Talk:Johnson Creek (Willamette River tributary)/Archive 1

Flooding

I've added a note on the creek's habit of flooding, frequently; it could be improved by an explanation of why this happens. Wyvern (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Plans

Having gotten started, I seem to be rolling along like an engine on the Springwater Division Line. I'm planning to add something about pollution, water temperature, turbidity, flora, fauna, and USGS data-collecting stations. Details about some of the tributaries might be possible, at least Crystal Springs Creek and Kelley Creek. A bit more about the early settlers, particularly the Johnson family, might be nice. Something more about the railroad might also be good. A watershed map would be a good addition; I've made some maps for Wikipedia but none as complicated as a watershed map. The article could accommodate more photos, and I'm planning one or more trips to the middle and upper reaches of the creek to see what I can do with my trusty Nikon. All this said, I don't own the page, and I'm not basically piggy. I just love doing this stuff. Any help with any of this would be swell. Finetooth (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been really fun watching this article grow, and I look forward to seeing what else comes along. As for Crystal Springs Creek, it wouldn't be too hard to make an article out of Reed College#Reed Canyon, Blue Bridge, and Crystal Springs Rhododendron Garden. I've also heard, recently, that the source of Crystal Springs is on Mt. Tabor -- though that seems counterintuitive, since it would have to cross Clinton Street (once a creek). But, I can probably track down a source if this is true, and will try to do so. I'd also like to work on a Springwater Corridor article at some point, which could cover both the rail line and the present bike path. -Pete (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The new photos from User:EncMstr are good. I was looking for a section of WPA stonework on Sunday but didn't go upstream far enough to encounter that interesting weir. I'm assuming the WPA made it, but that's only a guess. Pete's stub on Springwater Corridor is helpful; a red link has disappeared as if by magic. Finetooth (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This looks awesome! I think it's ready for a GA review whenever you get finished adding stuff. Good work! Katr67 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you like it and that you fixed some of those things like "habitation" that didn't feel right to me but for which no other word sprang to mind. I'd like to add more today but another article that I'd put up for GA a couple of weeks ago got its review last night and needs immediate fixing. Away I go, but I'll soon be back. Finetooth (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New lead

I'm planning to rewrite the lead to reflect the new material, a bit more of which is still in process. The new lead will be longer, and that should improve the layout at the top of the page. Finetooth (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gresham Pioneer Cemetery

Pete made an edit: add Gresham Pioneer Cemetery, though I don't know exact location which adds that Johnson Creek goes by this historic cemetery. I'm pretty sure it's here: it's definitely a cemetery, and I think it is a pretty old one. This from commuting by it for two years, but never stopping to look. That would be about 221st east. —EncMstr 05:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A Metro web page says it's on Southwest Walters Road in Gresham. That info allowed me to find it on a city road map of Portland and Gresham. It's slightly west of Main City Park in Gresham where Johnson Creek makes that big turn to the west. SE 221 is pretty close. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Just noticed that someone else had found and cited the Metro site. Finetooth (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Metro site also mentions that it's next to a private cemetery, so Enc, not sure which one you've seen. Though, the map of the Pioneer Cemetery makes it appear that it actually crosses into Springwater Corridor property. -Pete (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Springwater

Pete: Until you mentioned the community of Springwater in the uplands, I'd never heard of it. I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that the name referred to Crystal Springs. However, a cursory search this morning led me to the History section of the Portland Parks page about the Springwater Corridor. It says in part, "In addition to passengers, the rail hauled farm produce to Portland markets. It was at this time it acquired the name Springwater Line, probably because of the planned connection to the community of Springwater on the Clackamas River. It was also known as the Portland Traction Company Line, the Cazadero Line, and the Bellrose Line." I'm not sure Springwater is on the Clackamas, but this sounds plausible otherwise. So I think you could put Springwater back in somewhere with a cite to the parks web site. It might go in the Parks section or where you had it before or elsewhere. Finetooth (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Springwater, Oregon and Springwater Corridor. Katr67 (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Short story is that I didn't realize there are two Springwaters: the longstanding unincorporated community described at Springwater, Oregon, and a presumably newer community that's next to, and about to be annexed by, Gresham. I think I'll be working up an article on the latter, once it's there it'll be easier to link to from here, and describe the distinction. -Pete (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Interesting. You guys are way ahead of me on this, thank goodness. Finetooth (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Native Americans

I'd like to include a bit more about the creek's earlier inhabitants if any material is available. Can anybody point me to a general history of Indians in Multnomah County or some other source where I might find a sentence or two about who these people were and how they lived. I'm thinking of things like specific tribe names, village locations if any, hunting and fishing preferences, the closer to Johnson Creek the better. Were Clovis points from even earlier peoples ever found hereabouts? Finetooth (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Map, new lead, dead links

I've created a stream course map and a new lead. I can see that some tweaks of both will probably be necessary. Meanwhile, the Davis Technical Memorandum #1 link, which I used in a half-dozen places, has been shifted to something irrelevant at PSU. I can still find the cached document through the PSU site, but I think I'll hunt around for replacement sources. The Davis paper was written in the early 1990s, and it would be better to have more recent sources. On, on. Finetooth (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Revised flood count

The more Johnson Creek documents I discovered, the more concerned I grew that my original claim of 37 floods in 35 years might not be accurate even though sourced. Other sources cited other numbers. All agreed that the creek floods a lot and that floods have been and still are a problem. The count I've settled on comes from the USGS stream gauge at Sycamore. If you click on the cited source, you'll get a graph with data points you can actually count. I matched these to the Weather Service definition of "flood stage" to get the total of 37 in 65 years. Finetooth (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the definition of a separate flood varies. For example, during 1996 there were several waves of floods as different storm systems came through. The water receded for one of them; does a flood "end" when it goes 0.001 inches below flood stage only to be followed by a 3 foot rise? What if it rises on one portion, but not another. Anyway, I suspect the difficulty counting floods is related to something like this. —EncMstr 20:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the best explanation. It's kind of a fun thing to think about. Looked at from a certain vantage point, "flood" seems to be a weasel word. Finetooth (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Buried streams

Somewhere in my pile of research notes about Johnson Creek is a note about buried tributaries. I can't seem to find it today. Meanwhile, a non-Wikipedian I was talking to a couple of days ago recalled seeing a map of all of the buried streams in Portland. Can any of you tell me where I might find that map? Finetooth (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

GAN?

I think this might be ready for a run at GA. Any thoughts? Finetooth (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just been waiting for you to say the word. I suspect it's well above and beyond. -Pete (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be foolish to take it straight to FA? I've never made a run at FA except as a helper. Finetooth (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Shake it down with GA first. Perhaps a reviewer will suggest FA? —EncMstr 05:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything hold it back from FA. A suggestion: put it up for GA and Peer Review simultaneously. Getting through a Peer Review is often a good leg up at FA. -Pete (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good advice. I'll make a GA nomination tomorrow and also ask for a Peer Review. Finetooth (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful work, folks. Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

Congratulations on an excellent article - I think it clearly meets all of the Good Article criteria and am passing it. While I have some suggestions for improvement, they are perhaps better suited to the concurrent peer review, so I will leave them there next. I also think this is fairly close to FA, but would ask for more reviewers commnets at peer review, using the volunteer's list at WP:PRV if you have not already.

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 19, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Clinton Creek?

I have lived in various places along Clinton St. for the last several years. Somewhere along the way I heard it said that it was once a creek, which makes sense (at least west of Powell) since it's a bit of a valley. Anybody know a good resource to check on this? If it was, I have no idea whether it would have flowed into Johnson Creek or directly into the Willamette. But I'm curious. -Pete (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know about that one, but I did find a city reference to three buried creeks on the west side here. Oddly, one of them was named Johnson Creek. If it gets daylighted someday, it will have to be added to the Johnson Creek disambiguation page and might have to be called Not Johnson Creek (Willamette River). Finetooth (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And here is something about Clinton Creek, although it might not have actually been called that. Finetooth (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Very cool! Though, it's frustrating that neither Clinton nor Colonial Heights are actual Portland, Oregon neighborhoods, so the source doesn't give a very clear picture of where these streams were. On a related note, I wonder about the deep fissure at Creston School, just south of Powell Blvd. at about 45th. Seems likely that was a part of a stream or wetland at one point, too. Ah well...so many things to wonder about! Thanks for tracking this much down, it's interesting. -Pete (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked the locations a bit to be more precise. The source mentions Ladds Addition in connection with the Colonial Heights stream, and Ladds was linkable. Finetooth (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Native history

Northwesterner1: The new material in the lead about native history is good stuff. Since the lead is a summary of the main text, I'd like to include the new material in the History section as well. Can you provide a source? Finetooth (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The vegetation info comes from these ecoregion maps made by the EPA: and . I'm secretly working on a series of articles about all of Oregon's ecoregions. When it's ready, it's going to be awesome. The ecoregions maps also talk about the burning of the prairie. The reference to the Chinook in particular is just from my own knowledge about the region, no particular source, but I'm sure we could dig one up easily.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Taylor citation, 31, in the History section covers the Chinookan claim and some of the other specifics. Her monograph is about 60 pages long, and it will be an even better source for the Clackamas River than it is for Johnson Creek. The Clackamas Indians had one of their main villages near the mouth of the Clackamas. She doesn't talk about specific vegetation, though. It's the "Oregon ash, alder, and western redcedar forests and scattered black cottonwood groves in riparian areas; Douglas-fir and Oregon white oak grew in the uplands" and the importance of camas that I have no handy source for. My computer keeps getting stuck when I try to download the Thorson and Pater (pdf) articles you mentioned. Might be a temporary server glitch. I'll keep trying. Finetooth (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The direct pdf links are ftp links rather than http links, which might be giving your computer trouble. Try starting from this html page to the Oregon poster. There are two sides, front and back. As far as I know, there is no html link for the Oregon and Washington poster, just the ftp link that I found via google.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> For context, the article series I'm working on will be structured as follows:

• List of ecoregions in North America
  • List of ecoregions in the United States (EPA)
    • List of ecoregions in Oregon
      • Coast Range (ecoregion)
      • Willamette Valley (ecoregion)
      • Cascades (ecoregion)
      • Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills (ecoregion)
      • Blue Mountains (ecoregion)
      • Klamath Mountains (ecoregion)
      • Columbia Plateau (ecoregion)
      • Snake River Plain (ecoregion)
      • Northern Basin and Range (ecoregion)

It's based on descending levels of ecoregions as defined by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, which is different than the global categorization by the World Wildlife Fund. Willamette Valley (ecoregion) is what's known as a Level III ecoregion, and then below that we have a Level IV ecoregion known as the Portland/Vancouver Basin, which includes most of the Johnson Creek watershed. I don't have any info specifically on Johnson Creek, but the Level IV ecoregions are defined to be the smallest unit, such that ecological characteristics should be common throughout the region. In case it helps with the Johnson Creek article, here's the paragraph I currently have on the basin:

The Portland/Vancouver Basin ecoregion (named for the cities of Portland and Vancouver) is a geological depression at the base of the Portland Hills fault block. It contains the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers and is composed of deltaic sands and gravels deposited by Pleistocene floods, notably the Missoula Floods. Elevation varies from 0 to 300 feet (0 to 91 m), with buttes as high as 650 feet (198 m). Historically, the basin was characterized by Oregon white oak groves and Douglas-fir forests on the uplands; black cottonwood groves on riverbanks and islands; Oregon ash, alder, and western redcedar in riparian areas; and prairie openings maintained by Native American burning, with camas, sedges, tufted hairgrass, fescue, and California oatgrass. Numerous wetlands, oxbow lakes, and ponds can still be found, but today the region is dominated by urban and suburban development, pastures, and tree farms. The climate is usually marine-influenced, but easterly winds entering via the Columbia River Gorge periodically bring continental temperature extremes. The region covers 305 square miles (790 km²) in Washington and 269 square miles (697 km²) in Oregon, including the northern and eastern suburbs of the Portland metropolitan area.

Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! That's an impressive project. I've had success with the downloads this evening. I'm not sure what was going on earlier. In any case, these documents look interesting. Thank you for finding them and pointing them out. Finetooth (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Buried streams redux

The nameless Clinton Street stream and many of its little friends have made it into the article. Thanks for the tips and nudges. As a side benefit, this allowed me to link to Tryon Creek and to want to link to the Columbia Slough and Balch Creek. I'm imagining future articles. Finetooth (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Field burning

Just to be on the safe side, I removed the fraction of one sentence in the lead that referred to field burning by the Clackamas tribe. I find support for saying the Kalapuya did this in the central Willamette Valley and further south and west, but I haven't found a source that says the Clackamas did it. They seem to have fished, hunted, and foraged east of the Willamette and north of Willamette Falls where there was heavy forest and little prairie. Finetooth (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's funny, I just read about that a couple days before you added it. So I think you can safely leave it in. Unfortunately I don't have this book with me any more, so I can't give a page number. But I will probably buy it, it's a good book: Dodds, Gordon B. (1986). The American Northwest: A history of Oregon and Washington. Wheeling, Illinois: Forum Press, Inc. ISBN 0-88273-239-0.

-Pete (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. After seeing your note, I put a hold on one of the library's six copies, and I will track down the page number. Finetooth (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this thread. I'll also look and see if I've got and refs that back this up. The way I understand it, if you've got Oak savanna, there will have been prescribed burning by various tribes. I know it was done further north on the prairie that is now part of Fort Lewis by the Nisqually. Now the Army does it, they are trying to save the prairie habitat from the Scotch broom (which first got its toehold in the U.S. at Fort Nisqually). Pretty cool. </tangent> BTW, this article? Kicks butt! Katr67 (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Watershed fractions

I'm gradually addressing questions raised via peer review and otherwise. One set of data that I have not yet found would show what percent the Johnson Creek watershed is of the Willamette River watershed or what percent of the Johnson Creek watershed is occupied by the Kelley Creek subwatershed. Does anybody know where a general set of quantitative relationships among Oregon watersheds can be found? If such a database exists, it could be used to answer similar questions about any Oregon creek or river. Finetooth (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, one would think it would be at http://www.oregonwatersheds.org/, most probably in http://www.oregonwatersheds.org/publications/statewideatlas Unfortunately, it eludes detection. It does point to http://www.jcwc.org/ which is already well tied with references to the article. (Why do we care how many milk jugs Johnson Creek would fill each year, and why would we place them to the Whitehouse? [1]

This one seems promising after briefly skimming it: http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/Rest_Priorities/Willamette_Watershed_Council_Summaries_Dec05.pdf beginning at page 20. —EncMstr (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out. Finetooth (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks extremely useful though it may not have those particular fractions. It's got loads of information on a lot of the streams I've been looking at. Thanks again. Finetooth (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Weir photo

EncMstr, do you mind if I remove the weir photo since it is such a close relative of the photo in the Hydrology section? I thought I should ask before acting. Finetooth (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all; I was thinking it was kind of redundant as well. It lives on in the right half of the other photo. —EncMstr (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ready for FA nomination?

I think this is ready for a run at FA. The article is GA and has been through peer review, and all but one of the reviewer's suggestions have led to improvements. The only exception involves the watershed ratios, for which I have not found a source. I think the watershed map, which has appeared in various forms, has at last evolved into its true self. Have I missed anything, or should I go for it? Finetooth (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ready. Great work.Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Yours is a great example of effective hard work! —EncMstr (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't wait! -Pete (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinook Map

Can't figure out why, but the Chinook map image is not showing up in Firefox -- not in the article, not on the image page, not on commons. Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Chinook map seems to be fine on my computer and seems to be OK on the Commons. On the other hand, a user has mentioned that she keeps getting an old version (the one with the multicolored course map that I replaced with the watershed map) of the article when she does a Google search for Johnson Creek (Willamette River). A cache-cleaning did not solve the problem. I am seeing something else odd that I had not noticed before. The watershed map appears to have a one-pixel black border on the left-hand edge that I did not consciously add. I'm going to hold off on the nomination for a little while we figure these things out. Anybody else having trouble with the Chinook map or a mysterious redirect to an archived version? Finetooth (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirect page

The user who is getting the archived version of the article seems to be getting redirected to it from here, created by User:Tomakiv in February, when the article was moved. If this same user goes to the Johnson Creek disambiguation page here and takes the link (also added by Tomakiv) to the Johnson Creek (Willamette River) article, she gets the correct version. I haven't encountered any problems with the redirect; in fact, I didn't know it existed. Could it be causing a problem? Finetooth (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

lead

Does the lead seem a little long? I was just about to split it into a history section and was wondering what to do with the lead's fourth (and last) paragraph, when I noticed there already is a history section near the bottom. Maybe it could be condensed a bit more? Rough stab:

Originally, the watershed was thick forest and supported Native Americans who fished and hunted. White settlers cleared much of the land for farming, and by the 20th century, housing replaced farms along the creek. A rail line encouraged nearby development; urbanization altered water patterns making seasonal floods more damaging. In the 1930s, the Works Progress Administration improved the lower channel intending to control the floods. Unfortunately, the creek flooded 37 times between 1941 and 2006. Since the 1990s, additional efforts attempt to reduce flooding by controlling runoff, adding stream meanders, reducing impervious surfaces, and fortifying riparian buffers.

Recent propaganda literature from PGE says they've removed a number of impoundments to help control floods, and to allow fish to migrate. Should that go here too? —EncMstr (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the length of the lead is OK, though I'm not dug in about this, but I don't like the large amount of white space to the right of the table of contents. One way to fix that might be to shorten the lead, but I think the lead is more-or-less the right length in terms of summarizing the main text. Another option would be to fill the negative space with something. Some Wikipedia stream articles use a second map, which is a nice option if a second map is handy. I could use a dot map to show the location of the mouth of the creek, but I don't see an Oregon base map that lends itself to making a dot map. I have never made a dot map, so I might be misunderstanding something about them. Any ideas? Finetooth (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The PGE stuff should probably go into the floods section if we can source it. I didn't know that PGE was removing impoundments in the JC watershed. They must be doing this on one or more of the tributaries because the main stem seems to be free-flowing already except for structures like the weir that blocks one channel around that island in the photo. Finetooth (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe the recent history part of the history section. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>After pondering for a couple of days, EncMstr, I decided you were right about this and removed some of the details from the lead, trying to leave an adequate general summary. Before revising the lead, I moved the History section up above the Floods because the floods can only be understood in terms of the history. Further tweaks may be necessary, but I think the overall flow and logic of the article has been improved by these changes, and I thank you again. Finetooth (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a great improvement. Some of those details were unique there, and ought to be woven into the appropriate sections.

The tree list appears in the Wildlife and vegetation section; William Johnson details are in History; and data about the riprap are in Floods. Finetooth (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I made an Oregon locator map some time ago and added it as a dot map for the mouth of the creek just now. I also made both maps 300 px wide to match the lead image. Please revert if this is not what was wanted. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of a red dot, what would a red line which shows the rough course of the stream look like? If it's bigger than the red dot, that would be a great way of putting the scales in perspective. —EncMstr (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Oregon map is calibrated so any Geobox using it will put a red dot at the proper latitude and longitude for the coordinates given (for rivers and creeks, the mouth). Making the red line map would be more difficult as I would actually have to take the base map and draw the line in by hand. If there is strong agreement this would be better, I can work on it, but I would like to hear what others think first. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize it was not a combined graphic. What seemed peculiar is the caption "here is where the mouth is". Is it possible to put two dots on? Another for the source? —EncMstr (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the way the Geobox is written, only a dot for the mouth can be shown (and User:Caroig did this, I just use it). A hand-drawn red line would show both the source and mouth. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I really appreciate having the dot map. I hunted around for the right map for a while but failed to find it and sped away to other things. Finetooth (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

TOC

I found a template which limits the number of subsections in the table of contents. I set it to "2" which shows only the main sections (==section==). Perhaps the subsections which were combined to decrease the TOC can be added back, if it makes sense to do so. —EncMstr (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nifty template. When I first added the subheads, it helped me keep things sorted out. I'm not sure they are all needed. Do you have an opinion about whether the article is better with them or without them? Finetooth (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Geology and topography seems like a good combination, though if geology were expanded, it would be good to separate them again.

Soils and hydrology seem better separate, but just barely.

I have the same reactions to Macroinvertebrates and fish and Wildlife and vegetation: Leave the first combined, separate the second. And again, just barely: I don't feel strongly one way or the other.

Mostly, I cringed seeing the article altered just because of the table of contents length. Restoration projects is a bit odd as a subsection without another subsection, but I don't have a better idea. —EncMstr (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree about the fish, etc. Done. Also, I had been toying with idea of not using that "Restoration projects" subhead, so after seeing your note I removed it. I was also wondering whether it wise to allow my layout concerns to override other concerns. The template seems to have solved this. I wonder if a template exists to make a TOC wider. Might be useful sometimes. Oh, do you happen to know what the "clear" template does? I see one or two in the article, but I don't know what they're for. Finetooth (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

{{clear}} (and its workalikes {{clr}} and {{-}}) prevent items below it (text, tables, images) from wrapping beside things above it. I've seen horizontal table of contents; I'll look into that. —EncMstr (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The horizontal TOCs are boilerplate linking to presumed-to-exist sections like the U.S. state names, or A through Z, etc. There doesn't appear to be a sanctioned method of making a naturally-occurring TOC horizontal. However, the template which limits the depth of TOCs suggests a way it might be done. Even it were worked out, it's likely to be contrary to WP:MOS. Should we try it anyway? —EncMstr (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> I'm making note of the {{clear}} info, which is sure to be useful in the future. And, no, let's not do anything that might violate MOS. Finetooth (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaw hits floor

Nice map, Northwesterner! :-O (might want to think about sizing for those with slower internet connections?) -Pete (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - that is an amazing photo map! Thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You all keep surprising me with the most wonderful things. Thanks Northwesterner. I would never have thought of something like this or had any idea how to do it. Without extensive collaboration and a lot of combined talents, the article could not possibly have come as far as it has. Finetooth (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. It was fun to work on. Help me out on the file size here: User:Northwesterner1/johnsontest. There is one test version with a smaller screen size; I can read it fine, but I worry about readers who have eyesight that is not as good. Then there are several versions experimenting with different compression methods. They all introduce artifacts of one kind or another, but it is probably a good trade-off for the decreased file size. These are just a few possibilities... we could also try others. (The original file, not uploaded, is a 15 MB 9024x600 px .psd so there is a lot of room to play.) Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

They all look fine to me. The last one has way more bang per byte than the others.

How much more compressed could it be? What would happen if the satellite image were desaturated, then reduced to a single 8-bit plane with contrast enhancement to fill the range, and then add the graphics on top? That ought to compress very nicely. —EncMstr (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

All seem readable to me. The biggest file is slow enough to load that it might not be a good option. A reasonable compromise between clarity and speed might be #3, but that's merely a guess. I know nothing about "single 8-bit planes" or other technical options, so I can't help a lot with this question. Finetooth (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed to #3 for now so that the image load is better while the article goes through FA. If we decide to go with that, or with a different version, I will re-upload it under a better file name in a few days. Good compression suggestions, EncMstr. Unfortunately, not possible this time, as I drew the creek directly on the background instead of adding an extra layer, and there are some other layers merged along the way. But something to improve on for the next time I try something like this.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Resource

By the way, if you all like maps, you should check out Nasa Worldwind. It was around before Google Earth, and for Wikipedia's purposes it's better, because the program itself is free and open-source, and much of the data is public domain so it can be used for commercial purposes. You can load various layers: Landsat 7 imagery at 15 m resolution for the globe, black and white USGS aerial survey photos at 1 m resolution the whole United States, USGS digital ortho images at .25m for urban areas, and, my personal favorite, USGS topo maps. The digital elevation data (which allows 3D models) is via NASA and USGS, so I believe it is also public domain. (Info on sources: [2] and [3].) Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I will certainly check this out. Beware of NASA maps generated using databases copyrighted in other countries. One of my Antarctic maps bit the dust yesterday over a copyright question involving the Antarctic Digital Database, which is copyrighted in Britain and used sometimes by NASA scientists. The British copyright does not allow commercial re-use. Thinking the NASA map was in the public domain, I was blithely unaware of this complication, but now I know. Finetooth (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Map Methods

I posted a how-to guide at User:Northwesterner1/photomaps in case anyone wants to give it a try (or edit mine).Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

External links, bibliography

User:Mojska has noted at FAC that it would be fine to add an external links section and a bibliography to the article. Since all of the article's sources so far are Internet-based and linked to in the Notes, I don't think a bibliography is needed. On the other hand, external links might be useful. I had a two-item external links section for a while but removed it after including the links (to watershed maps) in the watershed map licensing data and in the Notes section. It seemed redundant to put them in an external links section but maybe not. I think I'll re-add the Oregon Trout map link, which is the more interesting of the two maps to look at and has details not shown in the same way on any of our other maps. Would other links be useful? If so, what should they be? Finetooth (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.jcwc.org, even though it is used as a reference (3, 4, 21, 30, 35), seems like it deserves special status as an external link.

How about this one? http://www.oregon-plan.org/OPSW/stories/willamette.shtml —EncMstr (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Both good, both added. Glad to add more if any seem appropriate. Finetooth (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

west side watersheds

In an edit summary, user:Northwesterner1 asks:

Question: Do the west side watersheds lie outside the scope of this article?

I think so. They would go well in the Willamette River article, or even something like Watersheds of Portland, though that would be a bit silly considering the current scope of the Willamette River article. —EncMstr (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is we have a natural system that overlaps with a political system. Oregon's river articles are currently set up mostly on a natural system (based on the tributary structure). Thus, info. on Fanno Creek should go in Tualatin River; info. on Tualatin River should go in Willamette River. Under the current organization, Fanno Creek doesn't really have anything to do with Johnson Creek. I wouldn't even link Fanno Creek in Willamette River, as you suggest. From a natural perspective, there's just no reason to do that unless you're going to link all the creeks from all the other tributaries that feed into the Willamette. On the other hand, from a political perspective, Fanno Creek is more important to the two million people in the Portland metro area who make Oregon's political decisions than some obscure creek feeding into the Luckiamute. And Portland metro sure thinks it's worth mentioning Fanno and Johnson on the same page. So it makes some sense to have creeks and rivers linked together in articles when they belong to the same jurisdictional body or political community, even if they don't feed into the same tributary.

I like the way the Network of Oregon Watershed Councils organizes itself around local watershed councils. They group the state into "Central," "Northeast," "Southeast," "Southwest," and "Willamette." It's kind of a hybrid natural-political system. Willamette includes all the watersheds feeding into the Willamette River system but also a few that feed directly into the Columbia. So for now I like the idea of Watersheds of Portland. And someday when we get real adventurous, we could do a full-on article on Oregon watershed councils. Northwesterner1 (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with EncMstr; this extraneous information mars what is otherwise undeniably a Featured Article -- even without the rating. (I had come here to ask the same question after reading this article for the first time.) If these other creeks are relevant, I believe the best way to handle them would be to list them under "See also" -- or have a general article on the urban streams of the Portland Metro area. -- llywrch (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed for now, pending the creation of a Watersheds of Portland or similar article.Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. I had forgotten about this loose end. Finetooth (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Course photomap

How about arranging the panels in a grid, instead of a horizontal line? That way, a thumbnail would give the reader a rough idea what was available, and allow him/her to click in to see more detail -Pete (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why it would be better for the reader to click in to see detail in a grid vs. clicking in to see detail in the scrolling version. I've just added the scroll to the image page to enable the latter.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been stuck trying to think of a way to (a) use the map and (b) reduce the load time. I'm handicapped in this by my ignorance of the technical issues involved in making and manipulating unusual images. User:Elcobbola has kindly suggested three possibilities: "[1) to utilize a thumbnail with a larger than average forced size, (2) to create an alternative image with less frames and a link to the full version for those who want more than just a sample or (3) to upload a lower resolution/quality version (i.e. more so than has already been done)." User:Northwesterner1, would any of these four ideas work for you? I know you offered the 512K option earlier, but maybe a thumbnail linking to the 4MB version would be better. Or maybe Pete's idea would work. Finetooth (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything works for me. Let me know what you'd prefer, and I'll implement it.

(1) A 600-px thumbnail looks like this. Much larger than that would probably not be advisable, because of users with narrow screen widths. And I don't believe the scroll bar works inside a thumbnail.

We could also arrange the thumbnail in two or three rows, per Pete's grid suggestion, so that it is more squarish and can be a little larger, but it still won't be legible on the article itself. The reader would need to click through to the image page to see the full map. I believe we could put the wide image template on the image page to enable scrolling there. (I've just done this.)

(2) Same deal. I can make a thumb of the first panel and we could link to the original image page with the scrolling version there.

(3) The 512KB option is fine with me and is half the size of what's currently in the article. Anything lower than that, I think the image is degraded too much. I could also try a 250-pixel image saved as a jpeg at 60 quality (a hybrid of #2 and #5 at User:Northwesterner1/johnsontest) which would probably get it down to 300-350K or so.

(4) (Deleted by Northwesterner... see below)

Let me know if you want me to flesh out any of those ideas with actual examples. Might take me a day or two because of real-world obligations. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Best option?

Okay, I've tried out an option I listed above as Option 4. I think this may be the best way to do it. This image can go in the article. It's 133 KB, which is not a problem. By clicking on the caption, the reader goes to the 1.06 MB image (currently in the article) with a scrolling preview. If they happen to click on the image instead, they go to the 133 KB image, but there is a scrolling preview of the 1.06 MB version, so they still see the same thing. If desired, we can link from both the 133 KB image and the 1.06 MB image to a full high resolution 4.00 MB or larger image for downloading.

Map of Johnson Creek. The route has been artificially straightened by orienting each of the panels differently. The compass marks north for each. (Zoom in)

What do you think?Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I was leaning toward (1), but this is better because it gives every reader something pretty nice, and it offers more to those who want to see more. Finetooth (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've uploaded three new files: Image:Johnson Creek (large).png, Image:Johnson Creek (medium).png, and Image:Johnson Creek (small).jpg. The small image is displayed in the article using the wide image tempalte. The medium image is displayed using the wide image template on the image pages of both the small image (reached by clicking the image in the article) and the medium image (reached by clicking the caption "Zoom in"). The large file is intended for printing. All three files are linked in the summaries on the image pages.Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an elegant solution that provides an unusual array of options. Brilliant. Finetooth (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Johnson & Johnson question

Just wondering what S.E. Johnson Creek Blvd is referring to (I noticed it in the second frame here), when the article says the creek was named after a William Johnson. — Zaui (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. And BTW, nice work - I added the article to the Portal. — Zaui (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

SE Johnson Creek Blvd is a street that runs along the creek for a few miles in southeast Portland. I don't know for sure, but I would assume that the street is named after the creek, which was named after William Johnson.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I saw S.E. (with the periods) and assumed they were initials for another person named Johnson, not referring to Southeast. Never mind. — Zaui (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Taggart

Neighborhood folklore indicates that the creek I was asking about a while back (along Clinton St.) was called "Taggart Creek". Note that this appears to jive with footnote #14 (the BES one). I suspect there might have been two separate creeks -- one up in my neighborhood, from about 70th to 41st, and then another down by Ladd's Addition. (There's a big hill at about 39th Avenue.) Anyway, I'll be asking around to see if I can find any good sources, but I thought I'd share my preliminary findings. -Pete (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I keep finding new things. It turns out that the Johnson Creek on the west side is actually on the surface from near the Hoyt Arboretum down to Burnside Street, where it goes underground. Also, if the Sullivan's Gulch neighborhood association is correct, a little stream came down through there at one time, had a waterfall on it, and was a favored picnic spot. Sometimes, though, I wonder if I'm going too far with the level of detail. I'm imagining an essentially infinite forking of every stream down to the molecular level. Oh, no! Finetooth (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Google Maps tells amazing things -- I think the other bit of folklore I reported earlier was true! Take a look at the terrain lines here. Looks like the mythical "Taggert Creek" actually DID drain into Crystal Springs! All I'll need now is a good RS...shouldn't be too hard to come by, I'll ask around. -Pete (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)