Jump to content

Talk:Boring, Oregon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History

[edit]

Good history source for later edits: http://www.wolfpk.com/boringvillage/section.cfm?wSectionID=3201 Katr67 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

[edit]

The History Section makes two claims which seem to contradict each other:

  • "Boring was named after William H. Boring, an early resident of the area who began farming there in 1856"
  • "Boring was a Union veteran who had moved out to Oregon after the Civil War."

If the Civil War was fought from 1861-1865, how could Boring be said to have moved to the state in the 1860s, if he was already there in 1856?– Gilliam (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this. I just fixed it. Joseph Boring, William's brother, was the one who settled there in 1856; William arrived later, in 1874, after the Civil War. While Joseph Boring had lived in the area for nearly twenty years prior to William's arrival, the town was granted its name due to William's donation of land for the first schoolhouse to be built. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boring, Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boring, Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Boring, Oregon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 23:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. See comments below
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See comments below
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). There are far too many unsourced sentences, especially in the history, education, and infrastructure sections. The list of notable people and list of sister cities are both missing necessary citations. Some of the links chosen are
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). See comments below
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Not a GA requirement, but I would recommend ALT text for images.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.
Putting this on hold for now. SounderBruce 00:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Lead and infobox
  • I don't think "Regional" counts as the specific government of Boring
History
  • "which takes its namesake from the town" should be something like "which is named after the town"
  • "Boring was given its namesake after" should be "Boring is named for" or "Boring's namesake is"
  • "Illinois-native" doesn't require a hyphen
  • There are large gaps in the history, which gives a ton of attention to the trolley but not much else. What happened between the post-war years and 2005, which were a huge period of growth for the metro area?
  • The sections on Boring's unusual name and sister cities should be split or integrated with the "In popular culture"
Economy
  • What are the largest modern employers of Boring residents (including out-of-town companies)? How many commute to Portland and Gresham?
  • "US west coast" should be "U.S. West Coast"; and does a guide dog training program really warrant inclusion at all?
Demographics
  • Could a historic population table (with previous census entries) be added?
Law and government
  • Clarify what Boring's status is...the use of the term "town" in the article is confusing and this section would be a place to explain it.
  • Is Boring part of any special districts (e.g. libraries) that can be mentioned?
  • Mention of Boring's representation in the state legislature and in the federal legislature would be helpful.
  • Could the election data be updated for the 2016 presidential election? And include the gubernatorial elections of 2014 and 2016?
Infrastructure
  • Is there any information on utilities and health care that can be added?
  • Where does Route 212 go from Boring?
  • "Its roads are maintained"...is Route 212 more than one road? Does ODOT maintain other roads in Boring?
In popular culture
  • Mind renaming this something different, like "Name"? It has one pop culture entry (Gravity Falls) and the rest about the name.
  • Source for the twinning with Bland, Australia?
Citations
  • I don't think City Melt, Craig's Railroad Pages, Zip Data, Distance Between Cities, Distance-Cities, Sperling's Best Places, and a Facebook pace are reliable sources worthy of GA standards.
  • More secondary sources should be used, especially when citing pop-culture entries (e.g. referencing the Vimeo video itself is not exactly kosher)
  • Include links during the first mention of a reference, e.g. The Guardian, TIME, Portland Tribune, KVAL; make sure to not repeat links, e.g. The Oregonian.
  • Using TripAtlas, Yellow Pages, and Trulia without an additional resource to back up claims is inappropriate.
  • Properly mark subscription-required services (e.g. WSJ)
  • CheckLinks is throwing up some redirected and dead links. Please make sure to fix them.
I've looked over your assessment and I may have to scrap the nomination here as there's simply not enough data to available to fill in the gaps you've pointed out here. This is especially true in terms of finding citations and statistics that aren't sourced from databases such as Sperling's and the like. Information on the number of commuters, main employers, etc. is simply not out there. It seems the town isn't big enough to warrant it unfortunately. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that, Drown Soda. For now, I will close the review as a fail, but feel free to ask any questions if you wish to further improve the article and make another try for GAN. SounderBruce 04:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boring, Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

[edit]

Hello all, I am new to Wikipedia, but I have a suggested edit for the Economy section of the article. It is mentioned that Boring is a hub for the timber industry and Jonsrud Lumber Company is discussed. I think it is worth adding a link to Vanport International as they are the existing company maintaining the timber industry in Boring. Thoughts? VKDuran (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boring,_Oregon&oldid=1206380372"