Talk:Columbia River
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Talk:Columbia_River".

content
Good article Columbia River has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
 
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 • Archive 2

Contents

Troubles with History section

The history section seems to have somewhat of a pro-American slant, or at least to be written too much from an American (non-neutral) viewpoint. In particular, the assertions about the effect of Gray's entry of the Columbia River on American claims to the whole "Oregon Country" seem much over-stated. Gray himself does not seem to have made much of it, beyond that it afforded him some good trading, and American territorial claims on its basis were not mooted at the time -- at least not that I have read. The whole idea that this one bit of exploration by a private trader should have given the U.S. territorial claim to so vast an area, an area that was being much more extensively explored by other nations at the time, seems preposterous, and all the more so considering that the U.S. only extended east to the Missisippi at the time, the Louisiana Purchase being over a decade away, as yet. American territorial claims in the era a little afterward were not always conspicuous for their reasonableness, and a hagiographic, hindsight over-emphasis on the effect of Gray would not be out of character for them, but this needs to be presented for what it is. I've added some material on George Vancouver's explorations, which balances matters out somewhat.
A couple of other points seem doubtful to me; I've tagged them as needing citations.
-- Lonewolf BC 01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Flows

I edited the volume. For this time of year mean flow is over 300,000 cfs. Total yearly mean flow is somewhat lower, but not less than 284,000 cfs, which makes the Columbia larger in Volume than the St. Lawrence and Mackenzie. Tides can affect the gaging, as when water is inflowing the discharge will read much lower. [1] - User:Peckvet55 05:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The 284,000 cfs value is not supported by the reference link you provided . . . unless you're referring to the median value given in the link, which is only for May 1. The 265,000 cfs value is referenced, and it's consistent with the value obtained during the 1941-70 survey (262,000 cfs). Furthermore, the Mackenzie and St. Lawrence discharges are both well over 300,000 cfs at the mouth (see their wikipedia article links as well as [2]).

User:Myasuda 13:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Largest Rivers in the United States, a USGS report -- much better than raw stream gage data. Pfly 15:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Everything above here is duplicated in /Archive 2, kept here only inasmuch as the discussions may (?) not be resolved yet. -Pete (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I jumped right in today and made my first edit to this article by changing the claim that the Columbia was the fourth largest river by volume in North America to say that it was the fourth largest by volume in the U.S. (Mississippi, St. Lawrence, Ohio, Columbia, according to the USGS). I made this edit before realizing that the question had been debated here earlier. The MacKenzie is quite a bit bigger in discharge volume (10,300 m³/s as compared to 7,480 m³/s), as User:Myasuda has said. My source for the MacKenzie number is here in the subsection called "The 25 River Systems with Greatest Average Discharge Rates". Finetooth (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

More notes for future expansion

The Bureau of Reclamation apparently had a lot to do with the building of dams and the economic development of the region. Notably, the Bureau was working on a "secret plan" in 1965 to divert the Columbia to California, but was thwarted by Washington Sen. Scoop Jackson. Also, the collapse of the Teton Dam in 1976 prompted the Carter administration to put the brakes on dam development, and declare that the rivers of the West had been successfully "harnessed." The book Cadillac Desert, reviewed here in the Seattle Times, explores the history of the agency. Also, this Washington Post article discusses the new approach of Carter's Interior Department.

;Time magazine article about Woody Guthrie and the BPA, and the evloving politics of the region.: Morrow, Lance (July 8, 2002). "This Land Is Whose Land? Times and priorities change. Woody Guthrie hailed Lewis and Clark for finding a place to build dams. Today his tune might be different", Time. 

DONE (not a very good or comprehensive article, so I found a citation from the Oregonian too) -Pete 19:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

;Time magazine article on Kennewick Man: Lemonick, Michael D.; Andrea Dorfman (March 13, 2006). "Who Were The First Americans?", Time. 

;Fortune mag. article: cheap power makes river attractive for tech companies/server farms. -Pete 20:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Movies

I cut out the following section from the main page. I'd like to see about getting this article reviewed for "Good" status, and another editor (VanTucky) pointed out that anything resembling a "trivia" section might be an impediment. If there is value in this section, can it be extracted and combined into the prose of the article somewhere else? Surely not all these movies need to be listed. -Pete 15:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a general paragraph on the general use of the Columbia in movies and TV with mention of only one or to specific instances and move the remainder of the citations to the locality articles where they are more appropriate, for example- The Goonies to the Astoria article, Maverick to Hood River etc... --Kevmin 18:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer also creating Columbia River in popular media (or something like that). Finding the bits and pieces would be not straightforward to difficult. —EncMstr 20:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
An article such as the above would almost certainly be nominated for deletion, considering the recent trends in AFD. I would suggest relegating the content to the talk page until a good prose section can be reintegrated in to the article. Why create a popular culture holding space if it's just going to be deleted? VanTucky (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In the movies

Culture

Below are the remnants of the "Culture" section, after I moved the history of indigenous peoples to what I think is a more appropriate part of the article. These bits need to remain in the article, I think, but I'm not sure exactly where or how. I think the Woody Guthrie quote, along with some explanatory text, belongs in the "Hydroelectric" section (see the Time Magazine article linked above for citation); not sure where the D.B. Cooper bit belongs. -Pete 07:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You could just place it in the proper place in the "modern history" section, chronologically speaking. VanTucky Talk 22:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Kitesurfing on the Columbia River
Kitesurfing on the Columbia River
Roll on, Columbia, roll on, roll on, Columbia, roll on
Your power is turning our darkness to dawn
Roll on, Columbia, roll on.

Roll on Columbia by Woody Guthrie, written under commission of the Bonneville Power Administration

On February 13, 1980, $5,800 (in bundles of $20 bills) was found by a family on a picnic five miles northwest of Vancouver, Washington on the banks of the Columbia River. The money is believed by the FBI to be connected with the 1971 disappearance of hijacker D. B. Cooper.[1]

Images

You know, this article's subject has so many different landmarks and ecologies, that I think it really merits a gallery. We could even organize it go with the flow of the river (starting in Canada etc.). This would free up some the places that the amount of images disrupts the text, and still manage to keep what are all quite necessary images. Thoughts? VanTucky Talk 22:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not personally a huge fan of galleries, I prefer to see images spread throughout the article. If there is a gallery, I prefer it have four images, which is the most the template seems to support in a single row; it can make a fairly attractive row separating two sections, for instance. But I'd rather not see all (or most) of the images collected into a single gallery. Of course, that's all just my opinion, and not supported by any policy or guideline that I know of…so if you want to give it a shot, have at it! I won't revert. Definitely interested in perspectives from others, too.
By the way, I'm planning to nominate this for "Good Article" status, probably in the next week or so -- any reactions to that most welcome! I'll be re-incorporating the Guthrie and Cooper items above before doing so (unless somebody gets to that before me.) I like the suggestion you made up there, too. -Pete 05:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I should add -- if you're talking about adding MORE photos, then a single-row gallery would be a great idea. Not sure if that's what you had in mind. -Pete 19:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting we move all the images wholesale into a gallery. But right now, they really do cramp some of the text. Like the part where it shifts one of the section headers over. That's not a failing criteria for GA at all, but it's annoying bc I'm visually anal retentive. Anyway, what I was thinking of is leaving a few key images for each section, depending on how much a section can reasonably support. Then placing the rest in a gallery. I could always just try it out, and if you absolutely hate it, it's not a big deal if you want to revert to the original. Either way the article is without a doubt GA status. But if we tried for FA, that kind of cramping would definitely have to be dealt with, and I'd hate to see unique and valuable images removed entirely on space grounds. VanTucky Talk 01:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth -- galleries seem to almost always trample text for me. The one on this page has photos running over and obscuring some of the text. I see this a lot with wikipedia galleries, and I'm not running anything unusual -- just regular old Firefox 2 on Mac OS 10.3.9 with no odd wikipedia skins or anything unusual. Just a datapoint.. Pfly 03:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops, just noticed the page's problem for me is the "ImageStackRight" not a gallery. I'm not up on the technicalities of the difference. Maybe galleries do work for me and ImageStackRight's, whatever they are, don't. Pfly 03:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:PIC will give you a good idea of the difference between stackups and galleries. VanTucky Talk 22:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for weighing in here! I am a bit confused by Pfly's comment, because I also use Firefox 2 on a recent Mac (it's 10.4, should be about the same) and I don't think it has the same issue. If you can figure out a way to get a screen shot to me (Apple-Shift-3 puts a picture of your screen on your desktop) I'd be happy to tinker a bit.

VanTucky, I think we just have a difference of opinion about what looks good. I rather like having images "interrupt" the text in a few places. Pushing the header over is actually something I did on purpose. All that said, none of it is anything I'm going to fight too hard on -- if you have a different vision of how it should look, I'm happy to take a peek.

Finally, I generally avoid the "imagestack" template, but in this case I used it because it solves a problem I couldn't figure out how to solve any other way: using the white space to the right of the map in the "Tributaries" section. Definitely open to suggestion on that! Of course, we can talk this over tonight at WikiWednesday. -Pete 22:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'm not hard and fast on a major change anyway. VanTucky Talk 22:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Screenshot 1
Screenshot 1
Screenshot 2
Screenshot 2

Here's two screenshots of what I was talking about above (view larger to see more clearly). The first is with a wide window, showing how even then the text is obscured by images. The second is a narrower window, showing how the table gets obscured. There's no window width that doesn't obscure content. It could be that this is the result of some stupid mistake I made with some setting somewhere or other, but I can't recall making any unusual settings to anything. It's a fairly minor problem that happens only here and there on wikipedia, so I haven't mentioned it or tried to fix it yet. Pfly 03:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that's, like, totally unacceptable! Thanks for posting, and I'll see about some kind of immediate fix -- I had no idea it looked so horrible. Wonder what's different about our Firefoxen? -Pete 00:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's how it comes out for me too. VanTucky Talk 01:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

where do you get to photos of river george?

where do you get photos of river george. my tearcher showed us photos in class , I dont know where she got them on this web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.137.150 (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you try Columbia River Gorge? -Pete 18:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Old course

I'm going to try to find some info on the old course of the river, where it followed through what is now the Wilson River valley when it flowed more straight into the Pacific (at least I remember hearing that before). Aboutmovies 00:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AM, that would be a great addition! -Pete 03:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Drainage section

Myasuda just removed the "Drainage" section (pasted below.) This was discussed above, in the section #Removed some specifics. The section actually includes more detail than the intro, which had become bogged down, in my opinion (and according to a non-Wikipedian friend who read the article) with far too many statistics. Personally, I think there should be even fewer specific stats in the intro, to keep it interesting to the many readers who are not necessarily looking for a statistical rundown. But it's probably a good idea to include the details in the article; that's where the "Drainage" section came from to begin with.

Very interested in what other editors think of this. -Pete 03:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

“ DRAINAGE

With an average annual flow of about 265,000 ft³/s (7,500 m³/s), the Columbia is the largest river by volume flowing into the Pacific from the Western Hemisphere, and is the fourth-largest in North America. The Columbia's highest recorded flow was 1,240,000 ft³/s (35,113 m³/s), on June 6, 1894. The river flows 1,243 miles (2,000 km) from its headwaters to the Pacific, draining an area of about 258,000 square miles (668,217 km²).

 ”
The major problem I have is the redundancy of information: the second paragraph of this article has virtually the same information as the Discharge section. The only additional information deals with the maximum flow. Incidentally, if you look at other river articles, the amount of statistics in the lead is hardly unusual. Myasuda 03:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The introduction is supposed to repeat information like that. It's an overview of the entire article that is there to clearly restate the general notable facts of the subject. What's more, it should never contain specific facts not present in the body of the article. VanTucky Talk 03:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Upon review, I think I'd be happy following Pete's suggestion to move the statistics out of the lead. I suggest combining the Course and Drainage section into a single Drainage basin section as is done in Amazon River. I would leave the note about the Columbia being the largest river flowing into the Pacific from the Western Hemisphere (which I added a while back))in the lead since it distinguishes the subject. Myasuda 03:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with trimming the lead if you like, just remember that the point is that it should be a concise overview of the entire article (of course, removing some too-detailed stats might be step in that direction). VanTucky Talk 03:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I like how that works, combining with the "Course" section. This is looking good. I noticed another couple places where there's more detail (even trivia) in the intro than the article, I'll try to correct when I have a moment. -Pete 17:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Rivers that pass through the Cascades

The article makes the claim that the Columbia is the only river to pass through the Cascades, in the Gorge. Certainly, the Klamath River also cuts through the Cascades (though in less dramatic fashion); and arguments can be made for the Fraser River in BC and the Pit River in California (both of which pass the Cascades near the northern and southern ends of the range, respectively); articles for these rivers all claim to cut through the Cascade mountains.

Certainly, the article ought to be correct, and consistent with the other rivers in question. If there is controversy concerning which other rivers cut through the Cascades, that should be dealt with in some manner.

--EngineerScotty 05:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked into this before, and it seems that only three rivers pass completely through the Cascades: Columbia, Klamath, and Pit. The Cascades end before reaching the Fraser, as the BC people have adamantly pointed out on various pages. I thought I had made sure the river pages involved all had the same info, but perhaps I missed the Columbia.. or someone changed it. As far as I can tell there is little controversy about it, just some misinformation floating around. Pfly 06:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ecology and environment section

It occurs to me that this section is a bit lacking. It should start with an overview of the flora and fauna of the river, before getting into the things that threaten that. Also, it's my understanding that the timber industry, historically, has been detrimental to fish habitat etc., though I'd have to hunt for a source. -Pete 00:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I will be doing the Good Article review here - more soon, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination October / November 2007

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 1, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

Comment after failed GA - please see the detailed version of things that need to be done in the subsection below - that is the deifinitive version (strikeouts not all done here, hope that is OK). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Good start, but needs some cleanup for GA.

1. Well written?: FAIL for now. Several WP:MOS issues need to be addressed. The lead is five paragraphs, three of which are only one or two sentences long. From the article length, it should be only three paragraphs long. Throughout the rest of the article, almost every section has at least one very short (one or two sentence) paragraph. This makes for choppy flow and they should be combined into larger paragraphs. As someone who writes stream articles, I would also add the length and drainage basin area to the lead.
The whole Drainage Basin section has one two references. I know some of the info is cited in the infobox, but I would add it again here (MOS - cite statistics). I would especially cite 4th largest in continent and largest draining into Pacific Ocean (extraordinary claims need proof). It would be useful to give the length and % of length within Canada, as is already done for the watershed (% area). If available, it would be useful to know more rough distances (i.e. distance from 1st Big Bend to the border, or distances to mouth when rivers enter). "This C-shaped segment of the river is also known as the "Big Bend;" during the Missoula Floods (10,000 to 15,000 years ago), much water took a more direct route south, through the Grand Coulee, which after the floods was dry until the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam in the mid-20th century." Awkward - why not just two sentences (or a better connection)?
Geology section - can you explain what the Drumheller Channels are (in the picture), and make the connection between the volcanic activity and the river clear? Indigenous Peoples section - can you give a clearer idea of the location of Celilo Falls? Warm Springs Tribes is linked twice. Modern History section - identify Captain Robert Gray as an American at first mention (makes later ref to him clearer). Jumps from 1825 to early 20th Century - can you add statehood dates for Oregon and Washington? Any important British Columbia / Canada dates? Could Modern History be retitled (perhaps with dates or Settlement?) then a new Modern History section with Dredging and Dams as subsections (just an idea). Dredging - again a big jump from 1905 to 1976. Dams - need cites for first paragraph extraordinary claims and stats, and in a few other places. Can you give an idea when major dams were built? Ecology and Environment section - needs refs (studies show... say which ones?) If you do put dredging and dams into subsections, perhaps give brief history before with some dates of dredging, dams, Hanford, then these subsections. Finally Tributaries is just a list (table) can you give some brief intro text? Refs - be consistent on date accessed (some have, some do not) for internet refs.
2. Factually accurate?: PASS
3. Broad in coverage?: PASS
4. Neutral point of view?: FAIL for now. Needs to cover Canadian and American aspects equally well. As one example, units should be both English and Metric throughout (also a MOS issue). Currently feet and miles are used in places without meters and kilometers also given. Another example is "... is the only American stretch of the river that is free-flowing, unimpeded by dams, and not a tidal estuary." but no comparable description in the same section on Canadian dams / free flowing etc. Also, although I know Canada as such was not formed then, perhaps more specific mention of the British in the lead (where Americans and Europeans are mentioned twice in context with early exploration and settlement) would help.
5. Article stability? PASS
6. Images?: PASS (and nicely done)

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent feedback! I will do my best to address your concerns. I hope others will join in -- it may take a fair amount of work, especially to add in more meaningful Canadian/British perspective. (As an aside, in considering NPOV, I've mostly focused on develpment vs. ecological concerns, and native vs. pioneer. I confess I didn't put as much thought as I should into U.S. vs. Canada. That is a very hellpful observation.) -Pete 23:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You are very welcome. I have finished my comments and would be glad to clarify. This is my first GA review, so I apologize for slowness, but hope this helps. Nice article, just needs some cleanup for GA. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've completed some major work on cleanup as you requested, but there is a point I disagree on. For NPOV, the article clearly makes strong mention of the river within Canadian borders. But in terms of weight of content, the river is much larger and has a much bigger impact within U.S. borders. Thus, more info on the U.S. part of the river is in order. In B.C., it's just another river. But within the lower reaches it is commercial (Canada doesn't have a sea port from the river) and cultural edifice of vast proportions. Just as the Jaguar article focuses mostly on what is a big cat of Central and South America, rather than the relatively minute portion of its range in the States, this article naturally should contain more information on the U.S. portion of the river. VanTucky Talk 19:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This caught my eye:
The taming of the river for human use, and the resulting industrial waste, have come into conflict with ecological conservation at numerous times since Americans and Europeans began to settle the area in the 18th century. This "harnessing," as it was commonly described in the popular culture of the early 20th century, included dredging for navigation by larger ships, nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons research and production, and the construction of dams for power generation, irrigation, navigation, and flood control.
...as an example of POV taint in language/composition, i.e. the post-historical slant of "as it was commonly described in the popular culture of the early 20th century"; this kind of language is from a certain POV. As also the opening line; not all human use produces waste, albeit it may be wasteful or the system around it may be wasteful, but the cause-effect implication in that line is also POV, and from a particular POV as well. It's the quotation marks on "harnessing" that highlight the conscious presence of said bias in the passage. I don't know what to do to fix it but just commenting on the presence of what I call "prejudicial language".
Reply: Skookum, I've struggled with maintaining the right tone in this area, and welcome your input. At issue, I believe, is this: there was POV-pushing by the U.S. Government, woven deeply into the history of the river. The concept that the "wild west" was something that needed to be "harnessed" and "tamed" is a concept that was very intentionally broadcast to the masses for a number of decades, and had a huge impact on a number of policy issues. It is not my intention to evaluate that POV, but rather to report that it existed, and give appropriate weight to its presence. If you see ways to do that better, please suggest. Your specific point about waste is well taken, and I believe I have addressed it; please let me know if you have remaining concerns on that. -Pete 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Also to comment that, perhaps in the intro where British Columbia is first mentioned, it should be commented somewhere here that the river is the namesake of the colony/province, in a secondary fashion as British Columbia signifies the British sector of the partitioned Columbia District, which was directly named for the river. Even though most of the colony was not in the Columbia's basin (actually when BC was first declared as colony, the Stikine Territory and Peace River and Vanc Isl/Queen Charlottes were not part of it and the remaining British sector of the Columbia basin was nigh on half the new colony's territory...)
Reply: An excellent point. I believe I addressed this effectively; again if you see a better way to do it, go ahead. -Pete 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Coming to this comment late, but the article makes it quite clear the Columbia was named for Robert Gray's (an American) ship and had nothing to do with British Columbia as per this from the above comment "Also to comment that, perhaps in the intro where British Columbia is first mentioned, it should be commented somewhere here that the river is the namesake of the colony/province".Awotter (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's the other way around. The commenter was trying to say that it should be mentioned that the province was named after the river. (Whether that's a matter for the intro is another question). Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wel, er, it's actually named for the fur district - which was named for the river, but just as the river was named for the poetic name of America as part of a ship's name, not to America poetically/directly. The sense of British to Columbia, as the old British name of the region Americans insist on callin the Oregon Country ;'-) (actually they're not the same, but...), similar to British Guyana being the British sector of Guinea/Guyana, British Honduras the British Sector of the Gulf of Honduras, British East Africa as the British sector of East Afrca and so on; the root is the name of the region in hte British world-view; a Briton of the period could not have conceived of using, alternately, British Oregon; Oregon was a politically-loaded word, somewhat propagandistic (the name is a reference to the Columbia, perhaps, and if so makes no sense to caim the Fraser and Skeena basins as 54-40 meant). BC's only indirectly named for the river, and by a few steps more for the New World or America or whatever.Skookum1 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
About the "Americans and Europeans" comment in No. 4, that's very true; and "Americans and Europeans" here being redundant, since "European" is being used in a racial rather than political sense; and myself I grimace when the term "European" is used to describe 19th Century Brits, particuarly colonial Brits, as direct-from-the-Continent Europeans were a distinct group, particularly in BC (or rather, set of groups). I note that American histories of the region often refer to "French traders" without making reference to them being in the service of a British company (either the HBC or NWC), and that this p.c. "levelling" of Britons into "Europeans" is another sidestep from the reality of the British role in the basin's/region's history.
Reply: I agree this is a tough one, and there is likely room for improvement. In the instance you cite, I think maybe "of European descent" is the best phrasing; I'll give that a shot. -Pete 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't read the article overly much but I'd expect there to be at least as much here on, for example, David Thompson vs. Lewis & Clark.
Reply: Yes, I think issue is balanced. -Pete 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
And the whole bit about the cultural thingamawhatzit of the Columbia basin south of the line vs that in Canada is a non sequitur; the Kootenay region in BC is a special social, industrial and cultural/commercial complex/culture in its own right within BC; maybe not as important as Eastern Washington economically, and in a different way, but no less important to the history of BC/Canada than Spokane and Missoula are to that of the US and the states in that region. The British/Canadian sector of the Columbia basin's vulnerability to that south-of-the-border economic machine is, indeed, part of its own story, and why there was such a complicated and so very twisty network of railways and, now, highways, in order to tie it into BC/Canada, i.e. because of the absurdity of the latitude-line border drawn across the valleys and mountains (something so nutty only a distant diplomat could dare to think it...). Anyway, if there's more on BC than on the US in this particular cross-border article, that's the result I guess of BC wikipedians adding stuff and it's also the opposite of most of the related or similar cross-border history/geography pages, where the opposite is generally true. The differential scale in economic growth and associated importance from one side of the line to the other is, by the way, a demonstration of the restrictive nature of Canadian industrial policy in the West; if market conditions had been similar to those in the Mountain States and Pacific Northwest, and not held back from industrial diversification (various policies in Canada made this so, long story..) the upper Columbia's role within its own basin would also have been more important....though it's also worth commenting that much of the wealth in Spokane and elsewhere was built on the booms in the Boundary and Kootenay countries in BC; it's not as if the histories of the two sides of the border can be all that easily separated, although the degree to which the American economy flavoured the silver and galena booms in the Kootenays is not generally well understood on the US side of the border; on the Canadian side it's the central fact....Skookum1 20:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply: Wow, you sound very well qualified to significantly expand this area in the article. I'm not sure what to do with what you say, as any attempt I could make to summarize your words would be insufficient. It's interesting, you seem to think that the article is weighted in some way too heavily toward BC history (?) which, I think, is the opposite of what Ruhrfisch was suggesting. Anyway, I hope you can contribute to this some more, either in the context of this GA or down the road… -Pete 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Issues still not addressed for GA

  1. Combine one sentence paragraphs into larger paragraphs - the article still has 2 in "Geology", 1 in "Modern History", 2 in "Dredging", 1 in "Dams: "harnessing" the river", 3 in "Ecology and environment". This should be simple to fix, just merge paragraphs
    • Done – any additional concerns here? -Pete 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, there are two one-sentence paragraphs left: in Geology "Water levels during the Missoula Floods have been estimated at 1,250 feet...", in Modern History "French explorers called the Columbia River Ouragan...". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree that those ones are a problem…I agree that generally one-sentence para's are to be avoided, but occasionally they are the best way. If somebody else wants to take a crack at eliminating them I have no problem with it, but I don't personally see a better way to phrase those ones. -Pete 06:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree on Ouragan, couldn't the flood sentence just be combined with the following paragraph starting "The floods' periodic inundation of the lower Columbia River Plateau deposited..."? Your call, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Y Done, I think. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. "add the length and drainage basin area to the lead" - still not there, gives some quantifiable idea of the size of the river, in the Infobox, so this is another easy fix
    • Done -Pete 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. "The whole Drainage Basin section has one reference." - Still only has one, needs lots more. There are all sorts of extraordinary claims in here that need to be cited, some of the refs are in the Infobox, so I think parts of this may be easy.
  5. Y Done, I think. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Except for fixing a specific sentence, I do not think the other suggestions in Drainage Basin section have been addressed yet either (adding length of the river within Canada, other rough distances) - these may be hard to find depending on data available.
    • Note: I have looked for the US and Canadian lengths, and had difficulty finding. Definitely agree this should be included. -Pete 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    USGS map shows river mile 745.0 at the US-Canadian border (745 official miles from border to Pacific). If the total length is known, then the problem is solved. —EncMstr 23:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Geology section - can you explain what the Drumheller Channels are (in the picture), and make the connection between the volcanic activity and the river clear? Drumheller now wikilinked, but not otherwise explained (even expanding the caption - a prime example of scablands). Other not done (First sentence of the section - how does this relate to the river?)
    • First part done, I think – I noted in the caption the the Drumheller Channels are part of the channeled scablands, which are described in the text.
    • Second part – would adding the following to the end of that sentence do the trick? "forming the landscape traversed by the river" -Pete 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you make the caption "Drumheller Channels, part of the channeled scablands formed by the Missoula Floods". Second part sugestion is fine. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Y Done, I think. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Indigenous Peoples section - can you give a clearer idea of the location of Celilo Falls? Warm Springs Tribes is linked twice. Neither addressed, both seem easy to fix.
    USGS database gave Celilo Falls at RM 200.5, though I don't see it on the map. It's about 10 miles upriver from The Dalles. —EncMstr 23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    Latitude(DEC):45.6498450, Longitude(DEC):-120.9789563, Latitude(DMS):453859N, Longitude(DMS):1205844W, Elevation: 164ft (50m) ~ WikiDon 00:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Y Done, I think. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Modern History section - still no identification of Captain Gray as American at first mention, which makes later assertion "Gray's discovery of the Columbia was used by the United States to support their claim to the Oregon Country,.." less clear. Easy fix. Still jumps from 1825 to "turn of the 20th century" - nothing happened in 75 years?
  12. Y Done, I think. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. Dredging - "again a big jump from 1905 to 1976". - Still not addressed.
    • I'm not clear on why this is a concern. My research has not given me any reason to believe that there were major developments in that time span – though of course, it's possible there was. What makes you think something has been left out here? -Pete 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Right now nothing is said about the gaps. If nothing happened, then say that. I do note that Oregon became a state in 1859, Canada was formed in 1866, and Washington became a state in 1889 (more Modern History than Dredging obviously). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Y Done, I think -- section has been substantially rewritten. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Dams - "need cites for first paragraph extraordinary claims and stats, and in a few other places. Can you give an idea when major dams were built?" - Still not addressed.
    • I put in a few FACT tags. It might be helpful if you add any others, where you see claims that need to be cited. If we can agree what needs to be cited, I will do my best to track down citations. -Pete 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I put in some more {{fact}} tags. Good Article criteria says (in part) "at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Lots of stats need refs (pretty much any number about the river) plus all the "nth largest/longest/biggest in the world/hemisphere/continent/province/state" statements. I like to see one ref per paragraph at minimum. A single ref can be used multiple times (ref name =). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Y Done, all of Ruhrfisch's fact tags have been cited (in a few cases, the claim has been removed). -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  17. Ecology and Environment section - "needs refs (studies show... say which ones?)" - Still not addressed.#:* Will do -- This study, and the Colville health consultation I just linked, will be good resources for this. -Pete 06:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. Tributaries section "is just a list (table) can you give some brief intro text?" Still not addressed. OK for GA, will be an issue if you go for FA.
    • Don't see the problem. What text is missing? If it's a problem to have a section without prose, maybe the best thing would be simply removing the section header? -Pete 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. Y Done, I think, as far as GA is concerned. Could revisit before FA. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  20. References "be consistent on date accessed (some have, some do not) for internet refs." - Still not addressed.
    • Don't understand why that's a problem. I don't regard access dates as particularly important where a full citation for a print publication is given, because one can still verify the source by tracking down the print pub. Can you expand on your comment? -Pete 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • First off, the examples for web sites all show access dates (see Wikipedia:Citation templates for websites). Secondly, being consistent is always good style (so all should be the same). Third and most important, having the date accessed allows you to identify which version you looked at as the ref. It also makes finding it in the Wayback Machine or web archives easier (I have had to do this myself - things change on the web). You can add today's date to all, just check that they work as refs before doing so. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Y Done, I think these have all been fixed. Will scan for any missed. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  22. NPOV issues - still have feet, miles, acres without metric equivalents in Dredging section. Should be easy to fix. I do not mean the article has to be 50/50 on US and Canada, but if 15% of the basin is Canadian, it seems as if much less of the article is. My guess from the map is that by length Canada has much more than 15% of the river (probably close to 30 or 40%). Please also see Skookum's concerns above.
  23. Y Done, I think, this has been a topic of much discussion and I think all involved editors are agreed that we've addressed the major issues. May be some room for improvement, but I think it's much better now. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  24. A new concern: from the map it is clear that Idaho is almost entirely in the drainage basin, and several other states are as well, but only Oregon and Washington are mentioned. Met, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A quote from the boilerplate above: "Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far." No note was left here on how the issues had been resolved. I also did not explicitly review again in 48 hours (although I have looked at it often). Let's say you have 48 more hours to address these issues. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Much progress has been made, but unfortunately I still did not think it met the GA criteria. I have struck out the areas met above. I would be glad to look at this in the future after a major revision. Good luck and sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
No need for apologies! Your input has been enormously helpful. Thanks you, and yes, I will keep chipping away at this list. Hopefully others will too! -Pete 02:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll echo Pete's comments. There's no need to be sorry Ruhrfisch. If this is your first review (didn't you say that?), you did a better job than I did on mine. Keep up the hard work, VanTucky Talk 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You are too kind - it is indeed my first GA review. I have taken three stream articles to FA status, so I was trying hard not too be too picky (i.e. using FA instead of GA criteria). I left a possibly useful USGS website on Pete's talk page, and would be glad to look at this again after some revisions. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
That link does look very promising, thanks. Here it is, in case others want to use it: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/2005/wdr-wa-05-1/ -Pete 04:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Issues

This was an excellent and thorough GA review, and it looks like the article has made significant strides forward since November. As it may go up again for GA or FA, I'd like to comment on the NPOV issue above (#13 in reasons for GA failure). Ruhrfish expressed a concern that 15-30% of the river's drainage basin is in Canada, but the article shows a U.S. bias in content. That's true; however, I would venture that 95% of the Columbia's irrigation value, hydroelectric value, and navigation value is in the United States. Today, 100% of salmon migration is the U.S. The river is also historically and culturally more important to Americans than to Canadians. It is in closer proximity to major population centers and played a greater role in Native American history as well as Euro-American settlement of Washington and Oregon.

I've lived in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. In BC, nearly all of the population is in the southwestern corner (Vancouver metro area), and the Fraser River is culturally far more important to agricultural, tourism, and trade in the province. Few people in Canada think about the Columbia River as a major river. It's a long river, but most of its "notability" (cultural, economic, historical value) rests on the section in the United States. Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you live in the Kootenays, where the Columbia is the major river. Vancouverites, particularly the newer varieties, wherever they're from, think the city is the province, and many have not even visited the Okanagan. Its notability in Canadian history, though most Canadian historians are oblivious to BC history in general, is seminal to the existence of the British claim in the region, even to BC's very name. As for:
I would venture that 95% of the Columbia's irrigation value, hydroelectric value, and navigation value is in the United States.
Well, it just so happens that that irrigation value and hydroelectric value is inseparable from the bilateral Columbia River Treaty and what are called "downstream benefits", which were deferred in teh treaty until recently (during the NDP years) signed over to the US; this refers to power generated at Treaty Dams in Canada which was exported to the US exclusively until BC re-acquired the power rights and the promptly resold them instead of using them for industrial development in BC, which had been WAC's intent. Yes, Grand Coulee kicks out more megawatts than Keenlyside or Mica, but Grand Coulee and its sisters could not have been built without upstream flood controls provided by dams on the Canadian side of the boundary. This also applies, though not in treaty revenues/rights, to the control of water used for irrigation in the US part of the Columbia basin. It may b e true that the Columbia basin's agricultural and power importance is not as great in the Canadian sdcheme of things as Grand Coulee et al. are to the US or to the US states involved; but this is about the river, not the regional economy. Further, the Okanagan basin's profile in BC's agricultural economy is very high. There are other points, but I wouldn't readily underestimate the Columbia's role or position in BC just because people in Vancouver (or people in Vancouver who are from Toronto really) don't know anything about it....Skookum1 (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to have antagonized you, Skookum. Your points are very well taken. The Columbia River is a hugely important river for EVERYBODY, and I shouldn't have understated its importance in Canada. I mean, they named a province after it for a reason, right? :) I certainly don't want to be engaging in Vancouver-style smugness (have I picked it up already?!?) or American arrogance (does it ever go away?!?). This article definitely has more room for Canadian content, and in fact I think more information about the Columbia River Treaty should be brought in here instead of being fully outsourced to that article. The fact that the article doesn't even mention the Okanagan is definitely a shortcoming. That said, my main point is that the perceived content bias should be considered in perspective during the next GA/FA review. This is probably the fourth most important article about Oregon, after Oregon, History of Oregon and Portland, Oregon. It's in the top six or eight for Washington. I'm not sure the same could be said about British Columbia; maybe I'm wrong. In the U.S., it's hard to overstate the river's importance along all dimensions -- geological, political, economic, cultural, historical, environmental -- and in most of those dimensions (except geological) it's understandable that there could be US content approaching 80 or 85% of the article. There are a lot of ways we can debate that percentage, but I think "percentage of drainage basin" or "length of river" on the Canadian side of the border is not the most useful measure.Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to add....I just had a look at the Fraser River article and, franly, it's pitiful, consderng hte profile of the river in the provnce's hstory etc, especally n comparson to the Columba River article; unlike the Columbia article, maybe, it has notable subartcles - Fraser Canyon and Fraser Valley (NB the latter term only refers to the lowest 100km or so). I don't have time to work it up, but I'll bring this up at the BC WikiProject.Skookum1 (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've tried to incorporate some information about the CRT in the opening paragraphs of the Dams section. Hope this is a step in the right direction. It would be very helpful if some work were done on the Columbia River Treaty article, as well; specifically, citations and a more comprehensive lead section. I'm not very familiar with this period of history, so having a better foundation would make it easier for me to expand the overview here. Skookum, as long as you're suggesting things at WP:BC, you might mention that. Thanks for all the input. -Pete (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Something else that occurred to me about these issues is that a lot, and maybe the bulk, of the history/economy of the Kootenays et al. are completely tied up with the economies and socieites of Eastern WA, ID and MT; the Boundary and Slocan silver/galena rushes, the Wild Horse Creek/Fisherville Gold Rush, and the whoe point of BC infrastructure projects such as the Dewdney Trail or the southern mainline of the CPR werer all because of the integrated ties and geographic disposition of the area; what's importantly missing from this arrticle is some discusson of these elements n the history of the Kootenays; even West Kootenay Power & Light existed prmarly to serve American-0side customers. On a different tack, I wanted to say that despite the Fraser's mythology in BC, upon consideration it's nowhere near as important or vital to BC as the Columbia is to WA/OR. That being said, there is a distinct comparison to the role the Columbia and Kootenay/Kootenai Rivers play in the Kootenays alone, though not the rest of BC, and teh development of the Kootenays is partt of the developments adjoining in the US....this even applies to labour history, or especially in factSkookum1 (talk)

Respectfully, I think some of this may be outside the scope of the article. This information would seem to belong in the history of the Kootenays or Kootenay River. If we widen the article to include such information, we would also have to widen it to encompass the Snake River (and thus most of Idaho history) and the Willamette Valley (and thus most of Oregon's history). Then we start talking about the Yakima Valley and other major tributaries that have significant agricultural economies and populations. At some point, the article becomes unwieldy. I think a discussion of the Columbia's role in the history of southeastern BC is important, but if we get to the point that we're including information on Kootenay Power & Light, a subject which doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article, we may be broadening it a bit too far. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
re the tributary basins, maybe the thing to do is to build them into Columbia Basin, which doesn't have much in it so far; Okanagan already exists, but as a BC-only region article, likewise Kootenay River on the other side; so Williamette Valley, Yakima Valley, Snake Basin, Clark Fork Basin (?) etc might exist separately, or as subsections of Columbia Basin. As for (West?) Kootenay Power and Light, I don't know about in WPWA or WPOR but in WPBC we've got lots of corporate articles, particularly historical ones; BC Hydro has an article, for instance, and Foley, Welch and Stewart and Cominco. Now, about the power thing, the reality is teh power in the West Kootenay was developed to supply American markets southward; that's the kind of cross-border inseparability that I mean; a history of the Kootenays cannot be complete without reference to what was going on south of the line, and while Americans can write their regional history as though Canada didn't exist, the reality is that a lot of development in the region south of the Kootenays would not have happened if it had not been for Canadian power supplies and/or also the boom in mining 1890 onwards. Also re salmon, that Canada doesn't have a role in Columbia salmon any more, that's not quite true: the International Joint Commission (or was it a Pacific Salmon Commission?) and the Columbia River Treaty involved a trade-off, as the damming of the Columbia killed off the salmon runs into the BC portion of the basin; in return, BC fishermen (read canneries) had the right to fish for Columbia River salmon and others stateside, and as part of the trade-off, American fishermen gained formal rights to a chunk of the Fraser catch; the details are somewhere but I remember this from school, years back, when the Columbia Treaty was a relatively new thing and my teachers were all hot and bothered by it. The deal over salmon is another example of the intertwined histories re the Columbia. I had a look at International Joint Commission, which does oversee the dams on the Columbia, but that article doesn't mention the Columbia River Treaty; this may be an oversight, as such articles are often written by Central Canadians oblivious to BC history, I'll check into it; the IJC and the salmon agreements should be mentioned here, and the concept of BC setting aside its own industrial development to aid Washington's and Idaho's is not a small issue to leave out. See Downstream benefits or if that's not an article it's certainly google-able and should be. More thoughts on this later, I've got to get ready to go house-hunting.Skookum1 (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all the background, Skookum. I've worked a bit on most of the articles you mention, but obviously don't have the extensive background you do. I think Northwesterner and I are currently focused on getting this particular article to FA quality. Everything you bring up is worthwhile, but to the extent that some of these details are more appropriate for other articles, I'm probably going to be more focused on this one for now. I did add some brief coverage of the 1909 treaty and the CRT to this one; does it seem generally accurate to you? -Pete (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More resources for future expansion

  • Jim McDermott introduced this bill (HR 1507) in March '07, which would have the GAO and other gov't agencies study the impact of the removal of four snake river dams. The findings in the text of the resolution may be useful as citations, esp. in the Ecology & Env. section.
  • Raymond, Camela (November 2007). "The Shape of Memory", Portland Monthly. 
Article about Maya Lin's current project, the Confluence Project, enhancing state parks along the Columbia to explore its cultural history.
  • The October Portland Monthly had a relevant article, too.

-Pete 08:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Journal article advocating the aggressive development of hydropower: Lee, Maurice W. (July 1953). "