Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chetco River/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 17:10, 2 July 2010.

Chetco River

 * Nominator(s):  Little  Mountain  5   00:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Chetco River is a small stream that cascades down the picturesque and geologically complex Klamath Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. Several months ago, this article was a four paragraph stub with two references; now I believe it covers all aspects of the river, and it also meets all the criteria. My thanks to Xtzou who passed its GAN in April, to Ruhrfisch who peer reviewed it just a few days ago, and to everyone else who has helped out. Sincerely,  Little  Mountain  5   00:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 04:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sources: All sources look OK, and formatting is admirably consistent and thorough, beyond requirements. For 100% perfection, perhaps you would remove the "on" from the final retrieval date? Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) The 'on' is created from Template:Cite map, which is not entirely consistent with all the other citation templates that use Template:Citation/core. I've asked on the talk page for an administrator to change it. Sincerely,  Little  Mountain  5   14:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the template. Ucucha 05:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - why is "ducks" lowercased among all the uppercased animal names? --Golbez (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was originally uppercase, but [ Xtzou uncapitalized it] during the GAN. I sort of agree with him, but I re-capitalized it to stay consistent. Thanks,  Little  Mountain  5   14:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The normal convention for birds is to capitalize species names, like Bald Eagle, but not to capitalize names for multiple species, like duck. Ucucha 05:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks.  Little  Mountain  5   23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Although it is not necessary the article could do with one or two more images if there are free-ones. Additionally the caption to the Drake image is quite dull. For the article to be more engaging it could perhaps be re-written? Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a couple images, and a little to the Drake caption. Thanks,  Little  Mountain  5   23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it is somewhat better. The caption is not really engaging but will do. Thank you! Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth. Looks very good, but I have a short list of mostly minor quibbles. I should acknowledge that I'm a member of the rivers project and the Oregon project on Wikipedia.


 * Lead
 * "It flows generally north, west, and then southwest, before emptying into the Pacific Ocean... " - Maybe just "ocean" since the Pacific is named earlier in the paragraph.


 * All the sentences in the second paragraph start with "the" and they tend toward passive voice. It might help to rewrite the second one as "Several explorers, including Sir Francis Drake, George Vancouver, and Jedediah Smith, visited the region between the 16th and 19th centuries."


 * "Oregon's governor and several congressman have opposed the idea... " - Maybe "several members of Congress" instead of the singular "congressman" and the gender bias inherent in "man" (even though they were all men)?


 * "The water quality of the Chetco River is very high, supporting a large population of salmon and trout." - Just to add sentence variety, I might change this one to "Supporting a large population of salmon and trout, the Chetco's water is of very high quality."


 * About 78 percent is owned by the United States Forest Service, and another five percent is owned by the Bureau of Land Management." This is picky but the Manual of Style says, "Render comparable quantities, mentioned together, either all as words or all as figures (5 cats and 32 dogs, or five cats and thirty-two dogs; but not five cats and 32 dogs)." (I'm quoting from WP:MOS). - I interpret this to mean that you could either say seventy-eight percent and five percent, or you could say 78 percent and 5 percent. Two sentences later, 97, 2, and 1 would be better than 97, two, and one.


 * Watershed
 * "Twenty-five separate wetlands have been identified within the watershed, totaling 93 acres (38 ha) in area." - Maybe "Twenty-five separate wetlands totaling 93 acres (38 ha) have been identified in the watershed"? "Area" is unnecessary since "acres" and "ha" are areas.


 * "Earthquakes are common, and large scale ones occur around every 300 years." - Could you add when the last one occurred? Ditto for the last big windstorm?


 * Flora and fauna
 * "The wildlife in the Kalmiopsis region of the Chetco watershed is more diverse than any other region in Oregon." - Needs a source. Even if it's the same source as the one used for the next couple of sentences, I would add it here because this is an extraordinary claim that's apt to be questioned.


 * History
 * Would it make sense to move the two sentences about the ferry closer together? Suggestion: "The town of Harbor was founded in 1891, and a ferry service across the Chetco River opened in 1904. It was shut down in 1915 when the Chetco Bridge opened."


 * "As of the 2000 census, the city of Brookings had a population of 5,447,[38] while nearby Harbor had 2,622.[39]" - Would it make more sense to move this up to the "Watershed" section and combine it with the sentence about the river as water source for these cities?


 * "The Chetco was determined to be navigable in a court case in 1994." - I would probably flip this to say, "In a court case in 1994, the Chetco was determined to be navigable."


 * Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the detailed review; I believe I've fixed everything except for the last major earthquake and windstorm, which I am researching now. Sincerely,  Little  Mountain  5   23:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I've struck all but those two . I did a little copyediting; please revert if you disagree with any of my changes. Finetooth (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added some windstorm and earthquake information, see what you think. Thanks,  Little  Mountain  5   16:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. The new additions are interesting and informative. I'm striking the remaining two items in my list and switching to support. Excellent article. Finetooth (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your support. :)  Little  Mountain  5   17:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - as noted above, I peer reviewed this and am also a member of the Rivers WikiProject. I find this meets the FAC criteria, but have a few minor quibbles (which do not detract from my support).
 * This is in the Watershed section The region is mostly mountainous, characterized by steep river valleys. Sandstone, shale, granite, and serpentine are the primary rock types. Various forms of loam comprise its soil. Erosion levels are high due to a combination of high precipitation, steep slopes, and landslides, which can result in earthflows. Would it make more sense to have this (or parts of it) in Geology instead? In any case, it needs a reference.
 * I asked this in the peer review, but it is still unclear to me how the Chetco native people are related to the Tolowa. The link Chetco is a redirect to Tolowa, but the Tolowa page makes no mention of the Chetco, and the refs used in this article say that the Chetco were similar to, but separate from their neighbors the Tolowa: "Presumably, at the time of contact cultural similarities were strong between the Chetco and their neighbors to the south, the Tolowa who shared the same customs regulating social relationships and frequently intermarried." from Current Ref 31, or "The Chetco belonged to the Athapascan linguistic stock and differed little in culture from the other Athapascan groups immediately to the north of them and the Tolowa to the south." from Current Ref. 32, p. 9. However the modern Tolowa tribe's webpage shows their original territory included the Chetco River. If someone clicks on the Chetco link and expects to learn more about the Native people, they instead learn about the Tolowa, who seem to have been similar, but not the same. Can this be clarified please? Otherwise looks very nice, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you for the support. :) I moved most of the rocks/soil paragraph to the geology section, and added a reference (I don't know why it wasn't there in the first place...) As for the Chetco, they are a separate tribe from the Tolowa; the only good thing to do would be to create an actual article about them. I might take a stab at it if I have time, but I'm going to be quite busy over the next few months. Would it help if the redirect was deleted for the time being, or if the link was removed entirely? :/ Anyway, thanks again.  Little  Mountain  5   22:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. I think I could write a stub / start class article on the Chetco based on the refs in your article and one or two more I found. Would that be OK? Probably name it "Chetco (tribe)" or perhaps "Chetco people" and make the "Chetco" page into a disambiguation page for the river, peak, and tribe. Is there a preferred name for the Chetco? I think I could dod this in the next 24 hours or so. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be awesome! I think 'Chetco (tribe)' is the best name, quite a few of the other tribes in Oregon are formatted that way. The dab page would be nice, too. This book has some more information, including the fact that they called themselves 'Cheti'. Sincerely,  Little  Mountain  5   16:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Chetco (tribe) is a start and Chetco is now a dab. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, it looks great!  Little  Mountain  5   22:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Comprehensive, well-written, well-referenced, and meets all other FA requirements. Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Little  Mountain  5   20:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.