Wikipedia:Peer review/Fanno Creek/archive1

Fanno Creek

• 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 July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article about a small urban creek for peer review because I've done most of the work on it with relatively little feedback. I'd like someone interested in geography to take a look to make sure that I haven't omitted anything essential and that the article reads well and makes sense throughout. I've worked extensively on two other small creeks, Johnson Creek (Willamette River) and Balch Creek in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area, and my plan is to take these as far as I can and to create comprehensive articles about the Columbia Slough and Tryon Creek as well. These four creeks and a slough plus the Willamette River and the Columbia River are the main water bodies in the city of Portland. My intent is to improve or to encourage improvement on these five small ones, to take each through PR, GA, and on to FAC if possible. Johnson Creek (Willamette River) is already FA, and Balch Creek is a current GA nominee. Fanno has come about as far as I can take it without the help of additional sharp-eyed editors.

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth. I appreciate your input on each of these articles. Finetooth (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Wackymacs (talk · contribs)

• I am just reading through this, and so far the prose is excellent.
• I'm unsure about how reliable http://www.washingtoncountymuseum.org/education/pre-post.php (ref 18) is. Its a museum site, but presumably the information is from a book. Can you find a more reliable source?
• Something is wrong with this sentence: "In the year 2000, population in the Portland part of the watershed reached 28,000[19] at about the same time (1998) the population for the entire watershed grew to 123,000.[20]" - 1998 is two years before 2000. You say the population went up, but it says (1998)... I'm also wondering why 1998 is in brackets but 2000 is not. And why not "In 2000," instead of "In the year 2000"? *puzzled*
• Overall, looks good. I've run out of time. Ping me if you need more feedback on this one. Hope my comments are useful.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Wackymacs, for these helpful suggestions. The museum site is OK, I think, but the text is meant for children and lacks depth. You are quite right in thinking that something better must be available. I will do some more research to see what I can find. As for the population figures, yes, I've made something of a muddle here, and I will fix it. I had trouble finding population figures when I started the article because the watershed overlaps several jurisdictions, and some of them keep score only for their parts of the watershed. It may take me a couple of days to sort out these two problems. Finetooth (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. The population stats are now more clear, and I replaced the citation to the museum with one to a published book. They don't contradict one another on any important point, but the book version includes details about politics, disease, death rates, and other matters not included in the version meant for children. I added a bit of that and did some minor re-writing. Thanks again for the helpful suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)