Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fanno Creek


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 6 October 2008.

Fanno Creek

 * Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk)

I'm nominating Fanno Creek for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Peer reviewers commenting on it in July were User:Wackymacs and User:Ealdgyth. In August, User:Ruhrfisch made many additional helpful suggestions on the article's talk page. I have addressed all of the issues raised during these reviews. More recently, User:Blathnaid reviewed the article and promoted it to GA. I took most of the photos myself, and I made the watershed map using a public-domain U.S. Census map for the base. This is the third Portland-area creek article I've brought to FAC. One of my long-term goals is to complete a set of five high-quality articles about the most important minor bodies of water in Portland. This set would complement the two big-river articles (Columbia and Willamette) largely researched and written by other editors. Finetooth (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. I will come back for a more detailed read, but I've been watching this article through its remarkable evolution, and consider it one of the better creek/watershed articles I've seen. Well done Finetooth! -Pete (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Thank you for your kind words and support. I also thank User:Northwesterner1 for creating the photo map for the article. Finetooth (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: Thank you for checking these here and earlier during PR. Your consistent efforts are a great help. Finetooth (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support (from Ruhrfisch) As noted, I reviewed this article and agree it is FA worthy. I have made a few edits to this article and have a few minor quibbles / suggestions:

Hope my comments help and congrats on a job well done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think metric precipitation is given in millimeters (not cm), so change About 50 inches (130 cm) of precipitation ...
 * Would it make sense to give the percentage of total watershed area for the two stream gages (and perhaps split the area into a separate sentence). So The average flow of the creek at the Durham station from a drainage area of 31.5 square miles (81.6 km2) is 46 cubic feet per second (1.3 m³/s). could be something like The average flow of the creek at the Durham station is 46 cubic feet per second (1.3 m³/s). This is from a drainage area of 31.5 square miles (81.6 km2), or X percent of the total Fanno Creek watershed.
 * Similarly would it make sense to say what percent of the area of Portland the 7 square miles drained by this creek represents?
 * This is repeated twice Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD) (once in vegetation and once in parks)
 * Reply:Thank you for your kind words and support. After a bit of checking, I have changed cm to mm. Indeed mm is standard for rainfall; with snowfall, interestingly, it would be cm. I fixed the duplicate THPRD and gave the city fraction of the watershed as a percentage. The drainage sub-basin calculation was a really good idea. The city of Portland gives the total watershed as 20,259 acres (31.655 sq mi), which I rounded to 31.7 and used for the total area and the sub-basin calculations. I plan to use this kind of sub-basin calculation for assorted other creek and river articles. Ditto for mm. Finetooth (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Nice work and a very interesting read. Dincher (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply: Thank you for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.