Talk:Klamath River/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Initial impression

• Need to disambiguate a link to high desert.
• The Commission for Environmental Cooperation's "Watersheds" reference is a dead link.
• The USGS reference "Klamath Basin: A Watershed Approach to Support Habitat Restoration, Species Recovery, and Water Resource Planning" is a dead link.
• The Natural Resources Conservation Service's "Work Plan for Adaptive Management in the Klamath Basin" reference is a dead link.
• KPTV's "Klamath Basin Deal Helps Farmers, Fish" is a dead reference.
• MSU's "Yurok" is a dead reference.
• Dylan Darling's "Your land, my land?" isn't loading.
• This automated peer review found problems with number style, a lack of categories, and possible weasel words. I'll be digging deeper into the review but any involved editor is welcome to begin addressing the indicated problems. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• I took care of the dab issues, the dead link issues, and some of the auto-peer review issues. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

More review

• The uncommon term anadromous fish could use some explanation at its first appearance; even better, it could be replaced by common terms there in the lead section, then moved to the article body where it does not now exist.

•  Done The link anadromous fish redirects to fish migration, and that's certainly an easier phrase to understand, so I made the replacement. Jsayre64 (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Do you want "provided habitat for thousands" or "provided a habitat for thousands"?

• Since the subject is plural ("Vast freshwater marshes"), I think the former is a better choice. Jsayre64 (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think "This has induced environmentalists to raise petitions" could be trimmed to "Environmentalists have raised petitions".

•  Done Jsayre64 (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "However, time and again, the Klamath has been targeted as a potential water source because of its generous flow..." This needs some explanation. Targeted for what, exactly?

• This isn't mentioned in the body of the article and I couldn't find a source to verify it, so I've removed the sentence. Jsayre64 (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I went through and took a look at hyphens and dashes, changing things to fit WP:DASH. Specifically, en dashes go in these locations: north–south, Oregon–Nevada border, Oregon–California state border, 1926–1927, 2005–2006, the winter of 1826–1827, British Fur Trade on the Pacific 1793–1843, Class I–II and Class III–IV rapids.

•  Done Jsayre64 (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Is it possible to trim the infobox of parameters that will never be filled?

•  Done Jsayre64 (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Bot retrieved" hidden comments in refs should be checked by humans and deleted.

•  Done Jsayre64 (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• The image File:KlamathR CA.jpg should be migrated to a better license, one that does not carry limitations of use. Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• How's this? Jsayre64 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Good licensing... Thank you for the quick action! I'll continue with the review as I get to it. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Watershed

• The following sentence says "few" then names two others, suggesting that "three" can replace "few": "The Klamath is one of only a few rivers that begin east of the Cascades and flows into the Pacific Ocean; the others are the Columbia and Fraser." How about this?... "The Klamath is one of only three rivers that begins east of the Cascades and flows into the Pacific Ocean; the other two are the Columbia and the Fraser."

•  Done Jsayre64 (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• The following sentence is clunky, with dam-building not an obvious reason for the transformation of desert into farmland: "Despite the semiarid climate, dam-building and irrigation water supplied from the Klamath and Lost rivers and plentiful groundwater have transformed most of the upper Klamath basin to farmland."

• Replaced with: "Despite the semiarid climate, dams have been built, irrigation water has been supplied from the Klamath and Lost rivers, and plentiful groundwater has been drawn to transform most of the upper Klamath basin to farmland." Jsayre64 (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Can we estimate how many hundreds or thousands of years ago, to replace "once"?... "Once, Lower Klamath and Tule Lakes in the rainy season would combine into one giant freshwater marsh..."

• It was more than 11,000 years ago, according to this. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Despite its plentiful flow and situation in California..." What situation? Can "and situation" be explained or deleted?

•  Done I agree this was confusing. I removed it. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Geology

• "much more ancient"... Is this necessary? The reader can do the math between 3 million and 7.5 million.

•  Done Removed. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

History

• "...second to only..." should be "second only to...".

•  Done Jsayre64 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "...did not depend on salmon this much." Perhaps this could be explained with "did not depend on salmon as much as downstream tribes."

•  Done Jsayre64 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "This resulted in detrimental consequences..." Perhaps this could be explained with "The loss of the beaver dams resulted in detrimental consequences..."

•  Done Jsayre64 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "...and established this section of the Siskiyou Trail..." could be "and blazed an extension of the Siskiyou Trail" or "and established this very rugged section of the Siskiyou Trail". Something more than "this section".

•  Done With "blazed an extension." Jsayre64 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Several place names in the Klamath Basin originate from this era, including that of the Scott River." The name "Scott River" is not obviously gold-related, so mentioning John W. Scott's gold discovery seems in order.

•  Done With reference as well. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why did lumber companies shut down in the late 1920s? Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Apparently there was a drought in the area and they went out of business. I added this as a reason. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Natural history

• "Only 150 cubic feet..." This sentence made me think that 150 was the current number, but in 1991 the number was raised to 470. What if this sentence started, "From 1963 to 1991...", or "For nearly three decades", or similar?

•  Done With "From 1963 to 1991…" Jsayre64 (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• PacifiCorp President Fehrman says something about renewable resources and low carbon footprint, but it is a non-sequitur in a paragraph about fish. Either remove the bit, or qualify it by saying Fehrman defended PacifiCorp's activities in the area by pointing to other benefits.

• I re-worded the sentence, saying, "…defended the company's activities in the area, pointing to other benefits." Jsayre64 (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Is there really an "irrigation industry"? I would guess there are agricultural customers for irrigation, or an agriculture industry. Tell me if I'm wrong.

• Good catch. I changed it to "agriculture industry." Jsayre64 (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• There's a link to "fish kill", which is pipe linked to 2002 Klamath River fish kill, but in this Klamath River article I first read "fish kill" as an active kill carried out by many humans with nets and fishing gear rather than an environmental kill resulting from a severe lack of water and upstream management decisions. I think "fish die-off" is the more neutral term, less subject to misinterpretation by the reader. Also, since there is an article at Fish kill, the pipe link to 2002 Klamath River fish kill is a surprise Easter egg. Perhaps if one or more words were included in the link, such as "largest fish kill" or "largest fish die-off". Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I changed the sentence mentioning the 2002 fish kill to this: "That year, the Klamath River system had the [[2002 Klamath River fish kill]], the largest [[fish kill|fish die-off]] ever recorded." Then I changed all the independent "fish kill"s to "fish die-off"s. Jsayre64 (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Salmon controversy

• How likely is it that an article will be written with the title Copco dams number 1 and 2?

•  Done Unlikely. Jsayre64 (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think "rate payers" should be "ratepayers".

•  Done Jsayre64 (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Water rights dispute

• Pretty short on content! The section is not bare enough to sink a GAN, but a future push to FA would focus greater concern here.

Summary

The article is looking very good; it is clearly a tough subject with disputes at every turn. Congratulations to the editors who have brought it this far. I will put the GAN on hold and I will watch for indicated improvements. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Finished! I could start striking out all the addressed concerns listed above but I will save myself the trouble and announce that they are all fixed. The article is now GA. Congratulations to all the editors who helped! Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)