Talk:Columbia River/Archive 6

Revisions based on F&f's comments
Pete and Pfly, I used User:Fowler&fowler's helpful suggestions to modify several sentences in the lead and to add a note quoting the USGS definition of "largest river". My eyes grow dim, however, and I must knock off for the evening. I did not get to comments 4, 7, 8, or 9, which seem to require slightly more thought than I'm capable of at the moment. I have an appointment mid-morning on Monday but might be on-line before then and certainly by afternoon. If you finish without me, that's perfectly fine. Finetooth (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I addressed #4 by simply reducing the wording to "It has been used for transportation since ancient times", figuring that transportation includes shipping of goods, and that there is no need to get into distinguishing barge vs. ocean shipping vs. canoes and bateaux and what not. Feel free to expand if desired. Thanks for doing most of it, Finetooth! I'll see what else I can get to tonight. Pfly (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've addressed all but #9, mainly taking the leads provided by Fowler&fowler. The #9 point is a bit trickier. Thinking about it. Also, feel free to edit my edits, naturally. Pfly (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok ok, I addressed them all! On point #9 my inclination was to reduce, but F&f recommended expanding, so I did. There's a number of ways F&f's points could be addressed. Hopefully one or both of you will check my work to make sure I didn't make any stupid mistakes. Should be alright though, I think. Pfly (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and thank you Fowler&fowler for the excellent feedback and useful suggestions. Those were all awkward sentences, at best. And by offering suggestions you did half the work yourself! Thanks! Pfly (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking good, Pfly. So glad you appeared just as I nodded off. I popped in briefly just now and fiddled a bit more, but I must rush off. I'll return this afternoon. Finetooth (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lemme echo the appreciation for the detailed and insightful feedback; thanks Pfly and Finetooth for jumping right in. I just made a few adjustments. Most are pretty minor and self-explanatory, but let me comment on a few of them:
 * I tried to broaden the perspective and reduce details in a few instances. The fact the river rises "in the Rockies" seems important from a global perspective; the idea that its watershed is "the size of France" is, I think, easier for the general reader to wrap his/her head around than the exact number of square miles, which may be found in the infobox or the Watershed section; etc.
 * I changed Pfly's choice on the "tremendous hydro potential" bit; in the source cited, it is the combination of the short length and the large elevation drop that is considered significant. So "steepness" seems like a good, succinct way of expressing that; again, the exact numbers may be found in the supporting sections (I think, need to double-check that).
 * I'm pretty sure it's just the locks associated with the dams, not the dams themselves, that were built for navigation. Unless I'm missing something…perhaps the depth of the impoundments permits larger boats, or something? Also, since the Willamette has a famous locks as well, I removed the specific mention of the Snake. (I'm not sure if there are other tributaries with locks?)
 * I adjusted the way nukes are covered; most significantly, I mentioned Trojan Nuclear Power Plant. It occurs to me that the absence of any mention of that is a significant omission; I'll try to add it and cite it in the body text this afternoon.
 * I hope you guys will look over what I've done, in case there's a need for further adjustments. (Is there ever not such a need??) -Pete (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The four lower Snake River dams were built with the primary purpose of navigation, at least (this from the national dam inventory database--don't have a URL offhand). Of course they also make hydroelectric power. Good point about it not being just the Snake tributary. And ah, I didn't know the Trojan plant actually ever made power. Anyway, gotta run, will look again in a bit! Pfly (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa, the national inventory of dams is no longer viewable by the public, how annoying. The idea though is that the dams were built with multiple purposes and justifications, with navigation being among them. Any dam with associated locks is going to have had navigation as part of its purpose at least. It could be none of the main stem dams had navigation as a primary purpose though. And yea--not so much the depths of the impoundments but the speed of the current and width of the river makes it easier to large tug-barges to get around. They string them together as large as they possibly can. There were a number of minor rapids too. Anyway, it's no big deal, especially now that the NID is for military eyes only. The lead looks much better. I'll read with a more critical eye when my brain isn't being diverted so much. Pfly (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Better and better. If the dam claim is factually accurate, the dams should probably go back into the locks sentence partly because the locks now precede the dams in the paragraph, and this creates a cart-horse problem; the locks can't physically precede the dams. Also, I replaced "ecology" with "environment" in the final sentence because I think the primary meaning of "ecology" is "a branch of science". I'm not quite sure about this, so revert if you think this is goofy. Finetooth (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This all looks good. The locks actually did precede the dams, at least at Cascade Rapids, Willamette Falls, and Celilo…so I think that order is OK. Working the word "navigation" back into the sentence on dams seems advisable, per Pfly. Environments seems good. I wonder if we should maybe make a slightly more general statement about fish, since there are lots of impacts besides migration impediments…overfishing, industrial waste, pikeminnow population… -Pete (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the fish. Two examples of environmental changes seems a bit thin. Irrigating has changed the environment, and the river traffic has introduced exotic species. I don't know which things are more important; Hanford's effects on the river may be (so far) relatively insignificant compared to the dams, mine seepage, and non-point-source pollution. I think you and Pfly know more about this than I. Finetooth (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On second or third or fourth thought, this part of the lead seems fine as is. Other details can be found in the main text section. Finetooth (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * re: navigation, sorry to be picky, but I think the locks-first sequence should be preserved…several sets of locks were built in the 19th cen., and were pretty significant. I'll ruminate on the fishier stuff…good points. -Pete (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Pete. Yes, you're right. I'm flying around a bit too fast today. Finetooth (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the word "navigation" to the existing list of dam purposes. Finetooth (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just an aside, I have a copy of the national inventory of dams in my office should you folks need me to look something up. Kmusser (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a few more tweaks to the lead--things that seem to read better to me. As always feel free to change as desired. Kmusser--sometime I might take you up on that. I've found the NID quite useful at times. I think I have a GIS-type copy around somewhere, but who knows where. Pfly (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, re to Finetooth, I don't know a great deal about the pollution issues, at least not offhand. I have some books that get into it though. Perhaps I'll look into it in the effort to achieve PA status. :-)  ...or at least to flesh out that sentence in the lead. Pfly (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work, Pfly, on the final four of F&f's suggestions and all the rest you've done. This really has been quite an interesting and successful collaboration. Would you and Pete be interested in working the Willamette River up to FA some fine day? Finetooth (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure--it has been quite enjoyable. I don't know a huge amount about the Willamette River, but that would make learning about it all the more interesting. It's possible I'll someday move down to Oregon so I better start getting ready for the citizenship test! (later note: but if so, I'll need help with pronunciations. Tualatin? Luckiamute?? Calapooia??? Ye Gods!) Pfly (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, aren't you from the land of the S'Klallam, Tsimshian, Ktunaxa, and Sinixt? I'd be very pleased to work on the Willamette with you guys. I will probably want a couple weeks to focus or drier entities though! -Pete (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, well currently yes, and to be precise, the county of Snohomish--a place name that still makes me giggle sometimes. I've gotten used to all the sno-, -mish, nook-, and -wuches around here, but there seems to be a whole other variety of odd in Oregon (also, Tsimshian and Ktunaxa are from Planet Canada). At any rate I'm loss on the pronunciations. Before I moved to the northwest I pronounced Willamette (on the rare occasions when it came up) "willa-MET-eh". I'm originally from the land of the Seneca, Cayuga, and, well, Cheektowaga--you know, proper place names! Finetooth, you got my attention--now I'm looking into Oregon geography. There's got to be somewhere I can add the story about the fork in the Oregon/California trail, where the way to CA was marked by a piles of fools gold and the way to OR by a sign saying "Oregon", and "those who could read went to Oregon". Pfly (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)