Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Columbia Slough


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 14:29, 24 January 2009.

Columbia Slough

 * Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. It recently went through a peer review by User:Ruhrfisch, whose suggestions improved the article. Most of the photos are mine or User:EncMstr's, taken recently by us and uploaded to the Commons. I made the watershed map using a public-domain U.S. Census map for the base. Image:Chinook.png appeared also in Johnson Creek (Willamette River), and User:Elcobbola found the licensing to be odd but OK here. User:Northwesterner1 made the photo map for the slough as he kindly did for Fanno Creek and Johnson Creek. This is the fourth of a planned set of five articles about the most important minor bodies of water in Portland. Finetooth (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review - All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Support - as noted, I peer reviewed this and felt it met FA criteria then. I like the addition of the name section and some copyedits since, they have only improved an excellent article. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 08:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Columbia River Slough (small).jpg - Could we link to the appropriate location at the USGS for the source? Also, could you list what sources you used to make the image, rather than just saying "various sources"? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking these. I've sent a message to User:Northwesterner1 asking if he can add the USGS source location and the other sources to the image description at the Commons. I'd add them myself, but I don't know what they are. Finetooth (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any news? Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. User:Northwesterner1's talk page suggests that he has been relatively inactive since late summer or early fall. One solution would be to remove the map and not re-add it until the two missing pieces of data are added to the licensing page. Nothing in the article falls apart without the map. Would it be a good idea to delete it? Finetooth (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you find another source that contains the same information? Awadewit (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try. I'll work on this and post an update note here later today. Finetooth (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My guess is the other sources could be as simple as a good atlas of the area (does DeLorme publish in Oregon?). I looked around a little on the USGS web site and did not find the images, but did not look that hard. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking. They are hidden from plain view and can only be seen with the help of NASA's World Wind software. Northwesterner1 has a tutorial explaining his methods here. In one place he says, "To follow my methods, the creek needs to be within the United States urban areas mapped by the color USGS Digital Ortho satellite survey at a .25 meter resolution." I believe that answers Awadewit's first question. To answer the second, I compiled a list of three maps in my possession that together would provide all of the details I would need to create Northwesterner's map if I started with the Ortho satellite base map of Portland and knew what I was doing. I doubt that Northwesterner used these exact same maps, but I believe they would suffice. I have added a note similar to this note, including links and bibliographic data, to the image description at the Commons. I think is sufficient, but I am open to further suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support: An impressively detailed article, with wonderful images. I have had numerous prose concerns, mainly minor, which have now been fully addressed
 * Lead
 * I'm probably being pedantic, but I dont think that "highly" artificial is necessary. Just "artificial" will do. If a thing isn't natural, it's artificial.
 * I don't think you're being pedantic, but I don't agree that all things are either natural or artificial. A lot of things are mixtures: dammed rivers, people with metal knees, trimmed hedges. The slough is partly artificial and partly natural, but the proportions probably can't be quantified. However, "highly" is a weasel, and "partly" would be a weasel. After more thought, I've re-cast the sentence to avoid classifying the slough as artificial or natural. I think the degree of artificiality becomes more clear later in the article. Please poke me up if you don't like this solution. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This sentence: The Port of Portland operates Portland International Airport along the middle slough and marine terminals near the lower slough, and agencies such as the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Portland's Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) deal with environmental issues.
 * First, the sentence is too long. Suggest split after "lower slough". Then, "Agencies such as..." etc
 * Then, consider the first eight words. "Port" or "Portland" occur four times in this opening phrase. Is there any way of rewording? For example, does Portland have to be written as "The Port of Portland"? Is it possible to simplify to "Portland operates its international airport..."?
 * Yes to both. I split the long sentence as you suggested and eliminated three instances of "Port" in those sentences. Your question made me realize that I had not made clear in the article that the Port of Portland is not the same as the City of Portland. It's a regional agency run by commissioners appointed by the Oregon governor. I have now added a clarification to the "Jurisdiction" section. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is too much use in the lead of the "such as" phrase. We have agencies such as..., explorers such as..., laws such as..., and trails such as... The phrase crops up numerous times in the main text, too. I wonder if it possible to vary it in some way?
 * Yes. I had not noticed this repetitive pattern before you pointed it out. I went through the whole article looking for instances, and I changed about 10 to a variety of other constructions. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Course
 * Mention of its location within Multnomah County should, I think, be at the start rather than the end of the paragraph, where it looks like an add-on fact.
 * Done. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another repeated phrase "from the mouth" occurs rather a lot in this section, three times in the first few lines. Could one of these be changed to, say, "from the Williamette"?
 * Yes. Your suggestion plus "from the mouth" plus the RM-RK pair now give me three ways to avoid a repetitive pattern in the Course sections of this and other stream articles. To break up the monotony, I changed some of the "from the mouth" phrases to either of the other two options. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence beginning "Passing Johnson Creek..." has too many "ands" in it. It should be reconstructed as two sentences.
 * Done. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Geology
 * "Vancouver, Washington..." is a slightly troublesome formation. I know it refers to the town of Vancouver in Washington, not the Canadian one, but on a read-through it feels like Vancouver (and) Washington (and)....so on. To avoid any confusion you could say "...water for the town of Vancouver in Washington, and..."
 * Done. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hydrology, Main channel
 * Is there a word missing? "A fourth district, Sandy Drainage Improvement Company (SDIC) [was] formed in 1939 to manage..."
 * Done. Someone else noticed that too and added "the". Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * History, Early inhabitants
 * "Nonnatives" in unhyphenated form, looks very odd, and I couldn't at first work out that it meant non-natives. I suggest on this occasion the hyphen is necessary, even though Am-Eng normally deplores them.
 * I agree with you. I originally hyphenated this because of the double "n", but someone else removed the hyphen. Where is the Hyphen Czar? Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did Broughton travel alone? If so, he "made the first trip by a non-native". If not, he "led the first trip by non-natives" etc
 * Good catch. Changed to "led". Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Farming, commerce and industry
 * "Lewis Love, one of them..." sounds funny to British ears. If we say someone is "one of them" (accent on the them) we mean something derogatory. Could this change to: "One settler, Lewis Love, became wealthy..."?
 * Yes. Done. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "...platted in the same year..." I have a vague idea this term has come up before, but I can't find any verb "to plat" (or "platt") in any of my dictionaries. What does it mean? Since it is a somewhat obscure/specialist term, could it be explained?
 * I wikilinked it to plat. It's defined in my Webster's dictionary as "a plan, map, or chart of a piece of land with actual or proposed features (as lots); also: the land represented". I will include an explanation in the text if you think the wikilink is not enough. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, in this section, you use the American term "named for". In the earlier "Name"section you had "named after". It would be best to be consistent.
 * I'm fonder of the British term. I changed the second one to "named after". Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * History, WWII and after
 * Destruction of Vanport: since this important matter is understandably dealt with at some length, could we be told if there was loss of life as a result of the flood? If the town was destroyed, and 18,500 lived there, it seems likely there was loss of life and I think that would be relevant to this article.
 * Very good catch. I added the coroner's body count and some other data explaining how it was possible that the number of deaths was so low. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * However, I don't see the relevance of the paragraph beginning "The promise of good jobs..." This seems to be about the region's racial policies and problems, rather than about the slough. I suggest you consider removing this paragraph.
 * I had to think about this for a while, but I agree that it wandered away from the central topic. I have removed it. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pollution
 * "Deicing" is another word almost indecipherable without its British hyphen. I had to look it up in the dictionary before I realised it meant "de-icing".
 * Again I agree, and I put the hyphen back in. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Habitat
 * Shouldn't small numerals (5, 1) be written out?
 * That's the general rule, but MOSNUM lists quite a few exceptions here. One of them says: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." For consistency, I used figures for all of the percentages. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redundancy: "...10 percent, but this had been cut in half to 5 percent". Delete either "in half" or "to 5 percent"
 * Done. Deleted "to 5 percent". Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Public parks and wetlands
 * I wonder if, in a relatively long article, this section s a bit overdetailed? For example: The park, managed by Metro, offers boating,trout fishing, swimming, picnic areas, a lake house that can be used for meetings, an educational garden, wildlife viewing, an archery range, playgrounds, spoorts fields and sculptures commemorating former Chinook villages along the river Phew! But do we need all of this, in this article? There are other list sentences in the section. Is it time for some blue pencil work?
 * Yes. As I was working on the parks section of this article, I was also creating separate articles for four of the parks. Any reader who wants to know more about Blue Lake and some of the others can click on the relevant link. With this in mind, I greatly compressed the parks section along the line you suggest. Most of the lists are gone, and I simplified the over-precise park measurements to make the section less eye-glazing. I also added a little variety to the park locations relative to the stream (from the mouth, RM-RK, from the Willamette) as in the Course section. Please let me know if you think this section needs further work. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what you have done is fine. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I imagine none of the above will create too many problems. I am leaning to support, but will wait for your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you very much for your suggestions, which look interesting and helpful. I'll make changes to the article and insert responses below each of your individual suggestions above. Finetooth (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words and support. It takes a good deal of time and effort to review these articles so thoroughly, and I appreciate it. Finetooth (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references. An example is current ref 6 (Portland BES), but there may be others.
 * Thanks. I think I have now fixed all of these. I spelled out BES in the "Works cited" section as well. Finetooth (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.topoquest.com/
 * The underlying sources are the topographic maps of the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS prints these maps on paper but also scans and converts them to Digital Raster Graphics (DRG)s available to the public. The problem for most of the public is that to be readable, the DRGs have to be found, downloaded, and read with software that most people don't have. TopoQuest finds the DRGs, downloads them, and provides an on-line viewer to look at the maps, all at no charge. Finetooth (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. For this particular reliability question, I'll add some links that might be helpful. The TopoQuest home page is here. The USGS DRG page is here. The Wikipedia articles Digital raster graphic and Libre Map Project might also be helpful. If anyone still has doubts, please let me know. Finetooth (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Topoquest is reliable, but would make it clearer which USGS topo map is being cited. Would it make sense to use cite web (as is now done), but list USGS as the author, and give the title of the map as something like "United States Geological Survey Topographic Map, Sauvie Island, OR quad"? There is also cite map. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. I have modified the cite web citation as you suggested, and I thank you. Finetooth (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Current ref 18, perhaps the publisher could be a bit more informative than "Metro". Maybe "Oregon Metro Regional Government"? Or "Portland Metro Regional Government"?
 * Good catch. Metro reminds me of Paris rather than Portland. I changed the entry to "Metro (Oregon regional government)". Finetooth (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Current ref 52 (Little, Charles ...) this is a book, correct? Needs to be formatted as such, with the title in italics, etc.
 * Yes, it's a book, and I have now added the missing italics. Finetooth (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for checking the links and for your other suggestions. I'll respond to each of them above as soon as I can. Finetooth (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support While I have not "flyspecked" this article or checked sources, it reads well, is well-organized and illustrated, and by all appearances is covers its subject. It also is the type of article which can be the most accessible and comprehensive source on a subject for a general reader. Kablammo (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Comments, leaning toward support. This is very good—either I'm tired or it just doesn't have any issues. A couple suggestions:
 * "Used as a waste repository and cut off from the Columbia River, the slough became one of Oregon's most polluted waterways." Can we say when, here?
 * Yes. I changed the sentence to say, "Used as a waste repository during the first half of the 20th century, and cut off from the Columbia River by levees, the slough became one of Oregon's most polluted waterways." I can't narrow it down to a specific year or a specific decade because lots of polluting things happened serially over many decades. Finetooth (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the course section, I think all the left/right directions need to be changed to east/west/north/south. So, it doesn't pass something on the left, it passes it on the west or whatever. This convention has long been in use at the roads projects.
 * Although you are right about the highway convention, the stream convention is to name the tributaries either left or right from source to mouth. I thought it best to adhere to the general convention. However, your comment prompted me to add a (south) for further clarification in the first sentence of the second paragraph: "Running slightly north of and parallel to U.S. Route 30 (Sandy Boulevard), the slough flows by Zimmerman Heritage Farm on the left (south)... ". Finetooth (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks for educating me. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  05:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply Thank you for your kinds words and suggestions. I think I've addressed your two concerns. Please let me know if you have others or if my fixes seem inadequate. Finetooth (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Reply to Ruhrfisch Good idea about the Wiktionary links. I have added them. Others besides Laser brain have raised the same left-right question about creek articles I've worked on, and the additional links should help. Finetooth (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and your support. Finetooth (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Finetooth on using left and right for river course descriptions. Although Left bank and Right bank are dabs here, a link to Wiktionary might be in order as it has definitions of left bank and right bank Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.