Wikipedia

Talk:Upper and Lower Table Rock/Archive 1

< Talk:Upper and Lower Table Rock
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Sasata in topic GA Review

Merged from Table Rock Indian Reservation

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Needs work

I going to add some external links that can be used to beef up the article and then be used as references. Please help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Some refs for the Battle of Hungry Hill. [1], [2], [3] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Why the merge? Shouldn't there have been a merge proposal first? Katr67 (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have nothing else to fall back on but WP:Be Bold. There was no Table Rock page yet for a true merge and the articles would have almost everything to overlap. Perhaps a "move" or rename would have been more accurate for the situation. As for improving the article, a browser crash just killed 30 minutes worth of unsaved edits.  :-/ Zab (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ouch. I hate those browser crashes. Doesn't happen anymore now that I switched to firefox, thank goodness. </advert> Anyway, I think we can have both an Upper and Lower Table Rock article and an article on the rez. There's nothing wrong with this article being a stub for a while. If we do want to keep them merged, it might be better to formally move the rez info here using the "move" button, vs. a cut-n-paste, in order to preserve the page history. Katr67 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I undid the redirect, this article is becoming too much about the Table Rocks themselves and the reservation is not actually on the rocks. Zab (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK?

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I don't know much about DYKs, but this article seems to meet all the criteria. Just throwing it out there. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 review! 02:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I nominated for you here. Feel free to nominate other articles you start on the same page when they meet the criteria. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Since I didn't create the article, should my name really be on there? LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 review! 15:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
True, but you did add about 40% to the article, and there can be multiple authors. So unless Zab objects, I think its fair. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
No objections from me. This article would have been created sooner or later anyway and all I did was kick the bee hive. Zab (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 review! 19:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference stuff

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I came across "Oregon Plants, Oregon Places: Upper and Lower Table Rocks" by Joan Seevers and Darren Borgias (link). There is a huge amount on the plant life but most important is all the hard references on pages 8 and 9 of the pdf file. Zab (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's great! I'll go through it later. Sorry for the late reply, LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going through this now, but what exactly is it? I'm not sure if it is a book, journal, just something on the web...? I'm going to cite it as a journal for now. Thanks, LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 23:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Journal should be fine. Nice call on the flower in the picture too. ZabMilenko 04:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed refs

I took out some text and the following refs: 

 <ref name="living waters">
  {{cite web 
  |url=http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/narratives/subtopic.cfm?subtopic_ID=234 
  |title=Subtopic : ''Where Living Waters Flow'': Place & People: War & Removal 
  |accessdate=November 21, 2007
  |publisher=The Oregon History Project}}
 </ref>
 <ref>
  {{cite web
  |publisher=[http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/historical_records/ Oregon History Project]
  |url=http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/historical_records/dspDocument.cfm?doc_ID=66DAEAD1-94A9-2395-5558EC006580659D
  |title=News Article - The Treaty for the Sale of Lands
  |accessdate=May 4, 2009}}
 </ref>

... because they are not being used to reference anything that I can see, but I am leaving them here just in case I missed something. The diff for the removal is here. ZabMilenko 16:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Locator Map

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not really sure how to use a locator map, but shouldn't we use the Oregon locator map, which would be much more accurate? LittleMountain5 22:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The locator maps are new to me as well; I had just picked one that was available on another page. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 00:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Works cited

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The references to books should be taken out of the inline citations and replaced with a separate "Works cited" section. Shannon1talk contribs 20:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm, why? LittleMountain5 21:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe Shannon1 (talk · contribs) is suggesting that a couple of the references are general enough to just mention once at the end rather than using excessive inline links. Two of them that stand out as examples of this are numbers 8 and 9 from this revision. However, WP:CITE mentions that well-developed articles (including featured articles) would use inline citations where appropriate, and continues with: "They are particularly appropriate for supporting statements of fact and are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged..." I would be afraid to remove many of the inline refs because several do support solid facts that are easily challenged. Reducing the clutter of superscript link pairs is not something I would view as an improvement either because their benefit to me far outweighs the small amount of space they take up. Perhaps some of the other, lesser used references can be eliminated as redundant to improve the overall size of the their article section, which of course could further generalize those book references enough to perhaps justify separating them from the other inlines. At this time though such a move would probably break consistency. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 04:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, now I get it. I'm not sure taking those two out of the main article as inline citations is the best thing to do, as they are the only references in some paragraphs. Personally, I think it would be easier for readers to have the citation right at the end of the sentence as they are now, otherwise some paragraphs would appear to be unreferenced completely. But removing some redundant refs seems like a good idea, some areas are getting quite cluttered... LittleMountain5 15:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
 
Upper Table Rock
 
Upper and Lower Table Rock

I took some pictures of the Table Rocks from Stone Ridge Golf Course today, but the weather wasn't too nice, and they don't thumb to well. Feel free to use them, but I won't be offended if they're not. Thanks, LittleMountain5 23:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I just a thought: maybe Image:Upper Table Rock.jpg could be used directly below Image:Table Rock from Roxy Ann.jpg in the infobox, as they are similar in distance and appearance? LittleMountain5 23:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah the valley was fairly smokey on Friday; perhaps wildfire nearby? I didn't check. As for the pictures, I like the one with both Table Rocks together mainly because we don't have one of those up yet. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 14:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me, although it's mainly golf course and not much Table Rocks... LittleMountain5 15:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 14 years ago28 comments3 people in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Upper and Lower Table Rock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Greetings! I'll be doing this GA review. Will probably need at least a couple of days to do a thorough read-through. To save us both time, I'll boldly make any minor corrections myself, but feel free to discuss or revert if you disagree with any changes I make. Sasata (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are my initial comments. I'll give the editor a chance to respond, and come back later to read through the article a second time, and check references. Sasata (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

*What's the rationale for having all of those references in the lead? From WP:Lead:

The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality.

Since everything in the lead is both referenced and discussed in further detail later in the article, I don't think any citations are necessary here.

*The lead looks short for an article of this size. Any chance of fattening up the second paragraph? You could probably put in some stuff from the "History" section, and there's no mention of anything from the "Trails" section.

Geology and climate

  • it's considered poor MOS form to have text sandwiched between two images, as occurs at the beginning of this section. This can probably be alleviated by simply moving down "Upper and Lower Table Rock Terrain.png" to the bottom of the section.
  •   Fixed I didn't move it to the very bottom as it would move the 'History' section header over. LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "...known to sustain a threatened species of fairy shrimp." How about parenthetically including the Latin name of this shrimp?
  • "...creating slopes where plant and animal life has been able to take hold." How about "creating slopes capable of supporting both plant and animal life?"

*"The regions are called oak savanna, chaparral, mixed woodland, and mounded prairie, and are respectively ordered from the outermost base of the rocks to the relatively flat tops." I know what this is trying to say, but the sentence construction is a bit confusing and I had to read twice to be sure I understood it. Would fix myself but it's late and brain not on full speed :)

History *"He funded residential lots near the landmark with the intent of marketing to visiting celebrities who used the grassy runway." Marketing what?

  •   Fixed, I think. He was marketing the residential lots. LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

*"Due to the threat to safety, the facility is closed to the public." Threat to safety of what or to whom?

*"In 1981, the Upper Table Rock Trail was built by the Youth Conservation Corps." Any info on the total length of the trail?

  • There's more info in the 'Trails' section, but I could add it here too if you think it's necessary. LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Nope, it's fine as is. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

*"In 1984, the Table Rocks were designated as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern." By who?

Flora and fauna *am wondering if "mixed woodland" would be better linked specifically to mixed woodland"

*"Over 140 species of plants grow on the rocks, and another 200 species of wildflowers can be found." Wildflowers are plants too, so the sentence sounds a little off. How about "Over 340 species of plants grow on the rocks, including approximately 200 species of wildflowers."

*"The rocks are also home to many ticks..." Many ticks or many different species of ticks?

  •   Fixed There's only one species, Ixodes pacificus, but I didn't link to that article because it only contains one very short sentence. LittleMountain5 15:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

*There's quite a few uses of the expression "can be seen" or "can be found" in this section, enough to be noticeable. You might consider changing a few for variety.

  • Any suggestions? I've been stuck on this for a while... LittleMountain5 15:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

*Have noticed throughout the article some inconsistency in the capitalization of "the Rocks" or "the rocks" as the short-hand way to name the subject.

Trails *"Unwary hikers are advised not to approach the edge of the rocks," How are they advised? With signs?

  • The sentence was not properly derived from the attached reference. I just removed it and moved the reference elsewhere. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 03:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Other

  • Are the numerous multiple references really necessary? Some examples:
  • "The surfaces of both Upper Table Rock and Lower Table Rock are somewhat flat, but are speckled with vernal pools known to sustain a threatened species of fairy shrimp.[3][9][14][15]"
  • "Raising over $500,000, they purchased 1,881 acres (7.61 km2) of Lower Table Rock, creating the Lower Table Rock Preserve.[3][8][9][28][29]"
  • "It was closed in 1906.[21][23][24]"
  • "Some of the most common are buttercups, desert parsley, lupine, and goldfields.[7][8][9][31][32]" Four species mentioned, but 5 refs to support it?
  • In these cases (and others I haven't listed), why not just pick the best single (or minimal number) reference that supports the statement?
  • I've fixed them so all sentences have four refs or less. I could reduce it more if you would like. LittleMountain5 15:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It's very close, but I really would the multiple citations trimmed a bit more. Here's a random example: Sasata (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "The Table Rocks are presently one of the most popular hiking locations in the Rogue Valley, with up to 10,000 visitors annually.[5][25][31]" I don't have ref 5, so am not sure what it says. Ref 25 is fully adequate by itself as a source ("The two Table Rocks are the most popular hiking destination in the Rogue Valley with over 10,000 visitors each year."), as long as the wording is changed to "over 10,000" (source) rather than "up to 10,000" (article). Ref 31 says "The Table Rocks are among the most popular in southwestern Oregon", which is talking about a broader area than your sentence, and I don't think citing this adds anything for the reader. Another example:
  • "This Indian reservation remained open for three years,[15][16][17]..." Three citations for one fact? Ref 15 covers is (although one would mentally have to subtract 1856-1853=3 to deduce this). Ref 16 also covers the fact in the same way. Can't access ref 17. Using three refs doesn't make the point any more valid, it just makes more work for the reader who might want to check a source.
Thanks very much for the review. All these comments are very helpful. :) I'll try to get to as many as I can, but unfortunately I will most likely not have internet access from tomorrow until August 29. (I might find WiFi, but that's unlikely). ZabMilenko may be able to help, but I'm not sure he's active presently. If there are still problems after today, I'll gladly try to fix them when I get back. Sorry for any inconvenience, LittleMountain5 15:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not, technically. This is the time of year I am normally stuck on other projects, but I've been trying to be close by. I'm going to be busy most of today but I'll work on this stuff as I can. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 14:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
Prose is reasonably well-written; article complies with MOS.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):  c(OR):  
    Well-referenced to reliable sources. I still think some some of the remaining multiple cites remaining are unnecessary, but several of the over-excessive examples have been reduced. I random-checked some of the sources and everything checks out.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Coverage is broad enough for GA level.
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
    All images have appropriate free use licenses.
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Congratulations! Sasata (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed review! Do you think this article has a chance at FAC later on? LittleMountain5 16:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Later on, after much more work is done :) Seriously, have a look at some of the existing FA's, in the Geography and places category, to steal some ideas. Further expansion could include more about the geological history of the area, climate (could summarize weather data in a nice table, see Black Moshannon State Park for example)... Good luck! Sasata (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Upper_and_Lower_Table_Rock/Archive_1&oldid=337299197"