Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rogue River (Oregon)/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 SandyGeorgia 11:24, 22 May 2010 [1].

Rogue River (Oregon)

Featured article candidates/Rogue River (Oregon)/archive1

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rogue River begins near Crater Lake National Park in southern Oregon in the United States and flows generally west through three geologic provinces to the Pacific Ocean. Known for its salmon runs, whitewater rafting, and rugged scenery, it was one of the original eight rivers named in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. At one point, the entire river flows about 250 feet (76 m) through a lava tube. Along its lower reaches, mail is delivered by one of the two remaining mail-boat services in the nation. The only dinosaur fragments ever found in Oregon were discovered near the mouth of this river. There's lots more. Can I tempt you with any of this?

My thanks to User:Ruhrfisch, who peer-reviewed the article. Thanks also to User:Little Mountain 5 for his images and good advice and to User:Shannon1, who created the watershed map. Finetooth (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to check these. Finetooth (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - beautifully illustrated, I've always wanted to visit Oregon and this article only makes that feeling stronger. The only quibble I have is the inclusion of the locator map in the infobox. The article doesn't really need it. I don't have a problem if the editors wish to keep it. Dincher (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and support. I agree that in this case the locator map adds little not duplicated by the watershed map; I have removed the locator map. Finetooth (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing it. The infobox looks much better. Dincher (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as noted, I peer reviewed this and found it more than met the FAC criteria then. Well written, lovely images, and a great job all around, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Impeccably written and packed full of wonderful images. Just have one minor comment: would the last image in the Dams section be better moved up one paragraph? On my monitor it overlaps into the next section. Big Dom 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and support. The overlap doesn't occur on my monitor, but it's close. I moved the image up one paragraph, as you suggested. Please let me know if that doesn't solve the problem. Finetooth (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have done the trick. Looks fine now. Big Dom 17:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources commnets: How about this for a nitpick? In the bibliography, to maintain alphabetic sequence Dodds should be listed before Dorband. Tut tut. Otherwise, all sources look OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yow! Good catch. Fixed. Thank you for checking the sources. Finetooth (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~, leaning to support.

First sentence, 2nd para of lead "People have lived along the main stem and its tributaries for at least 8,500 years." I would not normally begin a new para without making explicit reference to the article subject, eg "People have lived along the Rogue River's main stem and tributaries for at least 8,500 years."
I would not have thought "native" (as in " European explorers made first contact with the native people") was the right term. It sounds rather Victorian. I would have thought "American Indians" might be a preferred nomenclature, but as a non-American, I can't be sure.
"about 181,300 (rounded to the nearest hundred)" If it is "about", then i don't think we need to be told the rounding!
I thought some of the detail on geology started to go beyond what was required in an article about the actual river. It could be a little more focussed (most obvious in the subsection on Klamath mountains.

~~Might get to other pts later. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)~~ Rest looks fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review this article and for your suggestions. I agree with the first three, and I've substituted "Rogue River" for "main stem" in 2nd para of the lead, replaced "native" with Native American (Indian) on first use of "native", and deleted the parenthetical remark about rounding. On your fourth point, I think a geological overview of the whole watershed is very important, but I'm willing to try to pare this section down. Can you suggest anything specific? Finetooth (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I've indicated my support. I'd see if anyone else has concerns about the scope of the geology. If no-one else raises it as a query, then leave it as it is. If others have concerns, then i will look at it for specific suggestions. It is an excellent article. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, kind words, and willingness to seek consensus. Finetooth (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wanted to say that I think the Geology section is fine as it is. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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