Talk:Balch Creek/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

An excellent, well-written, well-researched article. I'm honestly amazed by how much information you found on a 3.5 mile creek! Passes without hesitation. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Tree height
I removed the claim, inserted about a week ago, that the Douglas-firs in the Balch Creek watershed reach heights of 200 to 240 feet. My source, Houle, does not say this, and I've been unable to find reliable confirmation elsewhere. If you have a reliable published source for this number, we can put it back in with a citation. Finetooth (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Some kind person found a source. I have added the new data, with a citation to the Portland Parks Department, to the second paragraph of "Vegetation". Thanks for raising the question. Finetooth (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)