Talk:Fanno Creek/Archive 1

Comments

I was going to comment on the peer review but see it has been archived, so I will comment here instead. Overall it looks very good and I only found a few minor nitpicks.

• The map clearly shows that part of the watershed is in Clackamas County, but this is not mentioned in the lead (it is later, in Watershed)
• On one of my computers (with the smallest font) there is a block of white space between the end of course (about halfway down the watershed map) and the panoramic course map. Not sure if it would make sense to put the panormaic course map lower in the article (only solution I can think of).
• River Miles need River Kilometers too (per Balch Creek model)
• The Watershed section has three short paragraphs (two sentences each). Could the precipitation paragraph be combined with the current first paragraph (which talks of erosion)? Some at FAC may not like so many short paragraphs.
• Identity of the "main river" is unclear in The valleys of the main river and its major tributaries such as the Tualatin River consisted of open grassland maintained by annual burning, with scattered groves of trees along the rivers and creeks. Assume it is the Willamette, but it took me some thought
• Can any more be added to History - gap between 1915 and 1998
• The two ands in this seem a bit awkward The narrow riparian corridors along streams in the watershed commonly include western redcedar, Douglas-fir, and vine maple, and sword fern as well as invasive species like English ivy.[3]
• Would it make sense to be more specific as to number in listing parks, i.e. something like The Portland Parks and Recreation Department manages three parks: Hillsdale Park ... and Seven Fanno Creek parks in Beaverton and unincorporated Washington County are managed by the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD). (Note: this assumes I can count)
• The Tigard parks paragraph is one sentence
• No mention of discharge data in the article, but two stream gauges are mentioned in Course and data for one is in the Geobox
• Death to purple loosestrife!

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these helpful suggestions. I've been on a short wikibreak, and I archived the peer review before going on break to reduce the clutter on the PR page. Over the next few days, I'll work on the issues you mention above, and I'll post a further note or notes here. Finetooth (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, glad it helps - I also wondered if there could be a few more pictures. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The existing set of images is on the thin side. I can fix that. Finetooth (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No rush, but I do look forward to seeing more images. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>These were helpful suggestions, and I believe I've addressed them all but one. I'm still looking for material to expand the History section. I've added two more photos, one of my own showing how small this murky creek is even at the mouth, and one from the Commons showing the pretty but invasive purple loosestrife. In the process of making these changes, I made others, and I noticed a problem with the map that I must fix. I'll work on the History addition and the map fix this week and let you know when they are done. If you see anything else that's missing, odd, or wrong, please let me know. Thanks again for your help. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have it on my watchlist and have noted all of the changes - let me know when you are ready and I will be glad to take a second look. I like the new photos, too bad purple loosestrife is so attractive. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I believe I have solved the final problem in the list above. You were quite right in spotting a weakness in the History section. This led to much more detail about population growth, which is the central diving force behind changes to the creek over time. Thinking about this led me to add another paragraph to the Pollution section as well, since efforts to protect the creek have a history of their own. Finetooth (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Another look with my nitpicks:

• Since Fanno farmhouse is on the NRHP, would it be possible to write a stub / start on it? Most states have the NRHP info online and it can be ordered via email for free from the NPS if not online?

Yes, good idea. I'll have at it.

• "very poor" seems like a direct quote and as such probably should be cited in the lead

Agreed.

• Sometimes stream gages have information on the area of watershed at that point (percentage of total or actual area draining to that point). Is that available here? Would it be useful to include it? Not sure I have asked this clearly...

Yes, I know exactly what you mean. Both of these gauges have the actual area. I have included the first in the infobox and maybe the main text (I forget), and I will add the second.

• I don't have a clear idea where the The Westside Express Service (WES) runs relative to the creek and its watershed - I assume at least part of the line follows the creek or at least is in the watershed?

Good point. I will revise and make this clear.

• Reads a bit oddly - Although the water quality of Fanno Creek was rated as "very poor" by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) between 1986 and 1995, it [nevertheless? still?] improved during those years for several reasons. try to increase the contrast perhaps. Also if this is a quote the MOS says it needs a ref right after

OK. I will mull this one over and see what I can do.

• add comma? The watershed begins in the Coast Range ecoregion designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but flows thereafter through the Willamette Valley ecoregion.[28]

No comma. "Begins" and "flows" are two verbs with the same subject. I remove about 20 of these a day from articles I copyedit. However, "watershed" is the wrong noun. I doubt that a watershed flows. I should have said "creek", and I now I have. The creek begins and flows.

• 1 mi was 1.6 km above so should 0.1 mi be 0.16 km in Fanno Creek passes through or within 0.1 miles (0.2 km) of 14 parks in several jurisdictions. ?

Sigh. It would if my measurements were really that exact. I'll think some more about this. When I can't find specific RMs in documents or on maps, I sometimes resort to using a ruler and a map scale and calculating. It's a pretty crude method, and I don't really like doing it because, well, I have to keep writing "about" and "nearly" and "approximately" and other weasley things or, alternatively, claiming an exactness that I can't support.

• There are significant figure issues in many of the conversions throughout, here are a few examples: "2 acres (0.81 ha)" - I would think "2 acres (0.8 ha)" would be OK, or "RM 14.5 (RK 23)" if there are three sig figs for miles, two for km seems odd.

Thanks, yes. I need to look at all of these again.

• Ref 5 - would it be worth repeating the source here?

Yes.

Looks very good, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is very helpful. I'll work on this list over the next few days. You helped in another way as well. I had been under the impression that somebody who used a public domain image in a contemporary book or web site was somehow able to copyright it again and, thus, remove it from the public domain. Now I see from working through the recent licensing tutorial and practicing on Leonard Harrison that it ain't so. From that understanding sprang the third new image in this article -- the Oregon Electric train. Finetooth (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I see people try and claim copyright on PD old iamges all the time in books. The trick is publication (as I understand it). If someone found a private photo never before published, then published it today for the first time, then PD old would not apply (I think). Thankfully this is rare. Thanks for the comma clarification - sometimes I go by my ear - here I heard a pause and thought it should be a comma. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I created a shiny new article, Augustus Fanno Farmhouse. I see that Oregon has many buildings on the NRHP list that are red-linked. It may take a small army of editors to work through them. Thanks for all of these helpful ideas. Finetooth (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oregon Electric photo

I have sent an e-mail to the host web site that is the source of the Oregon Electric photo I uploaded and licensed as PD-OLD. My e-mail asks if the photo is indeed in the public domain because it was taken more than 75 years ago. If I get a response saying something like "My grandfather took it in 1912, and it's never been published before, and it is therefore is not in the public domain," I will delete it from this article and the Oregon Electric article and ask that it be removed from the Commons. If nothing else, I will have learned a little bit more about licensing. Fingers crossed. Finetooth (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally if a date is given it is because it was published then. Good luck. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I got a quick and polite reply to my e-mail. It talked about copyrights in general but did not claim a copyright. I will leave things as they are. Finetooth (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

After observing more license discussions at FAC, I changed my mind. I don't think I can prove that the older photo is in the public domain because I don't know who took the photo. It's possible that less than the life of the author plus 70 years has gone by since 1912. For that matter, I can't prove that the photo was taken in 1912, merely that it must have been taken before 1933, when the Oregon Electric passenger service ended. I replaced the old train with a recent photo of a WES train. Finetooth (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fanno Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I'm reviewing this article for GA. I'll have a detailed review ready tomorrow, but so far the article looks excellent and I don't foresee any major issues. Bláthnaid ^talk 19:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking up the review. I appreciate it, and I look forward to your comments. Finetooth (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   A very well written and engaging article.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   All the online sources check out, but I have just a couple of nitpicky concerns, which I'll list below.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   History, geography, and environment of the park are all well covered. I particularly liked the history section's description of the increasing population in the area.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Very well illustrated with free images, particularly the map of the creek's route.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There are only some small sourcing concerns that need to be addressed before the article can become a GA.

I just have a few nitpicky concerns before promoting this article to GA:

• In the 3rd paragraph of the "History" section, there isn't a reference for the sentence "The Westside Express Service (WES) will run 14.7 miles (23.7 km) between Beaverton on the north and Wilsonville on the south. The middle stretch of this run lies close to the lower 8 miles (13 km) of Fanno Creek between Beaverton and Durham." Reference #20 covers all the other information in that paragraph.

Done: The pdf is a good source for the 14.7-mile claim, and I have added a citation to it after the first of the two sentences. For the second sentence, which makes the 8-mile claim, I added a reference to the Rand-McNally map for Beaverton and vicinity. It shows the railroad line as well as the creek. Finetooth (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also in the history section, "Tigard, which did not exist as a city until 1961,[23] grew to 41,000 by the year 2000, all in the watershed.[24]" Reference #24 does not mention "watershed".

Done: Yes. Good catch. This sort of thing happens when I move blocks of text around and leave the citation elsewhere. I had sourced the claim later in the article to the Tribune. I have now added a reference at the end of Tigard population sentence to support the "all in the watershed" claim and moved the Census Bureau citation slightly to the left to support the 41,000 claim. Finetooth (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the "Pollution" section: "The Portland Bureau of Environmental Services estimates that one-third of the surface area of the watershed that lies within its jurisdiction is impervious." is sourced to reference #3 but I don't see a value for the surface area in that source.

Done: The value is on a different page of that same BES site. I added a new citation with an url that links directly to the page that supports the one-third claim. Finetooth (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Vegetation" section: "The narrow riparian corridors along streams in the watershed commonly include western redcedar, Douglas-fir, vine maple, and sword fern as well as invasive species like English ivy." -- I think it would be good to mention that the redcedar, Douglas-fir, etc., are native plants. This is not needed to pass the GA review.

Done. Finetooth (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Are ISBNs available for the maps that you use as sources (if the maps came in books)? These are references #6, 7, 8, 9, and 18. The ISBNs are not necessary to pass the GA review.

I will put the GA nomination on hold for seven days so these issues can be addressed. If I can clarify or help with anything, please let me know. Bláthnaid ^talk 19:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Done: Yes, I have all the maps, and I have now added ISBNs for all of them. This was a really good catch, because I had not thought about ISBNs in connection with maps. From now on, I will include them. I believe I have addressed all of the issues you've raised. If you see anything else that needs fixing, please let me know. I thank you for taking the time and trouble to review this. Finetooth (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No trouble at all, the article was a pleasure to read. I'll pass the GA nomination. Congrats! Bláthnaid ^talk 19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)