Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Columbia River/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:50, 29 September 2009 [1].

Columbia River edit

Nominator(s): Pete (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC); Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC); Pfly (talk · contribs) [reply]
Toolbox

This article has been the subject of a broad and sustained collaboration by over a dozen editors since at least 2007. The river is of central importance to America's Pacific Northwest region: cultural, economic, transportation, environmental, and international political interests have intersected along the river for centuries, and it played an important role in the area's geologic evolution and native culture as well. Editors from a wide variety of backgrounds and interests have worked diligently to assure that the article's structure and content fully and adequately reflect that diversity of topics, and the central the river has played in the region.

The article has been through two in-depth Good article reviews (passing the second). About a year ago we made a push toward FA, and received an in-depth peer review; though we acted on most of its points, we did not pursue FA at the time. In the year since, we have made progress on the article, but there have been no drastic changes, which should speak to the article's stability.

We have consulted numerous sources, and talked with experts on specific topics in the region. We've done extensive work on related articles, and developed a related navigation box to more fully expose related topics to the encyclopedia's readers. We've tracked down a variety of free media from various periods of history. A professional cartographer made two maps to our specifications. We feel that the article now represents some of the best work on Wikipedia, and is ready for consideration for Featured status. We also recognize that an article on such an extensive topic can never be considered truly complete, and welcome feedback and ideas. We hope the article will soon join the ranks of many related Featured articles: Hanford Site, Johnson Creek (Willamette River) and other Portland-area watersheds, Mount St. Helens, and the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens.

-Pete (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text. Please see WP:ALT, and see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. You might also want to check out the "external links" button, as there are apparently some problems with dead links too. Eubulides (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I wrote the first 14 alt texts today, and I'll do the remaining 10 tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 03:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Urk! The alt viewer doesn't seem to show the ones I've done. Not sure why. Finetooth (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The syntax wasn't correct, so the alt text was ignored. Please use "|alt=Alt text", with no spaces around the "alt" or the "=". I fixed the occurrences of this problem that I found. Sometimes the Altviewer hiccups and uses an old (cached) version of the page; this is being investigated/fixed and I am not observing the problem now, but you can check if this is the problem by looking at the time stamp at the bottom of the Altviewer output. The alt text already added is first class. Some comments that may help: it's OK to make it a bit shorter than what you're doing (I like it a bit longer, like it is, and am not suggesting changing what's already written, but when you're writing the rest you may want to know that others prefer shorter and there is room for editorial judgment). One minor criticism: the alt text "A map shows the locations of many river dams..." spends too much time on irrelevant visual details such as colors and circles and how the labels are arranged, and too little time on the gist of what the map actually says, e.g., dams all the way up the Columbia and Snake (please see WP:ALT#Maps). Eubulides (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for the helpful advice and for fixing the first batch of syntax errors. I have finished the complete set of alt texts, repaired the remaining bad syntax, and revised the map descriptions. One remaining puzzle is that the alt reader is not seeing the two alt texts in the geobox. Finetooth (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Niagara has kindly fixed the problem, which involved slightly different syntax errors. Finetooth (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all that. I tried to fix the one remaining problem I saw, which was transcluded from Template:Columbia River; you might want to check my fix there. Eubulides (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. I couldn't see that image anywhere in the article and didn't think to look in the bottom template. The alt text seems fine. I tweaked it a bit by adding the waterfall dimensions in imperial units, roughly converted. Finetooth (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

"(known as Wimahl or Big River to the Chinook-speaking natives who lived on its lowermost reaches)" is this really so important it should be the first thing?
  • We've been wondering about the name issue. Your feedback is helpful. I think moving that note into the "native inhabitants" section is probably the solution. What say you? -Pete (talk)

done -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"provided the core subsistence for natives, and in past centuries, traders from all over western North America would travel to the Columbia to trade for fish." wasn't the subsistence in past centuries too?
  • subsistence: good point, need to fix. -Pete (talk)

done -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"heavily developed to serve human purposes" do we need "to serve human purposes" or is it implicit?
  • Not sure. Anyone else, comments? -Pete (talk)

done -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"taming or harnessing of the river" of the?
  • You suggesting removing the word "of?" That could work, I think... -Pete (talk)
"The development, commonly referred to as taming or harnessing of the river, includes dredging for navigation by larger ships; the construction of dams for power generation, irrigation, navigation, and flood control; nuclear weapons research and production; and the generation of nuclear power." This sentence sounds a little funny.
It's got two "navigation"s.
"dredging for navigation by larger ships" dredging to aid?
"the construction of dams for power generation" maybe "the construction of power generating dams"?
"nuclear weapons research and production; and the generation of nuclear power" can this be condensed with more broad comment on nuclear stuff.
"come into conflict with ecological conservation numerous times" sounds kinda funny, or maybe it's fine. Not sure.
  • The dams serve multiple purposes, so rephrasing to "power generating dams" really doesn't work. But, I suppose it's actually locks, not dams, that aid navigation. The locks were separate from earlier canal and dredging projects, so saying it twice is not a mistake. You're right, this sentence needs some serious work. -Pete (talk)
Rewrote both sentences, not every one of your concerns is directly addressed, but on the whole I think it reads much better. Look good? -Pete (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done -Pete (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. It looks like a really fine article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Kinbasket Lake" would it be better to call it "Kinbasket Reservoir"? I notice most of the lakes are reservoirs. Something to think about.
  • Whatever the name is, is what we should use. I'm not sure. -Pete (talk)
  • What happened was, I was reading and it seemed odd to me that the river would flow through natural lakes (at this stage of development). I think all of the lake articles I looked at have "X Lake (X Reservoir)" or "X Lake (X Lake Reservoir)" to lead their articles. I'll defer to what others think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is ref 10 dead?
All dead links are now fixed or replaced. Finetooth (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, there's more than one "Big Bend"?
  • Yep. -Pete (talk)
  • Note: If needed, Egan names the Washington "Big Bend" on p. 239. -Pete (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"construction of the Grand Coulee Dam in the mid-20th century backed the river up, forming Lake Roosevelt" maybe "Dam in the mid-20th century created Lake Roosevelt"? "backed the river up" sounds funny.
"Tri-Cities" is linked twice.
Is the The Gorge Amphitheatre not in the Columbia Gorge?
"river ranks 23rd in length" are there lists that can be linked for this and the other statments in that paragraph? Same with Discharge para.
  • I agree that the prose in general in the article is too data-heavy. Linking to lists is not a bad idea. Open to other suggestions. -Pete (talk)

Looking pretty good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peregrine. I inlined some quick replies above. -Pete (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support If I have time, I'll make more comments, but this is definitely some of WP's best work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and support. I didn't notice this for two days, I think because it was right-shifted a bit and lost in the page clutter. I've shifted it to the left margin to make it more visible. We certainly don't want any supports to get lost. :-) Finetooth (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comments from Ealdgyth

  • Comments -
  • USGS or United States Geological Survey? Pick one or the other and be consistent in the references.
Good catch, will do. -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found and fixed them all, I think. There were quite a bunch. All are now spelled out. Finetooth (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done -Pete (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was noted and we're working on it (though I think it was on the talk page not here -- sorry not to mention it!)

-Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All dead links are now restored or replaced. Finetooth (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the references (I noted USDA but there are probably others).
I'll take a closer look at that, I think we have not reviewed for that in some time. -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see any others on a quick scan. I have to say, we're generally been very careful about that, so I think it's a fairly safe bet the one you found was an anomaly. Fixed that.

done -Pete (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/ (also, the title of the journal should be in italics)
      The OHQ has a clear editorial structure, a 100+ year history, and a commitment to quality and accuracy. On a contentious point, it would be inferior to, say, a scientific journal or a university-sponsored research project; but the two facts it's used to justify are uncontroversial points that are not likely to be challenged. The second point (the 1450 possibility on the date of the Bonneville Slide), it cites another work, which theoretically could be tracked down. Historycooperative.org simply re-publishes OHQ among other historical society publications. Italics added. -Pete (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I've removed your strike through until I've had time to evaluate... generally at FAC, the practice is to let the person making the comments strike them when they feel they are resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Makes perfect sense, sorry for the gaff. It's been a long time since I've worked closely on an FA nom. -Pete (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional info about this: The historycooperative.org refs are to articles published by the Oregon Historical Society, as Pete mentioned. The Oregon Historical Society Press has published books and papers for about a century. Sadly, the OHS had to close down their press this year, but it is notable, I think, that the University of Washington Press has taken over the distribution of the OHS Press books not yet out of print. Our Columbia River article has two refs citing the OHS Quarterly via historycooperative.org. The first in the section about the Bonneville Landslide's blocking of the river and links to a paper by Jim E. O'Connor, one of the primary people researching and writing about this topic. His paper is footnoted and referenced in detail. He is a hydrologist with the USGS Portland office and a leading expert in the study of the Bonneville Slide. The second historycooperative.org ref, also an Oregon Historical Society paper, is in the section about Vancouver sending Broughton, his lieutenant, exploring up the Columbia in late 1792. The paper cited is by Jim Mockford and is footnoted and referenced in detail. Jim Mockford is a historian specializing in the maritime history of the Pacific Northwest. It seems like a RS to me, but if desired other sources can be used for the claims being made (how far Broughton got, that he saw and named Mt Hood, and that he formally claimed the river for Britain). Likewise for the O'Connor article: other sources could be used if desired. However, it seems to me that any reader wanting to learn more about the Bonneville Slide ought to be pointed to O'Connor, as he is one of the leading experts on the study of the slide. Pfly (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a RS to me - if it were just a cite to the print version, it owuld be a RS, so being on the web for easier access does not make it any less a RS. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the common-place.org citation with two others, one from Departments of Natural Resources of WA and OR, the other from the Oregon Historical Quarterly, on the basis that it is acceptable as a RS. Slight rewording was needed too. Pfly (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was Pfly who found and added the triple-divide material. That said, I found a 1921 book, on-line as a Google Book, a climber's guide, that supports the claim. I added a citation to the book but left the peakfinder citation in place because it explains that a variant name for Snow Dome is Dome, which is what the 1921 book calls it. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed the non-RS peakfinder citation, leaving the book citation in place and adding a citation to an Atlas of Canada map showing the major drainage basins of Canada and generally where three of them (Mackenzie, Nelson, and Columbia) meet at a point near the Columbia headwaters. Finetooth (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one looks reliable to me. Anderson is a Ph.D. mathematician specializing partly in topology at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. His explanation of triple-divide points, replete with illustrations, examples, and equations looks expert rather than amateur. Finetooth (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into it more closely, and agree with Finetooth. This part of WP:RS seems relevant: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." There is no reason to think of the points Anderson makes as particularly controversial; in fact, his article provides context that helps one to interpret what little controversy there is (namely, whether Hudson Bay is properly considered an inlet to the Arctic or Atlantic ocean). For a more controversial point, the source would certainly fail WP:RS. But for this point, it has a great deal of utility for the curious reader, without much risk of misleading them. -Pete (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further detail on that -- Andersen is published in academic journals on topology, see [2] and [3]. I think that explicitly satisfies the (admittedly unusual) circumstances described in WP:V under "self-published sources" section. -Pete (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=5332
      No, don't think that one qualifies. It seems all four of these issues could be resolved by finding a single high-quality RS on continental divides in North America. May have to head to the library for that. -Pete (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pfly added two citations to support the claim that Three Waters Mountain is a triple-divide point. The non-RS peakbagger.com is one of the two, but the other one, Anderson, also supports the claim. If Anderson is expert, as his credentials suggest, we could just delete the peakbagger citation as redundant as well as non-RS. How say you all? Finetooth (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hearing no objections, I deleted the non-RS peakbagger citation since it serves no purpose unsatisifed by the Anderson citation. Finetooth (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look through them again. -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, this page is pretty useful for divide lines in North America, though it doesn't mention Dome (or, for that matter, the divide between the Arctic and Hudson Bay). -Pete (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 82 (The eagan quote) needs a page number
I have that book around somewhere, I'll find it. Good catch. -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally found it...the bugger was elusive!! -Pete (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
I have now fixed these. There were several that lacked italics. Finetooth (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, so much work...but you're right :) -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed feedback! -Pete (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with some comments, from Ruhrfisch. I passed this as a Good Article and have kept an eye on it since. While I have made a few edits here, I applaud the main group of editors who worked so hard on this - to my thinking it is one of the best examples of collaborative editing I have seen. It is also one of the best articles the encyclopedia has on a large river. Here are a few comments, which do not detract from my support. Many of these are places where references are needed, but this is already pretty copiously referenced, so I am comfortable supporting (and that my comments will be addressed).

  • Since seven US states and one Canadian province are in the Columbia drainage basin, would it be worth mentioning this in some way in the lead? I would also link drainage basin there - perhaps something like ...(roughly the size of France, this includes parts of seven US States and one Canadian province).
  • In the Course section explain BC after the first mention, i.e. "British Columbia (BC)"
  • The size of the watershed is given four times in the article (lead, Geobox, and twice in the space of just two paragraphs in the text: last paragraph of Course and first paragraph of Discharge). I would move the sentence Its drainage basin covers 258,000 square miles (670,000 km2). from the Discharge section to the Watershed section
  • In the Course section the second phrase of this sentence seems wrong (as we know the Columbia also breaches the Cascades) - would adding "others" work? No other river completely breaches the Cascades—those [others?] that flow through the range also originate in or very near the mountains.
  • In the Geology section I would give a rough age for the Missoula Floods (15,000 to 13,000 years ago).
Thank you for the kind words and support. I've added an age range. Bishop suggests, via USGS geologists, a slightly wider range but in the same ballpark. Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section The floods' periodic inundation of the lower Columbia River Plateau deposited rich sediments, establishing the fertility that supports extensive agriculture in the modern era. needs a ref
Added a ref. Bishop mentions especially the Willamette Valley. (Thank you Montana and Washington for all the topsoil.) Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Indigenous peoples section several places need refs: ...the Cayuse War, a number of violent battles were fought between American settlers and the regions natives, establishing the United States' dominance in the region and removing much land from native control. Similar conflicts occurred in British Columbia, such as the Fraser Canyon War. is one, The bridge permitted increased interaction and trade between tribes on the north and south sides of the river until it was finally washed away. is another, and the whole short paragraph Natives drew fish from the Columbia at several major sites ... Kettle Falls and Priest Rapids in eastern Washington, were also major fishing and trading sites. needs a ref.
If I can just step up on a soapbox for a brief moment…I disagree that (at least some of) these are problems. WP:V states that editors "…should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" -- and I don't believe many of the items above are likely to be challenged. In this case, I think we're OK, because I can probably find sources (like [4]); however, I have a concern about this level of dedication for citing every fact, because on occasion, there is a fact or two that must be stated in order to preserve a good narrative flow and inform the reader, is entirely uncontroversial, and yet cannot be cited to any specific reliable source. Okay, stepping off soapbox and seeking citations now. -Pete (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look at Wikipedia articles as a good starting place for people interested in learning more about a topic - providing a ref says to the reader "here is where this information comes from and where you can learn more about this topic, if so interested". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm sure you can see from my editing history, I thoroughly agree with that concept...my departure is entirely theoretical, and if I'm lucky, won't have any impact on this FA, where sources are fairly easy to find if you put in the time...I just added a couple more about the events surrounding Cayuse War. :) -Pete (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I made a mistake when adding the mention of the Fraser Canyon War--that was along the Fraser River not the Columbia, I think. I'll remove the statement. The claim about the "bridge" permitting increased interaction across the river is perhaps something that should be removed too? It's hard to believe anyone could know whether the claim is true. If not removed perhaps reworded to indicate the source, like "according to oral tradition..." or "anthropologist So-and-so speculates that..."? (also, I hope I'm editing the right page/section--never commented on an FA candidate before!) Pfly (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to leave in the bit about increased interaction, as it seems to be an uncontroversial bit of oral history. But I have no objection to phrasing it how you did; transparently informing the reader that oral history is the source of this information seems like a very good idea. -Pete (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm down off my soapbox, recognizing that your critique spurred us to do some good research that needed doing, and has led to a much stronger section. Still looking for a good source for the land bridge/increased interaction bit; it's alluded to all over the place, and I know I've seen it in strong sources in the past, but the darn library closed yesterday before I could get to that one. -Pete (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to help in a small way - thanks for everyone's hard work on this, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a ref for the claim that the Bridge of the Gods permitted increased interaction across the river, according to native oral histories. Also, I took out the bit about "until it was finally washed away" because in most or all of the stories the bridge is deliberately destroyed by a god. Pfly (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also wonder if the once sentence paragraph on modern tribal fishing rights could be combined with another paragraph here, perhaps the last one with a ref mentioned above or after the Kah-Nee-Tah resort sentence?
Looks like that's been done. -Pete (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the sentence Today, the Yakama, Nez Perce, Umatilla, and Warm Springs tribes all have treaty fishing rights along the Columbia and its tributaries.[37] but on rereading I think it is OK where it is and on its own. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found some more related info, and moved/combined it. -Pete (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the New waves of explorers section, the sentences on British fur trader Captain John Meares need a ref.
Sourced to a National Park Service article on Cape Disappointment State Park. Finetooth (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section Northwest Passage is linked twice
I had introduced some general redundancies with a recent edit. I rewrote both parts of the text that mention the NWP, hopefully improving the general flow of the narrative, in addition to eliminating the redundant link. -Pete (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph of Navigation needs a ref (although the Course section already had a ref that the Bar is most dangerous to navigate)
Added a ref to an Oregon Marine Board document to support claim that the Bar is still dangerous. Finetooth (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Dams section, the end of the first paragraph needs a ref, as does the passage Canada agreed to build dams and provide reservoir storage, and the U.S. agreed ... the last of which was completed in 1973. as well as this passage Previously active fishing sites, most notably Celilo Falls ... Chief Joseph Dam has no fish ladders and completely blocks fish migration to the upper half of the Columbia River system.
I've added two refs, one to the treaty itself to support the claims about what the agreement said, and the second to support the claim that Canada built three dams, the last of which (Mica) was completed in 1973. Finetooth (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two more refs to support the Celilo Falls claim and the Chief Joseph Dam claim. I believe these four new refs address the unsourced claims issues in the Dams section. Finetooth (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added one more, which supports the 600,000-acre claim for Grand Coulee. Finetooth (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last parts of the first and third paragraphs in the Fish migration section need refs.
Added two refs supporting the sturgeon claims and one ref supporting the salmon and steelhead claims. Finetooth (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Pollution section, could the one sentence paragraph on the guy swimming the rvier be combined with another paragraph?
I have struggled with that one. Although I strongly prefer not to have one-sentence paragraphs, I'd note that the WP:MOS doesn't prohibit them, just discourages them. In this case, it is truly a notion of its own, not directly relating to anything else; I think combining it into another paragraph simply to satisfy a guideline would lead to a less readable section, and I believe it should stay separate. Curious what you think of that. -Pete (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One possibility might be to introduce a quote from Swain, or a photo, and incorporate that sentence as a caption instead of body copy. Can't say I love the idea, as I think it'd inflate the importance of what was essentially a media stunt more than might be appropriate, but I'm just tossing the idea out. -Pete (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other clean up efforts or environmental organizations focusing on the Columbia that have made the mainstream press that could be added to fill it out to a real paragraph? Kmusser (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the other clean up efforts / groups idea better. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that we simply archive the sentence to the talk page until we have additional information to add? In my opinion it's a detail worth mentioning, but not vital to the article. I'm not sure what additional information there might be to add, but it might take a while to do the kind of research we'd need to to dig it up. Archive to talk page in the meantime? -Pete (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sentence is fine to keep in the article, my question was just if it could be combined somehow with another paragraph. I would rather see it in as a one sentence paragraph than removed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep my eyes open for appropriate facts to add to that. Thanks for clarifying. -Pete (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture captions - is it possible to say how long the Essayons has been dredging (since year) instead of just "currently in use"? Also the article says "The river flows past The Gorge Amphitheatre, a prominent concert venue" but the caption reads "Near the Gorge Amphitheater in George, Washington" (is the "The" capitalized or not?)
I will try on the Essayons. Basically, it's part of the current re-dredging efforts, making it this decade…just have to find a good way to state that concisely. I believe Kmusser fixed the capitalization issue (thanks!) -Pete (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the Essayons caption, and am happier in general with it. See what you think. -Pete (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better , thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps and thanks for a very well done article, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting caught up in details, and forgetting my manners: as Finetooth said, thank you for your compliments and support, and for all these clearly thought-out suggestions. -Pete (talk)
Glad to help improve this in some small way. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All issues I raised have been addressed and/or resolved. Thanks! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you have a look at the external link report? There's a few dead links and some strange ones too. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching this. I repaired or replaced all of the dead links a few days ago, but another one, a link to a newspaper article, died on Sept. 5. I've converted it to an offline citation. I believe the strange ones are OK, not actionable as long as they work. Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed two EL's -- one was info data about the mouth of the river, which might be more appropriate on the Columbia Bar article. The other was a wiki for kayakers. Not sure if this is what you meant by "strange ones." -Pete (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 130KB is a bit long, perhaps? Stifle (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've discussed summarizing and breaking out more articles, and I think it's a reasonable thing to consider in the future, but my view is that it's not necessary. The significance of the article's subject should be a major consideration of what length is appropriate (and I believe it is mentioned somewhere in the MOS, and the Columbia is a river of pretty major significance. The Encyclopedia Britannica has long had the "Micropedia" (with short articles) and the "Macropedia" (with long articles). In the Macropedia, article length has varied from two to 310 pages. With default settings, this article prints on about 15 pages (apart from references.) The references are an additional 9 pages – and surely we wouldn't want to reduce the amount of sourcing? I believe the length is generally appropriate, but would be interested in specific proposals for breaking off and summarizing articles from the sections. -Pete (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am misunderstanding Wikipedia:Article size, but if my calculation is correct the size of the article's "readable prose" is only 54 KB. I roughly cut the article down to "readable prose" and put the results here. Pfly (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This tool shows the article has about 59 KB of readable prose. I do not think it needs to be trimmed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media review Not sure that File:Woody Guthrie, Roll On Columbia.ogg meets WP:NFCC#8. It would be significant and aid understanding of an article about the song, but in an article about the river and area, I think its omission would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. Copyright status of all other images seems fine. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're right. We should probably remove the OGG file. Do I understand correctly you have no objection to the Guthrie photo (public domain) and the quote from the song (surely a very appropriate fair use snippet, which helps the reader understand the marketing and cultural aspects of the dam development)? -Pete (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, those are fine in my opinion. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I think I accidentally introduced that in a rewrite during this FA. Whoops! Thanks, good catch! -Pete (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will be reviewing and editing the geology section. I will then be out of town for several days, so I won't be in touch, but wanted to leave a heads-up here. Awickert (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest in the article, for the heads-up, and for the additions to the geology section. Bishop doesn't mention the Farallon plate until later in her book, but otherwise the existing citation supports the additional claims, and perhaps the plate name doesn't need its own citation. I noticed one mistake, a kind of typo I've made myself more than once. The North American plate was moving westward, not eastward. I changed the article to say "westward". Finetooth (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support

I have to say that the article is very comprehensive and the post-lead sections very well written. My compliments to the authors. The article also has two superb maps; compliments to K. Musser for those. But what happened to the lead? It's as if the preface to a Dickens novel has been written by the printer's bored-to-death assistant. I have just left detailed comments on the lead on the article's talk page. A better lead would help in drawing the reader to the treasures within. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and support, which are much appreciated, and for your thoughtful suggestions for improving the lead. We knew when User:UriahHeep insisted on writing the lead that we might regret it. The rest of us will try to get it right by tomorrow (Monday). Finetooth (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for the feedback and suggestions--all very good. Finetooth addressed a good number of your points and I just finished the rest. Leads are hard--the desire to balance relative terseness with that "drawing the reader in" thing. Then again, I think I have an over-tendency to go terse in leads. Hopefully the lead is now a little less awkward and a little more engaging. Thanks again for the feedback! Pfly (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Columbia_River/archive1&oldid=1146551663"