Wikipedia:Peer review/Columbia River/archive1

Columbia River

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been the focus of a broad collaboration for some time. There are a number of us who have put in a lot of work to make the best article possible; we've been through two thorough GA reviews, and solicited feedback on a number of topics from a number of people, both on and off Wikipedia. We feel that the article is nearing readiness for a Featured article nomination, and would like a fresh set of eyes on it first. Thanks in advance for any feedback! Pete (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments The article is pretty good for the most part, and is a solid GA, but I have doubts about whether it can reach FA status just yet. IMO, comprehensiveness is the biggest issue. Information about geography and modern history, in particular, is lacking. Also, there are several unsourced paragraphs. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Julian. I would love to hear more specifics about geography and modern history. As stated I disagree -- the modern history is spread out through the navigation, hydroelectric, and environment sections, but it's there. That's the result of extensive discussion of the article's structure; we generally agreed that there are disadvantages to the current structure (like the disjointed nature of the recent history), but that the benefits outweigh them. Anyway, I think I can say on behalf of all major contributors, that we're happy to expand the article as necessary, but would need specifics on what you think is needed. For instance, I intend to write a separate article on the Lower Snake River dams, but I don't think it would be appropriate to add more detail on that topic to this article. A case could be made for mentioning the proposed Columbia Gorge casino, but it's not like it's hard to find the info -- just go to the Columbia River Gorge article. Remember, this article is supposed to be an overview of the river -- detailed information is often more appropriate to a more specific article.

As for sourcing, I don't think that will be a problem. Sources are cited for all detailed info. in the article, but not at every point; in some cases, they may need to be duplicated to address your concerns. These are easy fixes to make.

Anyway -- I'm eager to hear your thoughts on expansion, and thanks for taking the time to review the article. -Pete (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's an idea. I was looking for more stream gauges and stumbled across the "1948 Columbia River flood" which destroyed the 2nd-largest city in Oregon and flooded two in Washington. Should that be mentioned here? Franamax (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa-- yes, that should certainly be mentioned, I thought it was. I guess that's the danger of editing too many related articles -- you kinda forget what is mentioned in which! Where do you think would be the best place to include it? My understanding is that the flood was instrumental in building public support for building more dams along the river, so maybe the section on dams? Thanks for catching that. -Pete (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm always happy to give other people work to do. :) Yes, I also noted the linkage between that flood and the Treaty, so I'd agree it should go with dams. At least one of dams in Canada was built solely for flow control. Franamax (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

One other thing I've been meaning to work in: the issue of whether dam construction would be private or public was an enormous political issue in the 1920s and '30s. The influence of people like George W. Joseph and Julius Meier was pretty important. Charles McNary probably deserves a mention as well, and I suspect there are influential figures from Washington and BC who do as well – though I'm not as familiar with that stuff. Another interesting issue is the "secret plan" to divert the Columbia to California, discovered and foiled by Scoop Jackson. -Pete (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This doc, from the BPA web site, has a decent overview of the Vanport flood and how it affected public sentiment. It says the flooding affected communities as far north as Trail, British Columbia, and spurred a renewed desire for international collaboration on flood control. I haven't seen anything about Kennewick and Richland specifically, so a source for those would be good too -- what did you see? -Pete (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This page, from the trusty nwcouncil site, has some good info too, though it doesn't mention the Tri-Cities either. -Pete (talk)

 Done -Pete (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Had to delve into the Google cache for some reason, but: Tri-Cities [1] - this is an essay but includes sources; Trail, BC good photos - but I think they're just on the cusp of public-domain, so not directly usable; miscellaneous Canada = 15% basin area, 30-35% of total runoff, 50% of Portland flood (matters more to watershed hydrology); Google news link for Ellensburg Daily Record. Franamax (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Moni3

• Comments by Moni3
• This is going to FA, so this would be the same as an FAC review. Here we go:
• Watch the linking of common terms. U.S. State?
• Watch "taming" of a river. The term is inherently POV as it suggests that the river can be domesticated somehow, and that it's the job or task of people to do that. I suggest "development" or "employment".
• The 2nd paragraph in Course: would it be accurate to say that the Columbia's importance or role has led to the naming of various land and waterforms? Can you start the paragraph off with that? Otherwise, The province derives its name, indirectly, from the river. is confusing and odd.

Moved up and re-cast. Finetooth (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• I read this sentence 3 times, but it seems to be missing a predicate: Columbia Lake, elevation 2,690 feet (820 m), and the adjoining Columbia Wetlands form the Columbia’s headwaters in the southern Rocky Mountain Trench, a broad, deep, and long glacial valley between the Canadian Rockies and Columbia Mountains in BC. Is it complete? Should this be described as the source of the river?

Please consider using emdashes to save on commas, too.

Yes, it was a monster sentence. Now it is two sentences, not monsters, I hope. Finetooth (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Do you think it would be more helpful to list the rates of water flow at each USGS station than list where the stations are located? Seems like it would be to me.

We could add flow data from perhaps two more sites. The gauges in the dam pools don't record flow. The flow on much of the river is unusual because it's been so heavily altered by the dams and irrigation projects. I'll think about this some more. Finetooth (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added flow rates (and drainage areas) for the other two USGS gauges that measure the rates. This data seems to square with the data from The Dalles gauge and the data from a Canadian source for the flow rate at the border. Finetooth (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Volcanic activity in the region has been traced to 40 million years ago to have begun? to have shaped the region? Traced to seems like it should be more descriptive.

 Done -Pete (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please describe something as colorfully named as "channeled scablands". The imagination bounds.

There was already the Drumheller Channels photo and a link to Channeled scablands, but I just added what I hope is a relatively terse but accurate and understandable description. When people call the scabland geology "unique" I think they mean it. They are hard to describe well. Even seeing them from the ground does not always help, as they can look like a jumbled chaos. Just a few days ago I was lucky enough to fly over them on a sunny morning with no clouds. Amazing! Anyway, I'd add one of those "done" templates, but first-- is my description more helpful than not? Pfly (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In some sort of editorial fog, I added "done" templates to two of my comments here. I shouldn't have done that, and now I've removed them. They are contraindicated at PR because they add to the clutter and load time. Please don't imitate my mistake. Finetooth (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There's always  Done ({{done-t}}) whicn incorporates no image… -Pete (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps a century before Europeans began to explore the Pacific Northwest is this Lewis and Clark in 1804 and 1805? Or Russians? Can you state the year?

This article seems to be the best source for the date. Pfly (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, not sure I'd endorse the original phrasing…but research has been inconclusive. I think the Bonneville Slide article reflects the confusion, if I recall…but, I think there are plausible theories that it was anywhere between 1450 and 1700 (pretty sure the Cascadia Earthquake is solidly dated at 1700, and it's likely that it caused the slide). Anyway -- we need some form of phrasing that is suitably vague, methinks. -Pete (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. I know little about it myself but remembered that article, so found it and put it in. It took me a bit of searching to find again, so I'll link it here for easier access. I'll remove the "done" check. Pfly (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But it's  Done now :) -Pete (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Two paragraphs in Indigenous people with no citations? Particularly about creation myths?

 Done I added three citations, which should source these paragraphs sufficiently. -Pete (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• making it one of the greatest fishing sites in North America. since this could mean "awesomest" and "most productive" it might be a little more encyclopedic to change it to the second.
• What did the tribes displaced by The Dalles think of this arrangement?

Could you maybe rephrase the question? There really is no simple answer to this. I think it's pretty uncontroversial to say that natives lamented the loss of the fishing area, and there are some very evocative quotes to that effect that we might include. But, the tribes were party to the agreement, and presumably were eager for the financial settlement and the fishing rights. There are some rather complex politics among the tribes; it's my understanding that many neighboring tribes resent the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs for taking the settlement, and for the political influence they have resulting from that; it extends to the opposition by other tribes of the Columbia Gorge casino currently being planned, to the tune of millions of dollars in gubernatorial races. I don't know whether there's a way to capture any of this that would be appropriate to this article. I'd be fine with saying that they mourned the loss of the fishing area, but I don't think it's practically possible to sum up the complex emotions or views surrounding the overall "deal." -Pete (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• It is unknown whether they landed near the Columbia. Of course...why is this being mentioned in this article then?

I'm not sure what to do about this one, I think some kind of rephrasing is in order. As I see it, the exploration of the Columbia and the exploration of the Pacific Northwest were intimately interlinked -- so the mere possibility that explorers reached the region as early as 219 is worthy of mention. But I agree that it's a bit awkward in its current state. -Pete (talk)

• Missing citations in New waves of explorers, in entire paragraphs. Please check for spelling errors as well. Why is River of the West in bold so far down in the article?

Well, I think I have an interpretation of WP:V that is a little outside the mainstream. The policy talks of facts that are "challenged, or likely to be challenged." I think that when there are facts that are well cited in high-quality, linked articles, that adding citation into the article in question is unnecessary, and clutters the article with more links than necessary. We are, after all, building an encyclopedia, not individual articles that are utterly independent of one another. As to the likelihood of them being challenged -- if the challenge comes from a desire to nit-pick an article, I find that a little disingenuous. I think the "likelihood" should be based on a reasonable understanding of whether the fact is controversial or not. Anyway. All that said, if there are facts there that you think need citations, please slap some {{cn}} tags on there and I'll cite 'em. I removed the bolding (and changed the phrasing) on River of the West, and I scanned by eye for spelling errors and found none. Running a spell-checker on the whole article is probably a decent idea. -Pete (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. I have to stop here for now, but this seems to be some stuff to take care of for a bit. I hope to finish it as I find the article interesting and engaging. I'll return with further comments soon, I hope. --Moni3 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• I totally read that fish thing in the lead as "androgynous" and wondered what in the world a fish did to make it so...

Thanks for the excellent comments Moni, I do hope you continue! I would like to question your first two observations, though. As for U.S. state -- this is a convention we use on just about every article in WikiProject Oregon, so if there's a problem with it, I'd like to know ASAP. As I see it, the term does not define what "US" stands for, so the link has some value in that sense. But saying "United States state" would be pretty awkward. It's an issue that, I think, has no ideal solution, but I think linking U.S. state once at the beginning of an article is the best (or maybe least bad) solution. Is there an alternative you'd propose? (I should note, I'm pretty sure this phrasing exists on all the FAs based in Oregon, and I've never seen it challenged in the past. Of course, that doesn't really prove anything.)

Just throwing in my two cents. I agree with Moni about "U.S. state" and similar terms. The argument against linking United States or U.S. state is that these terms need no explaining. Linking things like Canada, North America, and United States adds to link density without adding information most readers don't already have. It's hard to say just where to draw the line. I'd link Uganda but not Africa, El Salvador but not United States. Finetooth (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth, that's great except I think you've missed an important point. It would be one thing if it said "United States," but it only says "U.S." Do you think that "U.S." needs no link or explanation? If so, I disagree. With every other acronym, the standard is that you spell it out the first time, with the acronym in parentheses. In the case of the phrase "U.S. state," that looks pretty funny. I think linking it, on its first occurrence, addresses that -- but if there's a better way to do it, I'm all ears. -Pete (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I think I sent us off on an unfortunate tangent here. I don't want to do that. Finetooth (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Second, the terms "taming" and "harnessing." This is something I really struggled with in working on the article. You're quite right that we don't want to assert a POV in the article, but to me it seems essential to the history of the river to expose a POV that was particularly dominant in the modern history of the river. That's why I had "harness" in quotes, which I see you removed; no, it is not a specific quote from a specific source, but it is a word that is used extensively in a great number of sources from that period. Do you agree that it's important to somehow express the dominance of this view? If so, how would you recommend doing it?

Thanks, and I'm eagerly awaiting your further reflections on the article! -Pete (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe this change addresses the "taming" issue? -Pete (talk)

This is, of course, not an FAC, but be forewarned: editors will object to the claim of what the treatment of a river has been called throughout history without a citation. Who said it was tamed or should be? What kind of position did they hold? Why would they say that? It seems trivial, but don't take any shared knowledge for granted. Sure, I know rivers and wilderness areas were supposed to be tamed 50 years ago or more, but there are kids or non-Americans who will read this who have no concept of a national priority on development so pervasive that re-routing and damming rivers went unquestioned, in the same way that patriotism is unquestioned. After all, taming rivers and patriotism was once one and the same.

On the "harness" vs harness issue, it's pretty similar. In less formal writing, I might put a word in quotes because it has been used by someone at some point, or for ironic effect. However, the style of writing for FAs demands that all statements are cited. Since nothing is ever taken for granted, it would be more grammatically accurate to place the word in quotes, but with that is the absolute necessity to cite it. --Moni3 (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are sources for people having said the Columbia should be / needs to be "tamed", "harnessed", etc-- famous people too. FDR no doubt. Less famous but still important people have said some remarkably quotable things about the river. I believe the head of the Bureau of Reclamation (Ickes?) said something about how every drop of Columbia water that reaches the Pacific represents not only wasted power, but financial loss. The Columbia has received quite a bit of attention of that sort, as well as more recent famous comments about it now being a "machine" and such like. I'm away from home for a while, but when I return in a week or so I'll check for this info in some of the books I suspect would have them. Such a quote from someone like FDR might not only be notable in itself, but could serve as a cite for the claim that terms like "tame" and "harness" were used. I'll look into it more when I get the chance. Pfly (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)