![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
This river was once called the Oregon River, and the Great River of the West. Should we have these in the opening somewhere? Mtsmallwood ( talk) 02:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Pfly, you removed the following sentence, saying it's disputed at best. My recollection was that we had an extensive discussion about this, and determined this phrasing was accurate and uncontroversial. Did I miss something? It seems to me that the "feat" of breaching the Cascades is worth noting somewhere.
Along with the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California and the Pit River in northern California, the Columbia is one of only three rivers to pass through the Cascades.
- Pete ( talk) 07:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the following chunk of text, from the "Course" section (the article's first section) should be moved, for two reasons. First, I think this sort of data is more appropriate to the "Watershed" section (which might more properly be titled "Drainage basin," but that's another question). Second though, and more importantly: it does not make for very inviting text, and at the very outset of the article, makes the reader wade through a lot of facts and figures, rather than getting a strong feel for the subject of the article.
We worked hard on the text in this section a while back, and I think the outcome was that we tell a compelling story (to whatever degree that's possible) about the river from its headwaters to the Pacific. The sentence about the headwaters needs to be at or very near the beginning of a section on the river's course. Thoughts?
“ | It drains an area of about 258,000 square miles (670,000 km2), collecting the discharge of numerous tributaries, producing a total average discharge of 265,000 cubic feet per second (7,500 m3/s).[5] Its drainage basin covers nearly all of Idaho, large portions of BC, Oregon, and Washington, and small portions of Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada; the total area is similar to the size of France. Roughly 745 miles (1,200 km) of the river's length and 85 percent of its drainage basin are in the U.S.[10] The Columbia is the twelfth-longest river and has the sixth-largest drainage basin in the U.S.[5] In Canada, where the Columbia flows for 498 miles (801 km) and drains 39,700 square miles (103,000 km2), the river ranks 23rd in length,[11] and its basin ranks 13th in size.[12] The Columbia shares its name with nearby places, such as British Columbia, as well as with landforms and bodies of water. | ” |
And that final sentence should go somewhere else too, though I'm not sure where. Do we just need a section on the name, as discussed above??
- Pete ( talk) 16:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we intentionally removed reference to certain explorers like Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra and Francisco de Eliza, because they did not specifically explore the Columbia. Which is fine, but what we've lost is the overall concept that most of the exploration (Spanish and British especially) of the northwest coast in the late 18th century was an attempt to discover a Northwest Passage. As it stands, the NWP is mentioned only after the discovery, as though the idea came only after the discovery of the river. This needs to be massaged a bit. - Pete ( talk) 17:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The following sentence should have consistent metric unit; not sure if square meters or hectares is the better choice. Also not sure how to best use the {{ convert}} template in this case. Any thoughts? ...Finetooth? - Pete ( talk) 17:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The one-paragraph section below seems like a non-sequitur. There may be something worth salvaging, but I think it would be more appropriate to incorporate any relevant points into the text, rather than having a separate section. - Pete ( talk) 18:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | While the causes of climate change are debatable, there is substantial evidence to indicate that the earth is increasing in temperature, and this could have an effect on the Columbia River. According to the State of Washington Department of Ecology, Climate change is likely to cause warmer temperatures, greater precipitation in the Northwest, and an increase in rain coupled with a decrease in snow. This could have the effect of reducing snowpack, increasing the chances of floods, earlier snowmelt in the spring, and higher stream flow in the winter. | ” |
I wish I had noticed before that the images lack alt text, which will be needed for FA. The alt text is for readers with visual impairments who depend on special reading devices to peruse Wikipedia. The alt text is not the same as the caption and appears as a separate parameter inside the brackets that include the caption. I'll try to add these today, but I've only had a little practice with alt texts. I certainly wouldn't mind if other editors helped with this. WP:ALT has details. Finetooth ( talk) 18:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The dabfinder tool finds no problems with disambiguation. However, a link checker finds dead urls in citations 10, 12, 25, and 65. I don't know what to replace them with since I've concentrated on nitpicks rather than content. Maybe Pete or Pfly or someone else can find replacements for the dead urls? Finetooth ( talk) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The dates related to the Bridge of the Gods are confusing, and I think it will take careful research, probably at the library, to get it straightened out. There is so much non-scientific writing out there, the ranges I've seen for the bridge's formation are from 1200 to 1760, and estimates of its destruction seem to range from a few months to a few centuries. I suspect there is a rough consensus among geologists, and for this article, I think it would be really good to learn what that consensus is, and cite scientific sources on this matter rather than popular retellings. Anyone have good books that might cover this? I can get to the library probably this afternoon if necessary. - Pete ( talk) 18:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
A couple online sources I found that are not included in this article:
Here's a suggestion for how the Slide should be covered in the Geology section. I'm hoping we can agree on the text first, and then cite the facts as appropriate -- trying to do both at once was causing me a major headache! How does this look to everyone? - Pete ( talk) 18:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | In the last millennium, a series of landslides on the north side of the Columbia River Gorge, between Table Mountian and Greenleaf Peak, sent debris into the gorge. The most significant and most recent is known as the Bonneville Slide, which formed a massive earthen dam, filling 3.5 miles (5.6 km) of the river's length. Various studies have placed the date of the Bonneville Slide anywhere between 1060 and 1760; the idea that the landslide debris present today was formed by more than one slide is relatively recent, and may explain the large range of estimates. It has been suggested that if the later dates are accurate there may be a link with the 1700 Cascadia earthquake.) The pile of debris resulting from the Bonneville Slide blocked the river until rising water finally washed away the sediment. It is not known how long it took the river to break through the barrier; estimates range from several months to several years. Much of the landslide's debris remained, forcing the river about 1 mile (1.6 km) south of its previous channel, and forming the Cascade Rapids. In 1938, the construction of the Bonneville Dam inundated the rapids. | ” |
That looks good to me, though I'd suggest three changes. The distances need conversions to metric as follows: 3.5 miles (5.6 km) and "about 1 mile (1.6 km) south". I also think it would be good to make clear whether the debris was 3.5 miles from bank to bank or 3.5 miles along the length of the river. I believe it means along the length because I don't think the gorge is that wide, but I'm just guessing. In either case, maybe it would be good to give the size of the debris pile (width, length, depth), if known. Finetooth ( talk) 18:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm slowly working on this, in the little slices of time I have. One question though--do we have any reliable sources for the native oral histories? The web pages I've found on related articles don't look like they'd qualify as RS under FA. I could probably find a book that would work, but don't know when I'd be able to get to a bookstore or library to see. Any good sources online? It's probably not required for this geology paragraph, but some mention would be good, and good for the indigenous people section about the bridge, right? Pfly ( talk) 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, replaced the old paragraph on the Bonneville Slide with the new one, with citations and a few minor text changes. A few comments (no need to read for the wikibonked!):
While putting the cites in it occurred to me that the two articles by Richard Hill from The Oregonian, while full of useful info and clearly accurate (at least once you've read the papers by the people Hill is mainly writing about), may not seem strongly reliable sources compared to the others I used. After all, The Oregonian is a newspaper not an academic journal or report from the likes of WA Dept of Natural Resources Geology Division, etc. And unlike the other sources used, Hills's articles don't use footnotes or end with a reference bibliography, etc. All the claims in the text I added and sourced to him can also be found in more "academic" sources. But his articles say a number of interesting things not found in the other sources, so I wanted to keep them. Any reader curious about learning more would do well to read Hills's articles. They would also be useful for use in articles like Bridge of the Gods (land bridge), Cascade Rapids, and perhaps others like Missoula Floods (apparently the floods' scouring of the gorge made landslides, especially near Table Mountain, so geologically common and huge) Anyway, this all is why I "doubled sourced" a couple things.
None of the sources specifically said that the Cascade Rapids were inundated by Bonneville Dam. The statement probably doesn't really need a reference but I didn't like the way the paragraph had a single unsourced sentence at the very end. So I found a new source that said it explicitly, and also said how the "drowned forest" of trees known to have died at the time of the landslide was also inundated by the dam. So I added a brief mention of that too. It was tricky to word it in a terse yet clear way. I think it works even though I wanted to write more about the "drowned trees", how they came to be drowned and why they are so useful for dating the landslide. For the sake of brevity I didn't. On the Bridge of the Gods page perhaps I'll get into it more.
I didn't add anything about Indian stories in this Geology section paragraph. I'll take a look at the Indigenous people section and see if anything there could be improved or better sourced. A couple of the sources I've been reading get into the Indian legends, complete with Mt Hood and Mt Adams using the bridge to get at each other to fight for the love of St Helens, causing another god to destroy it, and such like. (I should have more time soon--preschool starts tomorrow!)
On Greenleaf Peak and the redlink thing--for some reason I thought it was the only redlink in the entire article, even though I knew that wasn't the case. I did leave it out of the new text, but at least one source did mention it, so perhaps it can be restored. But the info in that source was less about Greenleaf Peak and more about Red Bluffs, a "scarp area just below Greenleaf Peak".
Ok, ok, sorry for rambling on. I rather enjoyed working on this bit. Pfly ( talk) 05:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It popped into my head just now that we could shorten the 130-kb Columbia River article, as suggested in a general way at FAC, by moving all those tributary stats (the collapsing chart) to a separate article. This would shorten the main text and the reference section without changing the narrative flow. Readers interested in more data could click the link to the separate article. Thoughts? Finetooth ( talk) 20:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's something. Maybe I am misunderstanding Wikipedia:Article size, but if my calculation is correct the size of the article's "readable prose" is only 54 KB. I roughly cut the text down to readable prose for editing and seeing the size here: User:Pfly/Sandbox2c. Pfly ( talk) 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been watching this article and the wonderful collaborative work for quite some time now. Just wondering: Will the article ever be put up for FAC? ;-) Regards, -- X-Weinzar ( talk) 03:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Any news? ;-) -- X-Weinzar ( talk) 18:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's been a long time now. Yes there are things that could be expanded. Will such things prevent FAC? I'm thinking we might as well try and see. Unless someone brings up a good argument against it I am thinking of submitting a nomination "soon"--within a week or three. And, um, I mean it this time! Maybe I'll get to writing up a nomination over this coming weekend. If not then after a camping trip next week. Ready? Or not? Pfly ( talk) 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (and here's a link to Pete's older nomination draft, for kicking my own memory if nothing else: Talk:Columbia River/FAnom). Pfly ( talk) 01:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've finally made the nomination. Any of you who want to add your name to the co-nom, feel free! Here we go… - Pete ( talk) 17:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Working on this bit of text, mainly to address questionable common-place.org ref (nowiki-ing out the ref codes):
“ | An estimated 15 to 20 million salmon passed through Celilo Falls every year, making it one of the most productive fishing sites in North America.<ref>{{cite news | last = Rohrbacher | first = George | title = Talk of the Past: The salmon fisheries of Celilo Falls | work = Common-Place | date = January 2006 | url=http://www.common-place.org/vol-06/no-02/talk/ | accessdate=2008-02-01}}</ref> The annual catch by natives in prehistoric times has been estimated at 42 million pounds (19,000 t).<ref name="bloodstruggle"/> | ” |
I found a source that comes close to the points in the above text, but not quite. So posting this possible rewording here for further refinement before editing main page:
“ | Before colonization and non-indigenous river development the Columbia's annual salmon and steelhead runs numbered an estimated average of 10-16 million fish. In comparison, since 1938, when fish counting began, the maximum run was in 1986, with 3.2 million fish entering the Columbia.<ref name=fishruns>{{cite web | title= Columbia River Fish Runs and Fisheries | publisher= Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and [[Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife]] | year= 2002 | month= August | pages= 2-3, 6, 47, 62 | url= http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/columbia/2000_status_report_text.pdf | accessdate= 2009-09-10}}</ref> The most important and productive native fishing site was located at Celilo Falls, which was perhaps the most productive inland fishing site in North America.<ref name=cain>{{cite journal | last= Cain | first= Allen | year= 2007 | month= September | title= Boils Swell and Whorl Pools | journal= [[Oregon Historical Quarterly]] | volume= 108 | issue= 4 | url= http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/108.4/allen.html | accessdate= 2009-09-10}}</ref> The annual catch by natives in prehistoric times has been estimated at 42 million pounds (19,000 t).<ref name="bloodstruggle"/> | ” |
The main point lost here is that Celilo Falls was "one of the most productive fishing sites in North America". I'll look for a source for that claim. (added source for this, noting "inland fishery") Minor rewording of the proposed text above might help (eg, the annual catch figure is for the whole river not just Celilo I assume).
Pfly (
talk)
18:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Very minor question--now that Wimahl has been moved to the indigenous section and another indigenous name added, should Wimahl stay at the top of the geobox or be taken out? Doesn't matter to me, just noticed it and wondered. Pfly ( talk) 17:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I found a source for the sentence, "The bridge permitted increased interaction and trade between tribes on the north and south sides of the river until it was finally washed away." Pages 13-14 of Columbia River Gorge: National Treasure on the Old Oregon Trail by Cheri Dohnal (link should go to page 13 in Google Books) says, among other things, Native tribes of the area called the dam "The Great Crossover", and it later became known as the "Bridge of the Gods", and ...local Indians of the nineteenth century claimed to have ancestors who used the bridge to meet with others in a great tribal council, and it is a part of their oral history, and All legends about the Bridge of the Gods seem to hold a common thread,...found in the Great Spirit, who built the land bridge to allow native brothers to visit with one another. Those statements seem to be specific enough. The only thing I am not sure about is whether the book is a RS or not. It's geological description of the bridge of the gods is poor (eg, the landslide came from a mountain in Oregon, and other things like that), but the native stories told are much like the versions I've seen in a number of other sources. It also has a tale about canoes going through the bridge/tunnel, which I hadn't seen before (except you mentioned something about seeing a story like that, Pete). I'm going to add it to the article and mention so on the FA nom page. Wanted to mention it here first though, and that the geology of the bridge of the gods gave me pause. But then the book is more about stories than science and the sentence needing a ref is likewise about stories. Seems fine. Pfly ( talk) 02:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Well Pfly, I see we were working slightly at cross-purposes. I just spent the afternoon at the library, tracking down some of those elusive citations and also learning some other important bits of context (e.g. that Celilo Falls was at the border of two significant cultural/language groups). I expanded the section a bit, because some of these new pieces seemed very important.
I'll see about merging your text in with what's currently there. Sorry I didn't think to look here before I started in with my slash-and-burn edits!
I think we're getting very close. - Pete ( talk) 02:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I may have lost track of something, but are we done? We have two supports and, as far as I can tell, no remaining unaddressed comments. Should I ask User:Stifle if he or she is satisfied with our responses? Do we need to ask one of the other reviewers to look at the questions User:Ealdgyth left open for others to decide? Any other loose ends? Finetooth ( talk) 19:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick comment on this edit, which I reverted. In my view, it's not a great idea to talk about whether the ecological changes -- which have undeniably been extensive -- are "negative" in the lead. If you're a northern squawfish, you're probably pretty happy with the present ecological conditions. Now, personally, I happen to agree that the ecological impact has been tremendously negative, and I think most people would; but it's a value judgment nonetheless. I believe the lead section should present the basic facts, and leave room for the reader to fill in the gaps by reading on, or reading other sources. - Pete ( talk) 22:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
All the best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
This river was once called the Oregon River, and the Great River of the West. Should we have these in the opening somewhere? Mtsmallwood ( talk) 02:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Pfly, you removed the following sentence, saying it's disputed at best. My recollection was that we had an extensive discussion about this, and determined this phrasing was accurate and uncontroversial. Did I miss something? It seems to me that the "feat" of breaching the Cascades is worth noting somewhere.
Along with the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California and the Pit River in northern California, the Columbia is one of only three rivers to pass through the Cascades.
- Pete ( talk) 07:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the following chunk of text, from the "Course" section (the article's first section) should be moved, for two reasons. First, I think this sort of data is more appropriate to the "Watershed" section (which might more properly be titled "Drainage basin," but that's another question). Second though, and more importantly: it does not make for very inviting text, and at the very outset of the article, makes the reader wade through a lot of facts and figures, rather than getting a strong feel for the subject of the article.
We worked hard on the text in this section a while back, and I think the outcome was that we tell a compelling story (to whatever degree that's possible) about the river from its headwaters to the Pacific. The sentence about the headwaters needs to be at or very near the beginning of a section on the river's course. Thoughts?
“ | It drains an area of about 258,000 square miles (670,000 km2), collecting the discharge of numerous tributaries, producing a total average discharge of 265,000 cubic feet per second (7,500 m3/s).[5] Its drainage basin covers nearly all of Idaho, large portions of BC, Oregon, and Washington, and small portions of Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada; the total area is similar to the size of France. Roughly 745 miles (1,200 km) of the river's length and 85 percent of its drainage basin are in the U.S.[10] The Columbia is the twelfth-longest river and has the sixth-largest drainage basin in the U.S.[5] In Canada, where the Columbia flows for 498 miles (801 km) and drains 39,700 square miles (103,000 km2), the river ranks 23rd in length,[11] and its basin ranks 13th in size.[12] The Columbia shares its name with nearby places, such as British Columbia, as well as with landforms and bodies of water. | ” |
And that final sentence should go somewhere else too, though I'm not sure where. Do we just need a section on the name, as discussed above??
- Pete ( talk) 16:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we intentionally removed reference to certain explorers like Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra and Francisco de Eliza, because they did not specifically explore the Columbia. Which is fine, but what we've lost is the overall concept that most of the exploration (Spanish and British especially) of the northwest coast in the late 18th century was an attempt to discover a Northwest Passage. As it stands, the NWP is mentioned only after the discovery, as though the idea came only after the discovery of the river. This needs to be massaged a bit. - Pete ( talk) 17:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The following sentence should have consistent metric unit; not sure if square meters or hectares is the better choice. Also not sure how to best use the {{ convert}} template in this case. Any thoughts? ...Finetooth? - Pete ( talk) 17:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The one-paragraph section below seems like a non-sequitur. There may be something worth salvaging, but I think it would be more appropriate to incorporate any relevant points into the text, rather than having a separate section. - Pete ( talk) 18:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | While the causes of climate change are debatable, there is substantial evidence to indicate that the earth is increasing in temperature, and this could have an effect on the Columbia River. According to the State of Washington Department of Ecology, Climate change is likely to cause warmer temperatures, greater precipitation in the Northwest, and an increase in rain coupled with a decrease in snow. This could have the effect of reducing snowpack, increasing the chances of floods, earlier snowmelt in the spring, and higher stream flow in the winter. | ” |
I wish I had noticed before that the images lack alt text, which will be needed for FA. The alt text is for readers with visual impairments who depend on special reading devices to peruse Wikipedia. The alt text is not the same as the caption and appears as a separate parameter inside the brackets that include the caption. I'll try to add these today, but I've only had a little practice with alt texts. I certainly wouldn't mind if other editors helped with this. WP:ALT has details. Finetooth ( talk) 18:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The dabfinder tool finds no problems with disambiguation. However, a link checker finds dead urls in citations 10, 12, 25, and 65. I don't know what to replace them with since I've concentrated on nitpicks rather than content. Maybe Pete or Pfly or someone else can find replacements for the dead urls? Finetooth ( talk) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The dates related to the Bridge of the Gods are confusing, and I think it will take careful research, probably at the library, to get it straightened out. There is so much non-scientific writing out there, the ranges I've seen for the bridge's formation are from 1200 to 1760, and estimates of its destruction seem to range from a few months to a few centuries. I suspect there is a rough consensus among geologists, and for this article, I think it would be really good to learn what that consensus is, and cite scientific sources on this matter rather than popular retellings. Anyone have good books that might cover this? I can get to the library probably this afternoon if necessary. - Pete ( talk) 18:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
A couple online sources I found that are not included in this article:
Here's a suggestion for how the Slide should be covered in the Geology section. I'm hoping we can agree on the text first, and then cite the facts as appropriate -- trying to do both at once was causing me a major headache! How does this look to everyone? - Pete ( talk) 18:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | In the last millennium, a series of landslides on the north side of the Columbia River Gorge, between Table Mountian and Greenleaf Peak, sent debris into the gorge. The most significant and most recent is known as the Bonneville Slide, which formed a massive earthen dam, filling 3.5 miles (5.6 km) of the river's length. Various studies have placed the date of the Bonneville Slide anywhere between 1060 and 1760; the idea that the landslide debris present today was formed by more than one slide is relatively recent, and may explain the large range of estimates. It has been suggested that if the later dates are accurate there may be a link with the 1700 Cascadia earthquake.) The pile of debris resulting from the Bonneville Slide blocked the river until rising water finally washed away the sediment. It is not known how long it took the river to break through the barrier; estimates range from several months to several years. Much of the landslide's debris remained, forcing the river about 1 mile (1.6 km) south of its previous channel, and forming the Cascade Rapids. In 1938, the construction of the Bonneville Dam inundated the rapids. | ” |
That looks good to me, though I'd suggest three changes. The distances need conversions to metric as follows: 3.5 miles (5.6 km) and "about 1 mile (1.6 km) south". I also think it would be good to make clear whether the debris was 3.5 miles from bank to bank or 3.5 miles along the length of the river. I believe it means along the length because I don't think the gorge is that wide, but I'm just guessing. In either case, maybe it would be good to give the size of the debris pile (width, length, depth), if known. Finetooth ( talk) 18:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm slowly working on this, in the little slices of time I have. One question though--do we have any reliable sources for the native oral histories? The web pages I've found on related articles don't look like they'd qualify as RS under FA. I could probably find a book that would work, but don't know when I'd be able to get to a bookstore or library to see. Any good sources online? It's probably not required for this geology paragraph, but some mention would be good, and good for the indigenous people section about the bridge, right? Pfly ( talk) 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, replaced the old paragraph on the Bonneville Slide with the new one, with citations and a few minor text changes. A few comments (no need to read for the wikibonked!):
While putting the cites in it occurred to me that the two articles by Richard Hill from The Oregonian, while full of useful info and clearly accurate (at least once you've read the papers by the people Hill is mainly writing about), may not seem strongly reliable sources compared to the others I used. After all, The Oregonian is a newspaper not an academic journal or report from the likes of WA Dept of Natural Resources Geology Division, etc. And unlike the other sources used, Hills's articles don't use footnotes or end with a reference bibliography, etc. All the claims in the text I added and sourced to him can also be found in more "academic" sources. But his articles say a number of interesting things not found in the other sources, so I wanted to keep them. Any reader curious about learning more would do well to read Hills's articles. They would also be useful for use in articles like Bridge of the Gods (land bridge), Cascade Rapids, and perhaps others like Missoula Floods (apparently the floods' scouring of the gorge made landslides, especially near Table Mountain, so geologically common and huge) Anyway, this all is why I "doubled sourced" a couple things.
None of the sources specifically said that the Cascade Rapids were inundated by Bonneville Dam. The statement probably doesn't really need a reference but I didn't like the way the paragraph had a single unsourced sentence at the very end. So I found a new source that said it explicitly, and also said how the "drowned forest" of trees known to have died at the time of the landslide was also inundated by the dam. So I added a brief mention of that too. It was tricky to word it in a terse yet clear way. I think it works even though I wanted to write more about the "drowned trees", how they came to be drowned and why they are so useful for dating the landslide. For the sake of brevity I didn't. On the Bridge of the Gods page perhaps I'll get into it more.
I didn't add anything about Indian stories in this Geology section paragraph. I'll take a look at the Indigenous people section and see if anything there could be improved or better sourced. A couple of the sources I've been reading get into the Indian legends, complete with Mt Hood and Mt Adams using the bridge to get at each other to fight for the love of St Helens, causing another god to destroy it, and such like. (I should have more time soon--preschool starts tomorrow!)
On Greenleaf Peak and the redlink thing--for some reason I thought it was the only redlink in the entire article, even though I knew that wasn't the case. I did leave it out of the new text, but at least one source did mention it, so perhaps it can be restored. But the info in that source was less about Greenleaf Peak and more about Red Bluffs, a "scarp area just below Greenleaf Peak".
Ok, ok, sorry for rambling on. I rather enjoyed working on this bit. Pfly ( talk) 05:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It popped into my head just now that we could shorten the 130-kb Columbia River article, as suggested in a general way at FAC, by moving all those tributary stats (the collapsing chart) to a separate article. This would shorten the main text and the reference section without changing the narrative flow. Readers interested in more data could click the link to the separate article. Thoughts? Finetooth ( talk) 20:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's something. Maybe I am misunderstanding Wikipedia:Article size, but if my calculation is correct the size of the article's "readable prose" is only 54 KB. I roughly cut the text down to readable prose for editing and seeing the size here: User:Pfly/Sandbox2c. Pfly ( talk) 22:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been watching this article and the wonderful collaborative work for quite some time now. Just wondering: Will the article ever be put up for FAC? ;-) Regards, -- X-Weinzar ( talk) 03:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Any news? ;-) -- X-Weinzar ( talk) 18:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's been a long time now. Yes there are things that could be expanded. Will such things prevent FAC? I'm thinking we might as well try and see. Unless someone brings up a good argument against it I am thinking of submitting a nomination "soon"--within a week or three. And, um, I mean it this time! Maybe I'll get to writing up a nomination over this coming weekend. If not then after a camping trip next week. Ready? Or not? Pfly ( talk) 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC) (and here's a link to Pete's older nomination draft, for kicking my own memory if nothing else: Talk:Columbia River/FAnom). Pfly ( talk) 01:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've finally made the nomination. Any of you who want to add your name to the co-nom, feel free! Here we go… - Pete ( talk) 17:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Working on this bit of text, mainly to address questionable common-place.org ref (nowiki-ing out the ref codes):
“ | An estimated 15 to 20 million salmon passed through Celilo Falls every year, making it one of the most productive fishing sites in North America.<ref>{{cite news | last = Rohrbacher | first = George | title = Talk of the Past: The salmon fisheries of Celilo Falls | work = Common-Place | date = January 2006 | url=http://www.common-place.org/vol-06/no-02/talk/ | accessdate=2008-02-01}}</ref> The annual catch by natives in prehistoric times has been estimated at 42 million pounds (19,000 t).<ref name="bloodstruggle"/> | ” |
I found a source that comes close to the points in the above text, but not quite. So posting this possible rewording here for further refinement before editing main page:
“ | Before colonization and non-indigenous river development the Columbia's annual salmon and steelhead runs numbered an estimated average of 10-16 million fish. In comparison, since 1938, when fish counting began, the maximum run was in 1986, with 3.2 million fish entering the Columbia.<ref name=fishruns>{{cite web | title= Columbia River Fish Runs and Fisheries | publisher= Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and [[Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife]] | year= 2002 | month= August | pages= 2-3, 6, 47, 62 | url= http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/columbia/2000_status_report_text.pdf | accessdate= 2009-09-10}}</ref> The most important and productive native fishing site was located at Celilo Falls, which was perhaps the most productive inland fishing site in North America.<ref name=cain>{{cite journal | last= Cain | first= Allen | year= 2007 | month= September | title= Boils Swell and Whorl Pools | journal= [[Oregon Historical Quarterly]] | volume= 108 | issue= 4 | url= http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ohq/108.4/allen.html | accessdate= 2009-09-10}}</ref> The annual catch by natives in prehistoric times has been estimated at 42 million pounds (19,000 t).<ref name="bloodstruggle"/> | ” |
The main point lost here is that Celilo Falls was "one of the most productive fishing sites in North America". I'll look for a source for that claim. (added source for this, noting "inland fishery") Minor rewording of the proposed text above might help (eg, the annual catch figure is for the whole river not just Celilo I assume).
Pfly (
talk)
18:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Very minor question--now that Wimahl has been moved to the indigenous section and another indigenous name added, should Wimahl stay at the top of the geobox or be taken out? Doesn't matter to me, just noticed it and wondered. Pfly ( talk) 17:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I found a source for the sentence, "The bridge permitted increased interaction and trade between tribes on the north and south sides of the river until it was finally washed away." Pages 13-14 of Columbia River Gorge: National Treasure on the Old Oregon Trail by Cheri Dohnal (link should go to page 13 in Google Books) says, among other things, Native tribes of the area called the dam "The Great Crossover", and it later became known as the "Bridge of the Gods", and ...local Indians of the nineteenth century claimed to have ancestors who used the bridge to meet with others in a great tribal council, and it is a part of their oral history, and All legends about the Bridge of the Gods seem to hold a common thread,...found in the Great Spirit, who built the land bridge to allow native brothers to visit with one another. Those statements seem to be specific enough. The only thing I am not sure about is whether the book is a RS or not. It's geological description of the bridge of the gods is poor (eg, the landslide came from a mountain in Oregon, and other things like that), but the native stories told are much like the versions I've seen in a number of other sources. It also has a tale about canoes going through the bridge/tunnel, which I hadn't seen before (except you mentioned something about seeing a story like that, Pete). I'm going to add it to the article and mention so on the FA nom page. Wanted to mention it here first though, and that the geology of the bridge of the gods gave me pause. But then the book is more about stories than science and the sentence needing a ref is likewise about stories. Seems fine. Pfly ( talk) 02:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Well Pfly, I see we were working slightly at cross-purposes. I just spent the afternoon at the library, tracking down some of those elusive citations and also learning some other important bits of context (e.g. that Celilo Falls was at the border of two significant cultural/language groups). I expanded the section a bit, because some of these new pieces seemed very important.
I'll see about merging your text in with what's currently there. Sorry I didn't think to look here before I started in with my slash-and-burn edits!
I think we're getting very close. - Pete ( talk) 02:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I may have lost track of something, but are we done? We have two supports and, as far as I can tell, no remaining unaddressed comments. Should I ask User:Stifle if he or she is satisfied with our responses? Do we need to ask one of the other reviewers to look at the questions User:Ealdgyth left open for others to decide? Any other loose ends? Finetooth ( talk) 19:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick comment on this edit, which I reverted. In my view, it's not a great idea to talk about whether the ecological changes -- which have undeniably been extensive -- are "negative" in the lead. If you're a northern squawfish, you're probably pretty happy with the present ecological conditions. Now, personally, I happen to agree that the ecological impact has been tremendously negative, and I think most people would; but it's a value judgment nonetheless. I believe the lead section should present the basic facts, and leave room for the reader to fill in the gaps by reading on, or reading other sources. - Pete ( talk) 22:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
All the best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)