Talk:Fanno Creek/GA1

GA Review
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:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

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)

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)
 * 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.
 * 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)