Wikipedia:Peer review/Columbia Slough/archive1

Columbia Slough

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to prepare it for FAC. This is the fourth article in a series of six about small streams important to Portland, Oregon. Three of these articles are FA, and I've taken this one about as far as I can. Any suggestions will be appreciated.

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments This looks very good, and I will weigh in with much more later, but it seems to me that there needs to be a clearer definition / explanation of what a slough is, perhaps even in the lead. Looking at the slough article, it seems it depends where in the world you are what the word means for a body of water. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We had a bit of a tussle about the term when the article was little more than a stub. I'll review that debate and try to come up with something brief that can go into the main text. Finetooth (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so slow - utlra busy IRL. A few more quick impressions - in the course I would make it clearer that it runs nearly parallel to the Columbia for the slough's entire course / length. Also in the lead, this Formed by geologic processes including volcanic eruptions, huge floods of basalt, and the more recent Missoula Floods, the floodplain is part of the Portland Basin, ... seems to introduce the subject a bit late (the floodplain). I had to reread the sentence a few times to make sure it was not about the slough somehow. Also would it help to give the pronunciation (assume it rhymes with cow, perhaps it rhymes with rough or toe). More in the next 24 hours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no hurry on this. Your suggestions so far are really helpful. I've created a long note about possible meanings of slough and added it to the "Notes" section. I believe slough rhymes with moo rather than cow. I'll have to double-check this. More later, and thanks again. Finetooth (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind about my long definition footnote. Instead I used Merriam-Webster Online for definitions and pronunciations. Turns out it's "moo" in Oregon and "cow" in Boston and London. Finetooth (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I have heard of "Seattle Slew" but never thought of this as pronounded like the "Columbia Slew" Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just looked at the Seattle Slew article and the horse was named for such bodies of water - they just spelled Slough phonetically! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More from me - looking at the lead and course and watershed sections

I would link watershed to drainage basin in Five percent of Oregon's population, about 158,000 people, live in the slough watershed... In Britain a watershed is more like a continental divide, so the unlinked term can cause confusion
Would it make sense to add something like "It was never rebuilt." after A flood pouring through a break in one of these levees destroyed the city of Vanport in 1948. ?
This sentence bothers me a bit The businesses and industries employ about 57,000 people in the watershed,[3] which is also used by more than 150 bird species and 26 fish species and animals including otters and beaver.[7] Would it make sense to recast the first part as The businesses and industries in the watershed employ about 57,000 people,[3]... or does that change the meaning? Also the verb "used" seems unusual in connection with birds, fish and animals, but I am at a loss for an alternate
Since you mentioned the levee stopping the reverse tidal flow from going into the middle slough, would it make sense to point that out again somehow here At this point, it passes through a second gated levee that separates the middle slough from the lower slough.[10][11]?
The Sandy River is not shown on the map - perhaps add it lies to the east? Draining about 51 square miles (130 km2), the Columbia Slough watershed lies in the floodplain of the Columbia River between the mouths of the Sandy River and the Willamette River.[12] I see this is given later in the second paragraph
This makes it sound like Metro only has jurisdiction near the slough, but not in it: Metro, the regional governmental agency for the Oregon portion of the Portland metropolitan area, is involved in land use planning, land acquisition, and park and wetland management near the slough.[16] Can this be made clearer?

These are nitpicks. Good job, more to come, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are all helpful and useful suggestions. I've made changes related to all of them except the last one, about Metro's exact powers. I need to do some more research about Metro to see if I can find something more precise. Finetooth (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was more that it made it sound like Metro has no jurisdiction over the slough (sloo!), when the lead makes it sound like it does. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have now cleared this up by adding specific examples to the Metro sentence of the "Jurisdiction" subsection. Finetooth (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments - finishing up the article

In Geology, I assume this was the largest of the earthquakes in the slough - if so would it make sense to say so explicitly? In 1962, one centered about 7 miles (11 km) north of Portland was estimated at between 4.9 and 5.2 on the Richter scale.[24]
To provide context, could the year for the statistic be given in An estimated 54 percent of the surface of the slough watershed is impervious.?
I am not sure the use of italics in the Main channel section follows Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting), your mileage may vary ;-)
Would it be better to start this with "Historically"? Historic Fairview Creek flowed north into the Columbia River through a wetlands slightly upstream of Big Four Corners.
Could a little more context be given for the block quote that starts Nature has been more than lavish in her gifts to St. Johns.? Who said it and when?
Missing word? Other packing plants and slaughterhouses [were?] built along the slough, and by 1911 Portland had become the main livestock market for the Pacific Northwest.[44]
Should coyotes be mentioned earlier in the article (currently only in Recreation)?
General question - when the tide reverses the flow, does the slough become brackish / salty? I did not see any mention of this - probably worth a mention either way (if it becomes salty or stays fresh).

Images are nice - I did not really check their licenses or the refs though. Overall the article looks good to me, hope this helps. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to post a note saying I've noticed this third batch of suggestions, and I'll use them to improve the article. I've run the dead link checker and the dab finder, and everything looks OK at the moment. I don't anticipate any problems with the image licenses. Thanks for all of these suggestions and for the kind words. Finetooth (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A further note to say I've addressed all of the issues you've raised. Your general question led me to discover that saltwater intrusion on the Columbia stops at about RM 23, well below the Willamette–Columbia confluence at RM 101. The tidal influence extends to Bonneville Dam (RM 146) on the Columbia and to Willamette Falls (about RM 27) on the Willamette, but it's a freshwater tide. Finetooth (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating - I had no idea there could be a freshwater tide on a river, although it makes perfect sense. Let me know when it is at FAC, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I certainly will. Meanwhile, I've noticed that the published GNIS coordinates for the slough source and mouth can't be correct. I've written to the GNIS manager to ask, but my guess is that the published coords describe a former state of the slough. I might have to source the coords to Google Earth. Have you ever run into this problem? Finetooth (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GNIS manager quickly replied, agreed that the coords needed fixing at both ends, and fixed them. Finetooth (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]