has no sources of its own.

[aaron695]

Checking Mekong (Which I would have thought higher) it's correct by this source -

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/b3463307-en/index.html?i...

Annual - 475 km3 - 475*1000*1000*1000/365/24/3600 = 15062 m3/s

Any others seem odd?

[theurerjohn3]

oh the talk page comment is old enough that I assume its mostly been fixed, although the Urubamba-Caura length discrepancy noted by someone else on the talk page is still there. I was commenting more at the fascination of 'Intergalactic Power and Light' maintaining for a while a webpage focused on river lengths. It feels like a callback to an earlier era