Jump to content

Talk:Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hello. I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. Additional comments are always welcome. Viriditas (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Assess Criteria
1. well written
x
    (a) clear prose, correct spelling and grammar
x
    (b) complies with Manual of Style:
x
         lead
x
         layout
x
         jargon
x
         words to avoid
n/a
         fiction
x
         list incorporation
2. factually accurate and verifiable
x
    (a) references for all sources; dedicated attribution section according to guideline
x
    (b) in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotes, statistics, public opinion, challengeable statements
x
    (c) no original research
3. broad in coverage
x
    (a) addresses main aspects of topic
x
    (b) stays focused without unnecessary detail
4. neutral
5. stable (no edit wars)
6. images
x
    (a) tagged with copyright status, valid fair use rationale for non-free content
x
    (b) relevant to topic with suitable captions

Well written[edit]

clear prose, correct spelling and grammar

NWR

some, many

Factually accurate and verifiable[edit]

Aside from the heavy reliance on local newspaper articles, everything looks ok. Although not necessarily required for a GAC, I would like to see the author make more use of a diverse set of sources, not just newspapers. Further research will help. Some of the current composition issues might be traced to the heavy reliance on newspaper articles written in a breezy, informal style. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What other sources would you recommend? As you say, I've used mostly one newspaper. But that newspaper is the regional (local would be the Sherwood paper), multiple Pulitzer Prize winning, top 25 in circulation in the US (though likely to change with the fallout in the newspaper industry) newspaper. Taken in context of Wikipedia's desire for secondary sources, that is likely the best source available as I am not aware of any books focused on the refuge. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peter, Susan. Shirley Ewart. (2002). Exploring the Tualatin River Basin: A Nature and Recreation Guide. Oregon State University Press. ISBN 0870715402
  • There are other primary sources available, mostly USFWS reports by biologists which can be helpful and informative. The USGS monitored invasive species in the area, and has a list online. There appears to be at least one journal article that refers to the refuge but I'm still trying to track it down. A congressperson has spoken in favor of the refuge and this is recorded in the GPO. There are various groups connected to the refuge with newsletters and reports online. There are educational materials available, probably designed for teachers to use before and after field trips, and there's good information there as well. I haven't done that much research so I can't give you a better answer at this time, but I think you are right about the newspaper being one of the best sources available. Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book, has 12 sentences of outdated information and is mainly about visiting the place (it is not focused on the refuge as the coverage is 1 page out of 150). I don't think there is anything in there not already in the article. Most of the other sources you mention are not really what I would consider the best material when taking RS into account. "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources" and I don't think newsletters and stuff put out from the USFWS falls into that, which is why those types of sources have been used sparingly. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reports from the USFWS most certainly meet RS requirements, and in most cases exceed them. Perhaps you aren't familiar with using USFWS sources, which may explain your confusion; They are excellent sources in every way and are used in many articles on Wikipedia. Furthermore, their data is used by many other secondary sources. The book has information about the species in the refuge, which can be used to expand the natural environment section. I'm getting the strong sense that you don't work much with natural science articles. The refuge is much, much more than its history and "amenities", and I notice in your edit history that you take the same structural approach to non-wildlife articles. The natural environment section, is for all intents and purposes, the core of the article-yet it is the one section needing the most expansion. If the OSU book can help expand it (which I suspect it can) it should be used, and if the USFWS reports can help, they should also be used. In some cases, the USFWS reports can be seen as primary sources, and they are perfectly acceptable to use when discussing data related to species and ecology. Primary sources are used all the time on Wikipedia, and their use in scientific and ecological articles is almost required. Furthermore, the definition of primary sources changes depending on the topic and its use. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remember the part of RS I quoted (and that the comment was not exclusive to the USFWS sources). The USFWS is NOT independent of the topic, thus is NOT a third party, period. Anything they put out on the refuge thus per RS are to be used sparingly, period (which, recall, I have used them, but sparingly). Using them in other articles, such as Wapato Lake (where one is used) that they do not own means its independent and can more easily be used without the restraint. Same with say the Tualatin River. But, just because they get used all the time does not mean they should. I am not saying they are unreliable, that is not exactly what Wikipedia means by RS, its more than that. But just like on all the law articles, the law folks continually use almost entirely case citations to write about SCOTUS decisions (its what they do in the real world), this doesn't mean they should. Same with the NRHP people getting the submission forms for properties and using the info from those, they do it all the time, but it doesn't mean they should use the info nearly as much as they do. These sources that are either primary sources or not independent of the subject can be used, but sparingly, because the bias of the USFWS (or the owners of something in other contexts) that has a vested interest in people visiting their facilities. The more people visit the facilities operated by the USFWS, the more pressure they can put on Congress/DOI for more funding based on visitor counts or through constituents lobbying Congress and politicians. How many USFWS publications on the TRNWR have anything negative on the refuge? If an employee there was convicted of embezzlement do you think that would make the tour guide? I personally doubt it, these publications tend to be all rosy and positive, and that's why we prefer third party sources, as though the info in them may be reliable, maybe not not everything is in the source that would be if it was independent. It's like using the annual report for a company to write the entire article on that company. The report is great for the numbers and who is CEO, but they will not list much in the way of negative information (certain things are required), and they will gloss over and make bad stuff not look so bad. So we use them sparingly, despite them being the most reliable source about the company (who else but them tallies up their revenues and number of employees).
  • And as to the OSU book, since you don't want to take my word for it, go check the thing out. As I said its a tour guide, with 12 sentences. It talks about how it is not open to the public except for twice a year; it has contact info; outside of bald eagles, it mentions no species, only a few general categories of animals such as waterfowl; it talks about where it is and what facilities are planned; and it talks about how big it is and how big it will be. That's it. I think the only thing in the book not already in the article is about canoe trips during the songbird festival, but I may have already added that to the article as it is in other sources. The book is basically a tour guide of all the spots in the Tualatin basin to view wildlife, complete with animal/bird/plant guides so people know what they are looking at (though it has three pages on the Cooper Mountain Preserve, and would be a good source for that topic).
  • With the lack of experience in natural environment, true, but this is a man-made entity. Does it concern the natural environment, yes, but it is a human constructed entity managed by humans. Nature did not create a wildlife refuge, the US Government did. Nature created the habitat, but this article is not on the Tualatin Basin, its about the federally created entity known as the TRNWR. This is like telling an editor with lots of architectural experience that they might not be qualified to write about courthouses because they don't have a legal background. The courthouse may be all about the law, but it is still a building.
  • But at this point, I'm tired of talking about sources that may or may not exist, as that is not what the GA requirements are about. It's about if the sources used are RS (they are) and if the text of the article is supported by the sources (haven't heard it isn't). Getting into better sources and what not has been a recent FA topic, but last I checked this isn't FA and FA had not made a decision on that. So, with all your FA issues you have been raising, please just fail the article so we can both move on. I am not going to address non-GA criteria. What you want are FA requirements, and this isn't FA. Is not ready for FA, and its not one of the articles I have targeted for FA. I'm going to make some improvements in the natural environment section, but that's it. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the RS policy very well, thank you, and the USFWS is perfectly acceptable as a source here, nor does it have to be "independent" of the topic, nor does that requirement apply to research and data about the species and ecology. Anything the USFWS publishes on the refuge can be used as much as it is needed, not sparingly, and I think you are confused about how scientific data is used in articles like this one and apparently others. If, however, the information was concerned with politics or governmental issues, you would have a point, but it is not, so you are mistaken. Your error lies in the idea that all primary sources are treated the same; they aren't. Some sources are more appropriate for other topics, and this is one of them. I work on science topics all of the time, and data from primary sources is perfectly acceptable, especially from official reports published by organizations like the USFWS, which often has the best or most current data available. The legal and political issues you raise in relation to government reports is an interpretation that you are bringing to the table, and not one that is actually a subject of debate on this topic. If it were, it would be covered by secondary sources, and we would use them. I understand that you bring your legal expertise to this and other articles, but you need to be able to switch gears when it comes to different subjects and topics as they are not all treated the same. Caution is required when dealing with any source, but your basic observations on this matter are not supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines and simply represent your personal opinion. It's very important to recognize that fact. Finally, the complaint and distinction you continue to harp on in relation to FA vs. GA articles is both silly and ignorant. On the one hand, there has been quite a debate over at FA about the low-quality and standards that are passing for FA articles these days. On the other hand, you expect me to give you a free pass simply because this is GA. This article meets my most basic minimum requirement for GA, and it will pass only by a hair's width since the most important section on the refuge is also the most poorly written. Apparently, this is not a coincidence. I also find serious fault with your comment that this is not one of the articles I have targeted for FA. First of all, that shows some kind of assumption of bad faith on your part. Whether an article is targeted for FA by an editor or not, quality is still the highest goal. Your working philosophy seems to be at odds with the very goal of this encyclopedia, which is to create the best article we can at all times. GA and FA are simply arbitrary classifications we give to these articles, and at the end of the day are totally meaningless. You should of course be aware of that fact, and strive at all times to do the very best you can. If there is room for improvement, we improve, if there is nothing more we can do, we set it aside. Article classifications only exist to psychologically motivate people to do the work. In the end, it is up to us, not a silly classification, to point out the faults and attempt to correct them. If it makes you feel better to have a "GA" or a "FA" on your user page, great, but those things are only one part of the puzzle. I'm sorry you have been so divisive during this review, but that is my opinion as reviewer. I was unaware until now that you had actually brought issues to this review that have nothing to do with the GAC process. The issues you raise with using scientific data from government sources belong to you and you alone. If you had managed to even follow that line of reasoning for a moment, you would laugh at how silly it is and beg my forgiveness. The refuge is managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and their scientists have access to all the data. If you are unable to recognize this fact, then there is nothing I can do. But, like I said, it sounds like you are approaching this issue with a biased mindset, and that is completely out of my hands. Unless you are willing to consider the possibility that you are wrong, there is nothing more to discuss here. Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may not agree with why I think in general Wikipedia shies away from primary sources and sources that are not independent of the topic (which is not my preference, that's in the lead to RS, since as a historian, primary sources are best, but this is Wikipedia), but then, what is your theory on why they are discouraged (note my argument is not "government is bad", its that there is an inherent conflict of interest which can lead to bias whether it is a company or the government)? And as to my "issues", no, as I have said, I don't mind using them sparingly as Wikipedia explains in multiple parts at RS, and I have used them in this article and elsewhere I have used them in Wikipedia. And as to a free pass, hardly, but I expect to get the same results if you review or someone else, and only based on the GA criteria, nothing more and certainly nothing less. I leave the rest of the personal comments about me alone, but do note that when I mean I haven't targeted it for FA does not mean I'm trying to write crap, you may want to take a look and the article prior to my work, that was crap. But I don't see this making FA anytime soon due to the lack of complete information on the topic. It is newer and doesn't have the coverage of say Yellowstone National Park, but that's doesn't mean I am going to write a worse article. I have on numerous occasions said I will work on the prose to improve it. My "issues" have been with the other non-GA issues brought to the review. Seriously, image size makes this lower quality or why another wetlands area was not linked? Aboutmovies (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is already over. Your "issues" were already addressed and do not have any bearing on improving the natural environment section. I've already addressed how primary sources are used and how ecological data from the USFWS is not only acceptable for this article, but required. You do not seem to understand how primary, secondary, and tertiary definitions change with usage by topic; what might be acceptable in one article is not in another. I've looked at your contribution history. The reason you don't understand this is because you approach every article as if it was the same, when that is not how things work. Each article (and topic) requires a different approach. For example, in an article about volcanoes, primary sources from the USGS and volcano observatories have the latest data, and primary journal articles are used to supplement and expand on that data. If I were to rely on published books and newspaper articles to write an article about a volcano, the entire article would be wrong, as data changes over time and there are official government sites that produce this data on a regular basis, both on their websites and in reports. The same is true with this article, especially concerning the species counts, migratory patterns, and habitat restoration. You either don't want to write about the actual topic, or you feel that you can't. That's fine, but in this kind of situation you are supposed to ask for help, not attack the reviewer and complain that I'm being too hard on you. For goodness sake, this is an article about a wildlife refuge! That you are causing such a fuss over such an innocuous topic is unheard of in my book. Secondary and tertiary sources work great when we are talking about the history of the refuge, but cannot be seriously trusted when we are talking about ecology and species. Having worked on these issues for a long time, it's a rare day when I can trust a secondary source over a primary in a science-related topic. Feel free to keep coming up with excuses as to why you won't cleanup the natural environment section, which is, for all intents and purposes, a glorified embedded list. Hardly acceptable, wouldn't you say? Oh, and just for the record, your argument about the refuge vs. the natural environment above was so incredibly off the wall that it isn't worth five seconds addressing it. This is over. You have had your say, I've had mine, and I'm passing this as a GA with a formal protest over the lack of information concerning a wildlife refuge in an article about a refuge. Silliest thing I've seen in years, but it takes all kinds... Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are still procrastinating and wasting time to avoid cleaning up the natural environment section. No, I'm not going to talk about other articles to help you maintain the distraction. To correct your misunderstanding, Wikipedia doesn't discourage the use of primary sources. It prefers secondary sources whenever possible, but this is because people can use primary sources to come to novel conclusions. Primary sources may be used, and those who use them need to use them carefully. If one lacks secondary sources for a particular dataset, only descriptive claims may be used. Wikipedia uses secondary sources to avoid dealing with this problem, but science articles use primary sources much more than non-science articles, and for good reason. The popular press often gets science wrong. Describing habitats, species counts, and protection measures with primary sources from the USFWS is perfectly acceptable according to guidelines and policies. There is no way to misinterpret the number of birds counted in a specific habitat, the number is printed in the report. And, the USFWS are the recognized authority in the refuge, so using their data is perfectly acceptable. You are trying to make an issue where there is none. Using U.S. government publications from the USFWS to describe the habitat and ecology are acceptable in this article, so your argument is baseless. Viriditas (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

Article appears neutral, but I don't see any criticism. Is there any? I don't think the author has intentionally tried to paint a rosy glow, but there must have been problems with some aspects of the refuge. Or not? Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

File:Tualatin River NWR visitor center.JPG

Map

Natural environment section

  • Both images in this section are bunched up in the top right. They would serve the reader by spreading them out throughout the section, perhaps right aligned at the top and left aligned at the bottom. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved the bunched up ones, but none of your comments here relate to the GA criteria. There are images, they are appropriate, they have proper captions, and they are properly tagged/licensed. With being too small on your screen, that is exactly why the MOS advocates not overriding the thumb preference, as screen sizes vary, thus users can adjust their display preferences under "my preferences" to increase image sizes. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'm familiar with the MOS, especially the part where it explains where and why "size-forcing" may be appropriate. And this is one of those times. Just to be clear, I am referring to File:Tualatin River NWR visitor center.JPG. I think you got confused by the "Based on the image depicted, it's too small on my screen" comment. Based on the image depicted: 1) The small bottom region is difficult to see at standard size, and 2) The detail cannot be made out at standard size. Of course, you are welcome to disagree. I'm not going to hold up the review because of a minor disagreement. We both have better things to do. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By section[edit]

Lead[edit]

A visitor center was added in 2008 off of Oregon Route 99W near Sherwood in the Portland metropolitan area. Located 15 miles (24 km) southwest of Portland it is bordered by Sherwood, Tualatin and Tigard. A newer area is located further west near the city of Gaston surrounding the former Wapato Lake.

  • Chronologically, this is backwards. Shouldn't the statement about Wapato Lake appear before the visitors center? Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I fixed it. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, it looks like you weren't talking about the March 2007 creation of the Wapato Lake Unit, but the purchase of the new property in 2008, which indeed, came after the visitors center. But having information duplicated about the visitors center in the lead twice doesn't make sense, and combine this with the ambiguity of the information in general, and I think the new changes work better, but perhaps we can still improve it. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

An area citizen proposed to the city of Sherwood that a refuge be created in the area in 1990.

  • This probably reads well if you wrote the article, but I had to think for a bit about what an "area citizen" was! :) The introductory sentence should strive for clarity as much as possible. It might help if you hold my hand (rather that of the reader) by starting off with, "The creation of the refuge was first proposed..." or something like that. Viriditas (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This included twenty water flow systems and dikes that were added in 1997 alone at the refuge to allow managers to flood parts of the land.[8]

  • Not sure what "alone" is supposed to mean here, but if I had to guess, you are saying that in 1997 20 new systems were added all in the same year. I'm seeing a lot of informal language, and this is due to your reliance on newspaper articles. Not a bad thing, but it's something to watch out for when you are using them to write encyclopedia articles. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset magazine award

Natural environment[edit]

  • The prose in this section needs to be rewritten. It's very disjointed and concepts are introduced to the reader, but not explained. For example, in the first paragraph, what is a "unit"? What are the "Tonquin scablands"? Etc. Remember your audience doesn't know the topic. And, the introduction to the habitat is glossed over as if it is unimportant, when in fact it is the foundation of this entire section. Educator guides like this one tie it all together. Since you, the author of this article, have visited the refuge (you took the photos after all) the best thing you can do for the reader is take their hand and walk them through the park. This will bring back the "flow" that is missing in this section. Don't worry about the references, as everything you can possibly write is already supported by the sources in the article and the official PDF's. Then, go back in and add the sources. This will work, try it. Also, it may be easier for you (and the reader) to break this up into units along with the amenities section. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of multiple references here seems odd here because most of this is general information which can be found in the PDF park brochures, so there's no need to cite six references after a statement of general fact, but obviously, some references are better than none. I'll see if I can cleanup the references later, or if not, I'll just leave it, but it is hard on the eye. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at this again, the use of multiple references here is totally unnecessary. This is basic information about the species that inhabit the refuge and doesn't even require sources to begin with as it is easily sourced. But at least one good source is acceptable. No need to cite six in a row for a list of bird species when there are single sources that contain this information. Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amenities[edit]

This is next to a grove of oak trees estimated to be 350 years old.[9]

Centennial and River are two of the viewing areas along the trails.

  • With the section organization, I think the way it is works best. Only one unit is open to visitors, thus only it has any sort of "people" things to speak of. Otherwise, the break up by the refuge folks into units is based on geography, so there is little difference in the habitats of each unit. And the F&W folks rarely mention the different units, other than that they exist and sort of where. It also highlights that the refuge is a wildlife refuge, yet part is accessible to people part of the year (especially since one of the selling points apparently was that this was in an urban area and could help educate people about the need for greenspaces). It's sort of the contradiction if you will of wildlife refuges. Then as to the Wapato Unit, this is separate since it has received a lot of press, it is really far away compared to the other units that are more or less connected to each other, it was created well after the original planned area, most of the area is still just planned and not owned yet by the gov, there is no public access to the Wapato Unit, and the main feature is a former lake so the habitat is a bit different too (plus it is more foothills out there). Also, I suspect it will eventually be spun off into its own NWR, based on the above points. So, to me it makes since to it as its own section given the unique circumstance of it and that its planned area is significantly larger than the rest of the refuge. I'll make the other adjustments on the specificity you asked for. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the oak grove part, hopefully that works for you. With the viewing area, I'm not sure I could go into any details without introducing original research, as these are only mentioned as places to view wildlife. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wapato Lake Unit[edit]

  • As with the natural environment and amenities section, why have Wapato lake Unit in its own section but not Rock Creek, Onion Flats, Riverboat, Tualatin River, and the Atfálat´i units? Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That part of the refuge is located

Here is the paragraph:

About 15 miles (24 km) to the west of the main refuge is the Wapato Lake Unit near the city of Gaston along Oregon Route 47 in both Washington and Yamhill counties. This part of the refuge is located around the former 800-acre (320 ha) Wapato Lake that was drained around 1900 to increase farmland.[15] Features of the Wapato Lake Unit include Ayers and Wapato creeks. The old lake bed is mainly peat and was prime soil for the wapato plant harvested by native peoples prior to conversion to farmland. .

This would be much easier to read if you introduce the reader slowly and gradually, with something like:

Wapato Lake Unit is located 15 miles (24 km) to the west of the main refuge, near the city of Gaston along Oregon Route 47 in Washington and Yamhill counties. The area was once the site of Wapato Lake, whose organic-rich peat bed was used by Native Americans (Which tribe? If it is the Atfalati, why not say so?) as soil for the wapato plant (Sagittaria latifolia). In 1900, the 800-acre (320 ha) lake was drained to increase farmland. Valley forests, prairies, and wetlands encompass the region today, including two small streams, Ayers and Wapato creeks.

This is just an example. Viriditas (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made some changes. Feel free to correct them. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 1900, the 800-acre (320 ha) lake was drained to increase farmland.[15]

  • The source there and others list it as earlier. My guess is that (and hopefully the re-word works) the locals drained parts of it here and there over the years, with the improvement district finishing off the lake with the help of federal money during the depression. The USFWS aren't exactly trained historians, and my guess is they got some help from the county historical society, who are nice people, but do not always have the best information. Plus since this isn't exactly critical to the USFWS goals with the project, they may not have investigated that aspect much or even glossed over some of it in favor of environmental impact and costs. Is there any thing left with this section then that needs to be addressed? I think we are down to the "natural environment" section, but let me know. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

  • I don't think they should as I don't see them as sisters. One is a municipal one and the other federal, they only share a river and are not that close to each other. The Tualatin Hills Nature Park that includes wetlands and other wetlands/nature preserves in the drainage basin are also not mentioned, nor are any of the other NWR in Oregon. If it was next to TRNWR and were created about the same time, I could see it being mentioned together, but the sources generally do not group these two together, other than within a larger set of nature places in Washington County. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  • Citation templates are not required but they help maintain consistency. Some of the references lack dates, others are vague. What is Staff. “Top 63 General Building Contractors”, Northwest Construction, April 1, 2006, Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 48, McGraw-Hill Companies? Is there an ISBN? Citation templates, while not required, do help in situations like these since the editor has to match the template with the type of source and use similar formatting. I'm not saying you need to use those templates-you don't. But, the references need to be cleaned up (look at the Federal Register cite as another example, it isn't attributed correctly), titles and names of publications should be wikified whenever possible. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which ones lack dates, I see none. If you mean some lack retrieval dates, then please understand that only web only resources should have retrieval dates, which all web only ones here do, see WP:CITE.
  • As you have pointed out, most of the references are newspapers, and if you use the template, you will notice the exact same formatting. The templates are crutches for those who do not know how to format citations, which is why they are optional. And using the correct {{Citation}} can make it too structured for the source, so it becomes less obvious what the source is supposed to be or where in the source the info came from, not to mention it forces a specific citation style on the article (I don't know if its APA or Chicago style or something else).
  • With the "vague one", there is not a ISSN for that journal, and does using a citation template make it easier to understand when you are reading the article, which is where the consistency needs to be, in reading, not editing.?[1]

[2]

  1. ^ Staff. “Top 63 General Building Contractors”, Northwest Construction, April 1, 2006, Vol. 9, No. 4, p. 48, McGraw-Hill Companies.
  2. ^ Staff (April 1, 2006), "Top 63 General Building Contractors", Northwest Construction, 9 (4), McGraw-Hill Companies: 48
  • With your contention that "publications should be wikified whenever possible", where exactly does that come from? WP:CITE does not advocate this (other than for websites that are used as sources), and it would be contrary to Wikipedia:Linking. Not that I don't usually see this, but I try not to as I consider it a common practice that people have gotten used to but are actually not supposed to do. Much like people nominating articles for deletion due to a lack of notability without searching for sources to see if it is indeed notable or not.
    • That's generally true, and I apologize for not being specific. Basically, the first time a publication is used in a reference, I tend to look for a link to it, if one exists. Is this required? Probably not, but it helps me see what kind of sources you are using and gives the reader more control over checking them out for themselves and doing further research. For example, (and this obviously won't hold true for all) if I wanted to search through the archives of one of the newspapers to follow-up on cite, a URL to the article itself would help. Failing that, an internal link to the publication would help me navigate to the wiki page, which would have a link to the main site. Depending on my access level, I might be able to find the original story from there... Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be different ways to do it, but the way I'm familiar with is like this:
  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Month Day, Year). "Title" (format optional). Federal Register (United States Government Printing Office) Volume (Issue): Pages. URL. Retrieved on Year-Month-Day.
I can help you try to locate it online; I'm pretty sure they are all accessible and I've had good luck finding most if not all of them. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found it and converted it. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the dates from those 2 that were missing, so think I have addressed everything that needs to be addressed, but please let me know if something was missed. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just noticed some missing authors. Should be easy to fix though. Viriditas (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I don't see the need for the MSNBC link and recommend its deletion. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is needed at all, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/services/yhtp/energy_projects_detail.cfm/id=43 is better served as a reference for sustainable materials in what is now called the "Amenities" section, not as an external link. Viriditas (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ext. links section needs a link to the official site: http://www.fws.gov/tualatinriver/ I suspect there may be other sites as well. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why http://www.friendsoftualatinrefuge.org/index.cfm isn't linked? Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the "official cite" already exists in the infobox, thus should not be in the ELs section, per WP:EL. With the Friends site, I did not run across the site, so it should be added. With the MSNBC link, it passes ELs criteria and at some point should be incorporated into the article (the fact that it was selected as a paradise preserved, not the content of the blurp). With the energy.gov source, again it has some info that may be added later. This is GA, not FA, and thus these ELs can be used to help reach the depth (or as they call it comprehensive) required of FA vs. the breadth of GA. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there information in the MSNBC link that the reader needs, information that they cannot find in this article? Honestly, I don't see the purpose of the MSNBC link at all, but maybe I'm missing something. Agree with adding the friends site, but I have the same question about the energy.gov site. Is there information in that link that one doesn't get in the article? No issue on this, just curious. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the problem now! The MSNBC article appears to be a reprint of the Sunset Magazine article blurb about being selected as a preserved paradise, and that's already in the history section. I propose merging it into that section as a reference. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is some info in the energy article that is not in the article, mainly specifics on the green aspects of the building. The Friends site has been added, and the MSNBC link converted to a footnote for the Sunset item. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure we can still merge the energy link into this section, although there is no hurry. As you are probably already aware, it duplicates most of the content from the current reference to http://www.doi.gov/greening/awards/2008/2008_honorable.html. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tualatin_River_National_Wildlife_Refuge/GA1&oldid=791788751"