Talk:Gladstone, Oregon/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 13:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like doing geography GA reviews, always finding lots to learn about them, so I'm happy to do this one too.

Lead[edit]

Is Gladstone really a city, as opposed to a town? I'll AGF that it is, but I'm surprised given Portland is not far away

Verified - Oregon Constitution, Article XI § 2. While the language of the Constitution refers to municipalities and towns as well as cities, it only provides for one form of municipal charter (cities). Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of readers elsewhere in the world, it might be worthwhile giving a very brief description of Portland (ie: largest city in the state)

Done Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Actually might be a run-on sentence now, worth one more look. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In its heyday, Gladstone was known as a cultural and social center" - I don't think "heyday" is a particularly great word to use, how about "Gladstone has held several important cultural and social events"

Done Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Gladstone once attracted such notable speakers as Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan and presidential candidate Theodore Roosevelt." - per WP:ITSHOULDBENOTED, suggest "Both Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan and presidential candidate Theodore Roosevelt have given public speeches in the city". Also, these facts must be present in the body, ideally with a little more context (what specific reason were they both there for?)

~~: Partly done - Have yet to add relevant content to the body Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Not done - So I've spent quite a bit of time searching online for the specific reason Teddy Roosevelt was in Gladstone and I've yet to find anything. More specifically, I've found a number of, what seem to be modern accounts [1][2][3] , mentioning that he was in Gladstone at some point, but no sources from the actual time period documenting the details, or that it even happened. I specifically was focused on Oregon Newspapers from the latter half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, using tools such as the University of Oregon Libraries Historic Oregon Newspapers search. I'm not sure if this means it was simply an urban legend and should be removed from the article, or if the modern citations, in aggregate, still give it enough credibility to remain. While I'm certain a number of sites mirror each other, I did find a transcript of a Congressman attesting to the fact. It does seem plausible that Teddy did make such a stop, as there is at least one verifiable account of him being in Portland and he is listed as one of, if not the, most prolific speech-giver of all presidents, so an unscheduled campaign stop seems very in character. I'm going to leave this for now and look for William Jennings Bryan. On standby pending further direction. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By contrast, William Jennings Bryan was much, much easier to find. The content (which still needs review) has been added to the body and cited. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for the body coming soon. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: should editors hold off on broaching the corrections made in this review until its completion, or attempt them while its ongoing? I'm not sure what might or might not jeopardize the stability criteria of the article or the integrity of the ongoing review. Buddy23Lee (talk)

Usually I've got enough enough time in one block to run a review from top to bottom, but in this case, real-life intervened, so I suspect it will be this evening before I pick it up again. I don't mind you improving the article as you go, I do tend to go back and check over everything once all the initial points have been addressed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for the delay, picking up from where I left off...

History[edit]

Might just be worth explaining who Lewis and Clark are - also they are not mentioned in the source cited

~~: Half done - Expanded, I'll find an easy cite for this after addressing other things. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Done - citation added. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"they did have it described to them by the native people" - I'm a little confused as to what this means exactly. Do you mean the natives later met up with Lewis and Clark elsewhere and told them about the place?

: Not sure. I'm unsure of how to phrase this without adding a lot of possibly needless detail. Perhaps it should be removed or changed into something like "made aware of"? Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like "natives such as the Kalapuya and the Clackamas people told them about the area" would do Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Added verbatim, and thanks. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"diseases and epidemics which would take a heavy toll on the native peoples and dwindle their populations to near extinction" - I think this a little too strong. The source specifically mentions cholera and smallbox, and it may be better to mention these specifically, and to replace "dwindle..." with something more neutral, such as "contributed to a reduction in population"

Done Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"so that the settlers could have it to farm and live on." - suggest "so that the settlers could use it for farming and housing"

Done Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The government responded by rounding up the native peoples and forcing them to leave their lands for reservations. With the natives removed from the scene, the Gladstone area was ripe for further settling." - I don't think these sentences are particularly neutral, and would suggest something like "The government allocated a reservation for the natives and re-appropriated Gladstone for redevelopment"

Done Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph is cited to this source, but the only mention of Gladstone there is "on the Rinearson land claim at Gladstone". I'm not sure how any of the rest of the paragraph can be verified to this.

Note: - I think the paragraph was attempting to reference the last paragraph in the citation. To wit: "After the treaty was ratified March 3, 1855 the Clackamas were to relocate to Grand Ronde Reservation while retaining some rights in their former homeland. In the midst of violence and starvation during the Yakima War in the summer of 1855, Clackamas County area Indians were suddenly rounded up and forced to the Reservation." That doesn't address the notion of settlers petitioning for such, so it would seem another citation (or removal) must be found. Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first source given for the Pow-Wow Tree includes additional information, including the first Clackamas County Fair in 1860 and the Gladstone Pow-Wow Festival in 1937. That would be worth adding to the article.

Done Buddy23Lee (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second source for the Pow-Wow tree is a dead link. Same problem in the first paragraph for earliest homesteads.

Fixed - Looks like the city finally updated their website (and broke that link in the process), changes that were probably ushered in with the new mayor. Buddy23Lee (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes www.oregonpioneers.com a reliable source?

Checked I agree with your suspicion; it's a rather antiquated looking site. That said, everything I can find regarding her or her work online seems to check out. Probably the most compelling evidence I've found thus far (in a mere 10 minutes of searching), is a WILLAMETTE VALLEY GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY NEWSLETTER, hosted on the official Oregon.gov website, which indicates (on page 7) that she was awarded the "Heritage Education Award" for her work on oregonpioneers.com. So it may not be the greatest source, but I do believe it to be a valid and earnest one. Buddy23Lee (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Several small towns .... become the cities of today." - do you mean "cities" in plural or specifically Gladstone?

Fixed - I attempted to clarify it as referring to nearby communities Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"steadily added until 1861, when a fire destroyed several of the buildings" - the sources indicate it was the flood in 1861 that stopped the town's growth; I'm not sure how a fire relates to this?

Checked - It's a bit buried in the second citation (number 14), but I believe it's referring to this: "On September 2, 1857, Robert Moore died before he could fulfill his dream of making Linn City a thriving and prosperous town. According to the 1860 census, the population of Linn City was just 225 people. Disaster struck twice in 1861. On April 23 a disastrous fire destroyed the mills, warehouse, and the steamer James Clinton." Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More later. (Sorry, this is going to come in fits and starts - I'll complete the review as soon as I can). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Ewart Gladstone should be wikilinked

Done Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes blog.oregonlive.com a reliable source

Not sure. - As I understand it, Oregonlive.com is the online presence of The Oregonian, the most prominent newspaper in the state of Oregon. I'm uncertain how vetted their stories in the "blog" section are however. Given the stories that exist there, I believe it might be a repository for smaller, local stories. The particular author of the article used in the reference is credited as having 160 other findable stories written and is always listed with "The Oregonian" after her name, so I would assume she has at least some peripheral relation to the newspaper organization itself. Personally, I believe it to be an acceptable citation, but if not it I could always hunt for a new one. Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"and as of 2008..." is Mr Rooter still there?

Half done - Mr. Rooter still appears to be using the building, as can be easily verified with a quick g-search. I also drove by the building the other day and visually verified this fact, not to be a primary source or anything. Honestly, I've looked a bit and not sure what might be a good source to show a 2015 date. I'll keep working on it. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I updated the section to "currently", this actually puts it more in line with the citation which says the same. The business is still present and does not appear to be leaving in the foreseeable future. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"There is also a small park...." - this sentence is unsourced

Done - Citation added Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "Chautauqua movement" sub-section paraphrases the source a little too closely. Given [[:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Judge_Harvey_Cross.png] it's possible this is a PD source and I've just missed the copyright, but it's worth checking that. If it's not an appropriate free use, the text will need to be changed to avoid close paraphrasing.

Done - Attempted to re-paraphrase. Hopefully it didn't end up too wonky. You'll need to revisit this and see if it meets with approval. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Chautauqua Park grew to be the third-largest permanent Chautauqua assembly park in the United States" - I might have missed it, but I can't find this claim in the source given

Done - It was cited to the wrong page, I updated the citation. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"With the advent of radio...." - this paragraph has the same problem. I think possibly it's just citing the wrong page. Also, the latter part of the paragraph is unsourced

Done - Same as above, cited to the wrong page. It should be fixed now. I don't believe the paraphrasing is too close on this one but if so it can be addressed. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geography[edit]

"and 0.08 square miles (0.21 km2) is water" - I can't find that in the source given

Done - Despite my best searching I couldn't seem to find the data set that this fact came from. Even the Wayback Machine didn't help. Removed. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Purportedly, at the suggestion of surveyor Sidney Smyth, Judge Harvey Cross decided to name a number of Gladstone streets" - according to the source, this is correct, so I don't think "Purportedly" is needed. The information's verifiable. Also, I'd leave off "etc" in the bracketed sections

Done - Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about Portland Avenue paraphrases the source a little too closely

Fixed - Re-written to avoid infringement. Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This region experiences warm (but not hot) and dry summers, with no average monthly temperatures above 71.6 °F" - the source (or at least my interpretation of it) says 68.8 degrees

Fixed - I'm not sure if that sentence was referring to the data from the small chart found on the source, but at any rate it was hard to find or not there. Revised the section to refer to averages for the year using the same citation. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics[edit]

The second part of the 2010 census section is unsourced

Fixed - Unfortunately, those figures didn't seem to be in the first source and I couldn't seem to find them easily elsewhere in census.gov so they were removed. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about including the 2000 census results, unless there's some significant reason for them when compared to the current figures (I don't think there is)

Done - I removed all the uncited content from that sub-section as well but left what was cited and made it comparable to the 2010 sub-section. Let me know if it should be removed entirely. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My lengthy response was ec'd but in brief: I think you should reconsider deleting this info, which was in fact cited back in 2004 for the 2000 census, and is consistent across the city articles. Please look at the page history. Looking at another GA or FA city article might give you some ideas about how to proceed and where to find refs. Valfontis (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I'll re-double efforts to locate it. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, as far as I can tell, the content was added sans cite with this edit back in 2002. I've made my way up through the years and I've yet to find a moment it was formally cited. I performed a cursory search on the census website but could not easily find the data that was being referenced. As you know, my removal was merely attempting to perform the change requested in this review, although I must admit I do sort of like the current, more concise version. Obviously, you're entirely free to add back as you see fit but I think I'm personally going to let it stand as-is until we get more feedback from the GA reviewer. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was cited in 2004. And later cited with the now-deprecated template {{GR}}. Valfontis (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a bother and/or blockhead, but could you provide the link to that version? All I can find is a not-actually-real citation near the end of 2004 and then just the template. Sorry to ask, but I'm trying my damnedest to find a record of Teddy Roosevelt making an appearance in Gladstone 100 years ago... Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy, I'll try to get it later. My ec'd post did have links but I hate having to recreate posts. You can try seeing how it was done at FA article Hillsboro, Oregon. Valfontis (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsboro, Oregon passed FAC in March 2009, when the 2000 census was the latest. And, without wishing to blow my own trumpet, its own GA review was far smaller and less comprehensive than this (although that more reflects the increasing standards of GA reviews over time). My argument is more, include the latest census figures, that's fine, but for older ones, either have a summary of all of them (what makes 2000 special over 1990 and 1980?) or just leave it at the current one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with removing the 2000 census data. I'm just saying that the 2010 data can easily be cited and the thousands of U.S. city articles include this data (since the early days of the wiki when the 2000 info was added to every U.S. city article and was acceptably cited at the time), so it would be nice be consistent across the wiki. I'm done here though, good luck with the review. Valfontis (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arts and culture[edit]

This section is quite short. I wonder if there's anything else we can include? Obviously, if there isn't, we can't add anything but I think it would be worth double checking.

: Partly done - I've looked on the city web site and a quick g-search for anything that might catch the eye but I've yet to find anything immediately promising. This is probably something to return to later. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I've spent time looking into this further (for events, conferences, and the like) and I'm not finding anything with enough notability to appear worthy of inclusion. The annual festival seems to be the most noteworthy event. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest moving the bit about parks in "Public safety & quality of life" into this section

Done - Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Education[edit]

" In 2006, a bond was passed" ... that's nearly ten years ago. What's happened to the status of the schools since then?

Fixed - I'm not particularly apprised on the financing of Gladstone's school district, but nearest I can tell they have either not needed or at least attempted a similar bond in the intervening years. I did discover that they refinanced the 2006 bond since that time and have added that content to the section. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest moving the first paragraph in Public safety & quality of life into this section and renaming it "Public services"

Done - Created a public services section and then rendered the three topics into sub-sections. Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people[edit]

This section is very short. I would simply take the information about Liz Shuler and put it in "History"

Done - Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the prose looked at, more in a mo. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

No problems here - all the licences check out. It's great that all US government maps are PD, you just don't get that over this side of the pond :-(

Okay, that's it. I'll put the review on hold now pending resolution of these issues. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked through everything, removed the 2000 census data per consensus as above, and made a few copyedits. Other than that, I think everything has now been addressed, so I can pass the review. Well done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir for your time and efforts in reviewing. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.