Proposal Checklists

• Is the proposed heading in the appropriate form, language, and arrangement, including proper punctuation? See, in particular, SHM H690 sections 3-7 and H800 sections 2-9. Each feature type (river, valley, watershed, delta, branch, etc.) has different guidelines for constructing headings and qualifiers, particularly when the geographic feature is associated with multiple rivers or crosses multiple first-order divisions. Read H800 carefully!
• For entities in English-speaking countries, and for entities that have have a conventional English name, if the name starts with the feature type (e.g., River), have you inverted the name to place the distinctive portion first?

  Example:
  151 ## $a Dart, River (England)
  151 ## $a Liffey, River (Ireland)

• Have you searched against the authority file and required geographic databases (GNS, GNIS, etc.) and disambiguated the heading from places with the same name in the same jurisdiction?^** Note that potential conflicts between hydrological features and jurisdictional headings are common, but may be broken by adding the feature type after the jurisdictional information in the qualifier for the hydrological feature.

  Example:
  [Town] 151 ## $a Elk River (Mo.)
  [River] 151 ## $a Elk River (Mo. : River)

• Are the places used in the qualifier established in the name or subject authority file? If not, these must also be established before using them in the qualifier.
• Is the proposed heading (including any qualifier) justified in the 670s?

• Have you added UFs for all variants found in authoritative geographic databases, the work cataloged, and other cited sources? Exception: You are not obliged to add non-Roman script variants; LC does not.
• If the 151 is inverted to place the distinctive portion of the name first, have you added a UF for the non-inverted form of the name?

  Example:
  151 ## $a Dart, River (England)
  451 ## $a River Dart (England)

• Have you searched all of the UFs against the authority file and geographic databases (GNS, GNIS, etc.) and disambiguated the heading from places with the same name in the same jurisdiction?^** Qualifiers may differ between the 151 and 451s, and between 451s, if there is conflict for some variants but not others.
• Are the places used in the qualifier established in the name or subject authority file? If not, these must also be established to use them in the qualifier.
• Are all non-inverted UFs justified in the 670s?
• Are the UFs alphabetized?

• Are the BTs and geographic subdivisions established headings?
• Are all BTs and geographic subdivisions justified in the 670s?
• If the river or other hydrological feature crosses 2 to 3 first-order political divisions, have you provided a BT for each one?

  Example:
  151 ## $a Amazon River
  550 ## $w g $a Rivers $z Brazil
  550 ## $w g $a Rivers $z Colombia
  550 ## $w g $a Rivers $z Peru

• If the river or other hydrological feature crosses more than 3 first-order political divisions, have you provided a BT specifying the next larger region?

  Example:
  151 ## $a Niger River
  550 ## $w g Rivers $z Africa, West

• Are the BTs alphabetized?

Note that the geographic subdivisions of the BTs for valleys and watersheds should match those of their associated body of water (river, lake, etc.) unless the boundaries of a watershed are known to greatly exceed those of the associated body of water. The geographic subdivisions for the BTs of river branches, forks, estuaries, and deltas, however, should correspond with the extent of these hydrological features and not with the extent of the river as a whole.

• Start with $a Work cat.:
• $b has information in English that justifies the proposed heading. For geographic names, this should include information about the name and location of the geographic feature.
• Optionally, include $w with the OCLC record number of the resource cited. Do not include any space between the closing parenthesis and the number, e.g., $w (OCoLC)1234...

• Use good judgment in providing citations.
• The location of the feature must be explicitly identified and supported by the 670s.
• Your 670s should not be an exhaustive bibliography of all source considered. Rather, supply enough to justify/define/show usage of the 151, UFs, and BTs.
• Have you searched the appropriate authoritative database (GNIS for places in the United States, GNS for most foreign names, etc.) and cited any information found?
• If you are aware of errors in an authoritative database affecting the 151 and/or UFs, have you cited additional sources justifying your choice of headings?
• Have you provided enough information about the location of the feature (e.g., coordinates, encompassing jurisdiction, adjoining or related geographic features, origin and mouth of river, etc.) so that reviewers can easily distinguish the feature named in your proposed heading from similarly named geographic features and confirm that the heading and qualifiers have been properly constructed?

Example:
151 ## $a Winnipeg, Lake, Watershed
680 ## $i Here are entered works on the area drained by Lake Winnipeg, which extends from the lake in Manitoba east to Lake Superior, west to the Rockies, and south to Minnesota, the Dakotas, and Montana.

Note that the 680 may also be used as necessary to provide clarification for other feature types, such as valleys.