Wikipedia:Peer review/Tryon Creek/archive1

Tryon Creek edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC in the near future. More eyes would be helpful because I've worked on this one without much input yet from other editors. Any suggestions would be welcome. I'd much rather deal with any doubts, questions, errors, or omissions here than at FAC.

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement, although this looks pretty ready for FAC to me already.

I would clarify in the lead that Lake Oswego is a city, so ...the Multnomah Village neighborhood of Portland and the Tryon Creek State Natural Area to the Willamette in [the city of] Lake Oswego. I thought at first it was a lake and was not sure how it was entering the Willamette and a lake.

Thanks for catching this vagueness, which I think is now fixed. It's a confusing pair, Oswego Lake and Lake Oswego. I thought they had identical names until I wrote this article. Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes up the other 30 percent of the watershed? Single-family residential properties cover more than 50 percent of the watershed, while parks and open spaces amount to about 20 percent.

Good question and one that troubled me often as I did the research. I never quite found a document with the statistics I was hoping for. Instead, I found an interesting but incomplete set of land-use statistics published by Portland's Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) that gives the desired data only for the Portland fraction (80 percent) of the watershed. I didn't find a set of similar stats published by the City of Lake Oswego or the county governments and, thus, couldn't add them to the BES stats to get the equivalent stats for the whole watershed. I re-wrote one paragraph of the Watershed section today by using the BES stats plus a short summary by Metro, the regional government, which takes a wider view of land questions. I think the two combined give a fair (though imprecise) idea of land use in the whole watershed: lots of houses and parklands and not a lot of anything else. Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map is very nice but it sure looks to me like Falling Creek enters further upstream than river mile 4.16 (of a total length of 7 miles). I tired to check this online but only found the Watershed Association's similar map. 4/7 is about 60%, but to me it just looks more like 75% or even 80% of the distance from the mouth. If some of the headwaters are not shown that could do it I suppose.

I see the problem. Tryon Creek is only 4.85 miles (7.81 km) long by BES's precise measurement (to the nearest hundredth of a mile), even though other sources say 7 miles. BES says the "headwaters complex" above that point consists of tributaries. Tributaries don't count toward total length no matter what the other sources, which do not explain how the total was calculated, may say. The USGS river-mile point (1.0 mile) for the stream gauge below Nettle Creek supports the BES measurement (1.06 mile) for the reach below Nettle Creek, and it's not possible to fit seven of those lengths into what shows on any map of the creek that I've seen. Correcting the length fixes the Falling Creek problem (which is 86 percent of the distance from the mouth), and related distance problems. The map was generally fun but less so when I tried to include the jurisdictional boundaries. They are such a crazy quilt that I could see no way to include them. Finetooth (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could there be some variation of "aty RM X (RK Y)"? Perhaps "X miles (y km) from the mouth"? It just gets a little repetitive.

Indeed it does. I've varied the usage along the lines you suggest. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming most if not all of the bridges crossing the creek in the state park are footbridges (as they carry trails, and from the photo). Could this be stated somehow (blanket staements if possible - five footbridges cross the creek in the park, or specifics for each bridge if they differ)?

Yes. Five is the correct total, and I've added that to the Course section. They are all similar footbridges. I wikilinked footbridges. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were the maximum and minimum historic flow rates associated with particular weather events (for example in Penna. most high flow rates are associated with Hurricane Agnes)?

No. The data-gathering time, six years, doesn't go back far enough to catch anything big. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paralell construction? Should it be in... in both times Of this, about 80 percent is in Portland in Multnomah County, and 20 percent is in Lake Oswego and [in?] Clackamas County.

Good catch. Thinking about this led me to add the clarification that we are really talking about four local jurisdictions with a lot of overlap as well as a fifth, the State of Oregon, which owns the state natural area. I have modified this paragraph. Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Tyron house no longer exists, could the dates for it be added to the caption?

Yes. Good catch. I've added the construction date and the approximate demolition date to the caption and gave a source. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The and here made me think frogs etc. were meant to be mammals at first Some of the resident mammals are bats, coyotes, moles, rabbits, skunks, and squirrels, and frogs, salamanders, snakes, and turtles also do well in the watershed.[28] Would "while" work better (instead of "and")?

Thank you. I used your suggested wording. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the names of plant species be capitalized consistently?

I think I've fixed this now by making all the instances of "Western" lowercase. Is that what you were thinking of? I've never found a consistent guideline for whether or not to capitalize any species except the birds. I wish I could find one partly because other editors have sometimes changed my uppercase bird species to lowercase, and I don't have a strong argument to make one way or the other. I see that Fauna of Scotland has uppercase for all species. Would that be better? Finetooth (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After sleeping on it, I've changed all the species names to title case and changed the generic bird names to lowercase. Finetooth (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refs and images look OK - the fair use image of the house may need to be made smaller (in the original - size in the article looks fine) but I would probably wait for the image gurus at FAC to decide this.

Thanks. Yes. I think I'll wait and see what happens. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is very helpful, and I will make further improvements to the article over the coming week or so. Finetooth (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I'd be able to find anything that got through the always-thorough Ruhrfisch's review, but I think I've got one. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what easy solution there could be…as it's in the infobox code. The discharge rate is listed as being "for near Lake Oswego…" "for near?" makes no sense. But, it appears the word "for" is built into the template…so I'm not sure what the best solution would be.

Otherwise, fantastic article! -Pete (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pete. Good catch. I'll give the discharge rate location some further thought. I think I added "near" many months ago and that it is actually in the city of Lake Oswego, but I'll have to double-check. I've been off-line again for a day and a half, hence the delay in fixing anything yet. Finetooth (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The USGS says "below Nettle Creek, near Lake Oswego, Oregon," and refines that by saying the gauge is at river mile 1.0, 0.8 mile north of Lake Oswego". I changed the geobox to say "below the confluence with Nettle Creek, 1 mile (1.6 km) from the Tryon Creek mouth". The geobox still adds "for", but that and "for near" seem logical to me though a bit odd-sounding because "a point" is implied rather than stated; that is, I take it to mean "for a point below the confluence with... ". Finetooth (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have now fixed the problems mentioned above or at least responded to them. Thank you both. Any further suggestions are most welcome. Finetooth (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]