| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  FA | This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Washington, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Washington on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | FA | This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. | | | | | | [edit] Ecological impact 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) Fowler&fowler's comments: - 2. The river's heavy flow, and its large elevation drop over a relatively short distance, give it tremendous potential for the generation of electricity.
- 2a.("large elevation drop over a relatively short distance" is vague, since we aren't told what this distance is.) So, either, "The river's heavy flow, and its large elevation drop over its relatively short course, give it tremendous potential for the generation of electricity." Or,
- 2b. "The river's heavy flow, and its relatively steep gradient, give it tremendous potential for the generation of electricity."
- 4. It has been used in various forms as a medium for transportation, and increasingly, for shipping various goods.
- 4a. ("in various forms" is ambiguous. Does it refer to the medium or the forms of transportation?)
- 5. The river system hosts numerous anadromous fish, which migrate between fresh water streams and the Pacific Ocean.
- 5a. The river system hosts numerous species of anadromous fish, which migrate between the water streams and the Pacific Ocean.
- 6. These fish—especially the various species of salmon—provided the core subsistence for natives; in past centuries, traders from all over western North America would travel to the Columbia to trade for fish.
- 6a. (Tense shift; need present perfect.) "These fish—especially the various species of salmon—have provided the core subsistence for natives; in past centuries, traders from all over western North America would travel to the Columbia to trade for fish."
- 7. The Columbia provided access to the Willamette Valley for explorers arriving by both land and sea, as well as transportation within the region, and the development of steamship lines linked communities along the river prior to the installation of railroads.
- 7a. (Need to qualify "Willamette Vally;" otherwise, all too anonymous. Also, from "as well as transportation " onwards, the sentence is difficult to decipher. Please rephrase or break up into two sentences.) The first half might be better as: "The Columbia provided access to the fertile (and mineral-rich?) Willamette Valley for explorers arriving by both land and sea, ... "
- 8. Public and private entities have heavily developed the river since the 19th century.
- 8a. "entities" is vague. So is "19th century" since it spreads over a hundred years, better to say "early, mid-, or late 19th century, or the turn of the 20th century" (whichever formulation best describes it.) i.e. something along the lines of: "Since the mid-19th century, the river has been heavily developed by both the public and private sectors."
- 9. The development, commonly referred to as taming or harnessing of the river, includes dredging and the construction of locks and canals for navigation by larger ships; the construction of dams for power generation, irrigation, and flood control; nuclear weapons research and production; and the generation of nuclear power. These projects have had a tremendous impact on the ecology of the river, perhaps most notably through industrial pollution and various impacts on fish migration.
- 9a. :) What can I say? Please expand and break up into three, four, or even five sentences that provide some details to draw a reader in; otherwise, many readers will not get past the lead to the real treasures of the article.
- General remark. I wonder if it might be worth having one footnote in the lead, next to "largest" in the first sentence, since readers are going puzzle over the term a little. Although you provide the term's three interpretations in the next three sentences, a footnote, that explicitly states the USGS's definition, "Rivers are considered large on the basis of one or more of three characteristics : total length from source to mouth, area of basin (watershed) drained by the stream, and average rate of flow (discharge) at the mouth." might be very helpful. It would have been for me when I first encountered the lead sentence.
All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Pete and Pfly, I used User:Fowler&fowler's helpful suggestions to modify several sentences in the lead and to add a note quoting the USGS definition of "largest river". My eyes grow dim, however, and I must knock off for the evening. I did not get to comments 4, 7, 8, or 9, which seem to require slightly more thought than I'm capable of at the moment. I have an appointment mid-morning on Monday but might be on-line before then and certainly by afternoon. If you finish without me, that's perfectly fine. Finetooth (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC) - I addressed #4 by simply reducing the wording to "It has been used for transportation since ancient times", figuring that transportation includes shipping of goods, and that there is no need to get into distinguishing barge vs. ocean shipping vs. canoes and bateaux and what not. Feel free to expand if desired. Thanks for doing most of it, Finetooth! I'll see what else I can get to tonight. Pfly (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I've addressed all but #9, mainly taking the leads provided by Fowler&fowler. The #9 point is a bit trickier. Thinking about it. Also, feel free to edit my edits, naturally. Pfly (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ok ok, I addressed them all! On point #9 my inclination was to reduce, but F&f recommended expanding, so I did. There's a number of ways F&f's points could be addressed. Hopefully one or both of you will check my work to make sure I didn't make any stupid mistakes. Should be alright though, I think. Pfly (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and thank you Fowler&fowler for the excellent feedback and useful suggestions. Those were all awkward sentences, at best. And by offering suggestions you did half the work yourself! Thanks! Pfly (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- Looking good, Pfly. So glad you appeared just as I nodded off. I popped in briefly just now and fiddled a bit more, but I must rush off. I'll return this afternoon. Finetooth (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Lemme echo the appreciation for the detailed and insightful feedback; thanks Pfly and Finetooth for jumping right in. I just made a few adjustments. Most are pretty minor and self-explanatory, but let me comment on a few of them:
- I tried to broaden the perspective and reduce details in a few instances. The fact the river rises "in the Rockies" seems important from a global perspective; the idea that its watershed is "the size of France" is, I think, easier for the general reader to wrap his/her head around than the exact number of square miles, which may be found in the infobox or the Watershed section; etc.
- I changed Pfly's choice on the "tremendous hydro potential" bit; in the source cited, it is the combination of the short length and the large elevation drop that is considered significant. So "steepness" seems like a good, succinct way of expressing that; again, the exact numbers may be found in the supporting sections (I think, need to double-check that).
- I'm pretty sure it's just the locks associated with the dams, not the dams themselves, that were built for navigation. Unless I'm missing something…perhaps the depth of the impoundments permits larger boats, or something? Also, since the Willamette has a famous locks as well, I removed the specific mention of the Snake. (I'm not sure if there are other tributaries with locks?)
- I adjusted the way nukes are covered; most significantly, I mentioned Trojan Nuclear Power Plant. It occurs to me that the absence of any mention of that is a significant omission; I'll try to add it and cite it in the body text this afternoon.
- I hope you guys will look over what I've done, in case there's a need for further adjustments. (Is there ever not such a need??) -Pete (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- The four lower Snake River dams were built with the primary purpose of navigation, at least (this from the national dam inventory database--don't have a URL offhand). Of course they also make hydroelectric power. Good point about it not being just the Snake tributary. And ah, I didn't know the Trojan plant actually ever made power. Anyway, gotta run, will look again in a bit! Pfly (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Whoa, the national inventory of dams is no longer viewable by the public, how annoying. The idea though is that the dams were built with multiple purposes and justifications, with navigation being among them. Any dam with associated locks is going to have had navigation as part of its purpose at least. It could be none of the main stem dams had navigation as a primary purpose though. And yea--not so much the depths of the impoundments but the speed of the current and width of the river makes it easier to large tug-barges to get around. They string them together as large as they possibly can. There were a number of minor rapids too. Anyway, it's no big deal, especially now that the NID is for military eyes only. The lead looks much better. I'll read with a more critical eye when my brain isn't being diverted so much. Pfly (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Better and better. If the dam claim is factually accurate, the dams should probably go back into the locks sentence partly because the locks now precede the dams in the paragraph, and this creates a cart-horse problem; the locks can't physically precede the dams. Also, I replaced "ecology" with "environment" in the final sentence because I think the primary meaning of "ecology" is "a branch of science". I'm not quite sure about this, so revert if you think this is goofy. Finetooth (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- This all looks good. The locks actually did precede the dams, at least at Cascade Rapids, Willamette Falls, and Celilo…so I think that order is OK. Working the word "navigation" back into the sentence on dams seems advisable, per Pfly. Environments seems good. I wonder if we should maybe make a slightly more general statement about fish, since there are lots of impacts besides migration impediments…overfishing, industrial waste, pikeminnow population… -Pete (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
<outdent>:How would this do as a revised dam-lock-navigation sequence: "Since the early 20th century, dams have been built across the river for the purposes of power generation, irrigation, navigation, and flood control. Locks along the lower Columbia and its tributaries allow ship and barge navigation through the dams, and dredging keeps shipping channels open." Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC) -
- I agree with you about the fish. Two examples of environmental changes seems a bit thin. Irrigating has changed the environment, and the river traffic has introduced exotic species. I don't know which things are more important; Hanford's effects on the river may be (so far) relatively insignificant compared to the dams, mine seepage, and non-point-source pollution. I think you and Pfly know more about this than I. Finetooth (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- On second or third or fourth thought, this part of the lead seems fine as is. Other details can be found in the main text section. Finetooth (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- re: navigation, sorry to be picky, but I think the locks-first sequence should be preserved…several sets of locks were built in the 19th cen., and were pretty significant. I'll ruminate on the fishier stuff…good points. -Pete (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, Pete. Yes, you're right. I'm flying around a bit too fast today. Finetooth (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I added the word "navigation" to the existing list of dam purposes. Finetooth (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Just an aside, I have a copy of the national inventory of dams in my office should you folks need me to look something up. Kmusser (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I've made a few more tweaks to the lead--things that seem to read better to me. As always feel free to change as desired. Kmusser--sometime I might take you up on that. I've found the NID quite useful at times. I think I have a GIS-type copy around somewhere, but who knows where. Pfly (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Also, re to Finetooth, I don't know a great deal about the pollution issues, at least not offhand. I have some books that get into it though. Perhaps I'll look into it in the effort to achieve PA status. :-) ...or at least to flesh out that sentence in the lead. Pfly (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for your work, Pfly, on the final four of F&f's suggestions and all the rest you've done. This really has been quite an interesting and successful collaboration. Would you and Pete be interested in working the Willamette River up to FA some fine day? Finetooth (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sure--it has been quite enjoyable. I don't know a huge amount about the Willamette River, but that would make learning about it all the more interesting. It's possible I'll someday move down to Oregon so I better start getting ready for the citizenship test! (later note: but if so, I'll need help with pronunciations. Tualatin? Luckiamute?? Calapooia??? Ye Gods!) Pfly (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken, aren't you from the land of the S'Klallam, Tsimshian, Ktunaxa, and Sinixt? I'd be very pleased to work on the Willamette with you guys. I will probably want a couple weeks to focus or drier entities though! -Pete (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, well currently yes, and to be precise, the county of Snohomish--a place name that still makes me giggle sometimes. I've gotten used to all the sno-, -mish, nook-, and -wuches around here, but there seems to be a whole other variety of odd in Oregon (also, Tsimshian and Ktunaxa are from Planet Canada). At any rate I'm loss on the pronunciations. Before I moved to the northwest I pronounced Willamette (on the rare occasions when it came up) "willa-MET-eh". I'm originally from the land of the Seneca, Cayuga, and, well, Cheektowaga--you know, proper place names! Finetooth, you got my attention--now I'm looking into Oregon geography. There's got to be somewhere I can add the story about the fork in the Oregon/California trail, where the way to CA was marked by a piles of fools gold and the way to OR by a sign saying "Oregon", and "those who could read went to Oregon". Pfly (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Couple o' questions from one who hasn't totally been following... I hope these questions are not out of place, but here they are: - I find the article in the list at Featured articles, but I don't see the FA star on the page. Is "receiving the star" actually a later stage, maybe when it actually APPEARS as an FA? I can't find it in the schedule either. Or is this a glitch? Other articles that I checked from that page all had their stars, even ones scheduled to appear in October. (And I see no way to find out, from the FA page, the order in which/date on which they were favorited.)
- I seem to remember that awhile back there was some discussion of including a clip of Woody Guthrie's song, Roll On, Columbia, Roll On, in particular whether there was a public domain version that could be used. I see now that the page just mentioned does have a short clip. Should the clip be included here? or was there a considered decision not to use it?
- — Martha (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
-
- (1) A bot will eventually add the star and update the FA template material at the top of this page. "Eventually" usually means soon, but I think it depends on how busy the reviewers of the FAC process happen to be. (2) During the FAC, a media reviewer doubted that the Woody sound file met all the requirements for non-free use in this particular article. Pete responded, "I think you're right. We should probably remove the OGG file. Do I understand correctly you have no objection to the Guthrie photo (public domain) and the quote from the song (surely a very appropriate fair use snippet, which helps the reader understand the marketing and cultural aspects of the dam development)?" and the media reviewer said those looked fine. So we still have Woody but not the sound file. Non-free rationales differ from article to article, so use of the OGG file might be fine elsewhere. Finetooth (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Good answers, Finetooth :) More specifically on the audio file…Wikipedia's standards on the use of copyright material are generally more restrictive than what's legally permissible. As a general rule, it's OK to have a small sample of something on "its own" article, but not so much on "merely related" articles. And, my research about those songs led to a clear decision from an extensive legal process that determined the songs are not in the public domain. My understanding of the relevant laws makes me a bit dubious that was the correct decision, but I don't have any judicial robes to back that up, so I guess I don't get to win that battle.
- And Mom, I'll just assume that the copy of the article you've taped to the fridge has a gold star on it already ;) Thanks for the support. -Pete (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Coincidence, maybe - but it NOW has its star! And it's good to know what happened about the song. If nothing else, it sounds like getting it onto the page is NOT a battle that's worth fighting. People who are interested can - WILL - find it elsewhere. Funny thing is, I happened to hear it on the radio within the past day! — Martha (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Rapids of the pre-dam era I think the idea has come up before of researching, listing, and expanding info on the various now-mostly-forgotten rapids of the Columbia River. Besides the famous ones there were scores of others. I'm not planning on doing much with this for some time, but I found a good source (US ACE maps of 1882) showing and naming the rapids between Oregon and BC (yes, so it is incomplete, but a start anyway). I wrote up a roughly hacked bit of text and a list of the main rapids on a subpage of mine here: User:Pfly/Historic Rapids of the Columbia River. It might be interesting to some day make a list page about the various rapids, now submerged. Someday perhaps I will make a map of the rapids I have been able to find. Anyway, nothing of great import--just thought I'd mention this new discovery here, for the curious. Pfly (talk) 09:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC) - I think "List of submerged rapids of the Columbia River" is a wonderful idea. Table columns could include name, river-mile location; coordinates, date submerged, brief description, length perhaps. Looks like you've got a nearly complete list already. Finetooth (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, complete between Wallula and Canada anyway. Plenty more in Canada (Les Dalles des Morts etc). Glad you like the idea...maybe I'll find time one of these days. :-) Pfly (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] List of rapids page added to template Just a note, I've made List of rapids of the Columbia River and added it to the template {{Columbia River}}. I didn't make a table as talked about above. Given the varying info and some lengthy additional info for certain rapids, it made more sense to make a "prose" list. I put a list of rapids I couldn't quite figure out, along with additional sources, discussion, and random notes from my sandbox page on Talk:List of rapids of the Columbia River. Pfly (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC) [edit] settlements/communities subcats please see Category_talk:Columbia_River#Settlements.2FCommunities_subcatsSkookum1 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC) - I don't know the background of past decisions or consensus, but I agree that "settlements" is probably a better term than "communities." -Pete (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I should have mentioned that the settlements cat is a subcat of the communities cat; I'll un-subcat it and migrate everything from the communities cat to the "settlements" one.....this same discussion was had with Category:Settlements on the Fraser River though in that case a CfD was held as its former name was Category:Cities on the Fraser River - "city 'being a legal status in BC and not inclusive, of course, of small settlements and other classes of municipality. Once the migration is done I'd venture that a non-controversial deletion of the communities cat should be OK. Thoughts?Skookum1 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I never looked at those cats--they seem oddly short, incomplete? Also I noticed one possible mistake: Colville, Washington: not really on the Columbia. The original Fort Colville was, but the present city is about 10 miles from the river. How close does a settlement/community need to be to be "on the river"? I'd assume it would need to actually border the river, yes? Colville doesn't. Pfly (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
|
.png){kind=small}
