Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Big Butte Creek/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 01:36, 14 April 2010 [1].

Big Butte Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): LittleMountain5 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Big Butte Creek/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets all of the criteria. Although quite small, I believe it covers nearly everything about the small stream. The article is very similar to Little Butte Creek (Rogue River), which recently passed its FAC. My thanks to Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot who passed its GAN last month, and everyone who helped out with Little Butte Creek, because, like I said, this article is very similar. :) Sincerely, LittleMountain5 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments. No dab links; alt text good. External link to http://rvtv.roguedatavault.net/asxgen/medford/videos/water.wmv seems to be acting oddly. Ucucha 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Works fine for me, although I think it only works on Windows. LittleMountain5 01:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess so. Ucucha 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In which case a brief note ("Windows platform only") would be polite for our readers. Tony (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. LittleMountain5 14:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comments very nice article. I have some prose suggestions you might consider.

lead

while is generally temporal. Although I understand you're trying to convey that the two forks flow from two different sources, I suggest that you use either a semi-colon or make this a compound sentence, rather than use the word while.

course

what begins near Mount McLoughlin? The faults, or Fourbit?

are Big Butte springs hot springs? (I suppose they must be, given that there is fault in there)

Discharge

the first sentence is lonely. Can it be combined w the next paragraph?

A gauge on the south fork above its confluence with Willow Creek recorded data between 1986 and 1991.... According to a USGS gauge on the south fork above Willow Creek, between 1986 and 1991, .....?

Measurements were taken on the south fork 2 miles (3.2 km) above its mouth near Butte Falls between 1911 and 1991..... Similar measurements on the south fork ...between 1911 and 1991 showed....

I'm wondering if this could be in a chart. It's hard to read.

can you push the contrast a bit on your map? I found it hard to read.

more later.....This is fascinating and I'm looking forward to supporting it! Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review!

  @Comment 1: Changed to a compound sentence.

  @Comment 2: Fourbit, fixed.

  @Comment 3: I don't think they're hot springs, but I'm not sure. I'll do some research.

  @Comment 4: Merged.

  @Comment 5: Reworded, thanks!

  @Comment 6: Reworded.

  @Comment 7: That's certainly an option, although I'm not too experienced with charts. I'll take a stab at it sometime in the next few days.

  @Comment 8: Would a darker blue for the streams and stream names make it easier to read?

  Thanks again, LittleMountain5 02:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would help. or a bluer blue would be good. There has to be someone with some expertise who could help. That paragraph with all the data is really hard to read and understand. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a table in my sandbox, see what you think. It could either use the section header or the table header; which do you think would look nicer? LittleMountain5 14:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and GrahamColm has darkened the labels on the map. (Thanks!) LittleMountain5 14:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Glad to know I wasn't the only one who couldn't read the letter on the map. It looks much better now (probably could be darker, but it's readable now).
    • chart is also good. I'd add some text to explain how the information was collected. Just a few sentences, with your citation.

  Added the chart, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean about explaining how the info was collected... Mind clarifying? Thanks, LittleMountainPublic 14:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a few last comments.

Do flora inhabit? Just a question. I'm not sure that is the right word.

Sedimentation sometimes occurs due to road construction and logging....Road construction and logging sometimes cause sedimentation, leading to high turbidity, but .... Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Comment 1: I'm not sure, but I changed to 'grow' instead.

@Comment 2: Reworded that sentence.

Sincerely, LittleMountainPublic 14:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was about to say that I have tweaked the watershed map a little because I coudn't read it very well, but I see that you were watching me :) This is a well-written article with an engaging prose style and is a valuable contribution that I think satisfies all the criteria. I see it's been at FAC for some time. Let's hope for a few more reviews. Best of luck. Graham Colm (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! I just happened to notice (when making the table) that the map labels were darker than usual... two minutes after you darkened them. It looks great, thanks again. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 23:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Wonderfully written and illustrated. Well done. Pyrrhus16 23:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! LittleMountain5 15:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth: Sorry to come in so late. I didn't notice that this one until today. I'm leaning toward support, but I have a fairly short list of nitpicks and quibbles. In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I'm a member of the rivers and Oregon projects.

• Lead:
  • "until it empties into the Rogue River about 1 mile (1.6 km) southwest of Lost Creek Dam." - Would it be helpful to add the dam's other name (William L. Jess Dam) in parentheses; i.e., Lost Creek Dam (William L. Jess Dam)?
  • "The small town of Butte Falls was incorporated in 1911." - Technically Butte Falls is a city, although a small one. Also, should it be linked to Butte Falls here on first use?
  • "The creek was named due to its close proximity to Mount McLoughlin, formerly known as Snowy Butte." - How about "The creek was named after Snowy Butte, an early name for Mount McLoughlin"?
• Course
  • "There are two main forks of Big Butte Creek: the north fork and the south fork. They meet each other at 2,244 feet (684 m) above sea level." - Could these two short sentences be combined, thus: "The two main forks of Big Butte Creek, the north fork and the south fork, merge at 2,244 feet (684 m) above sea level"?
  • "The Big Butte Springs are located on Willow Creek, and the Medford Aqueduct parallels the south fork all the way to Butte Falls." - Would it be helpful to add the purpose of the aqueduct to this sentence; e.g., "Medford Aqueduct, which carries drinking water to cities in the Rogue Valley, parallels the south fork... "?
• "The south fork flows over the 15-foot (4.6 m) tall Butte Falls," - Would it be helpful to add here that the waterfall is near the city (if that is the case)? Otherwise readers may confuse the city and the falls.
• "from its mouth in the Pacific Ocean" - Is the mouth "in" the ocean? "On" and "at" don't seem quite right either. Hmmm. Maybe "its mouth, where it enters the Pacific Ocean"?

• Notes:
  • "Source elevation derived from the GNIS mouth elevations of the north and south forks." - Rather than "derived from" would "is identical to" be more clear?

Finetooth (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. All have been fixed, except riparian zone because it is linked earlier in the section (second to last sentence in the first paragraph). Thanks again, LittleMountain5 15:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks fine. You are right about riparian zone, and I added one word, "volcano", to the Mount McLoughlin sentence. Please double-check to make sure that's right. I'm switching to "support". Excellent article. Finetooth (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Your support is much appreciated. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 16:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Just one suggestion, could the captions be elaborated on a bit? They seem a bit too simple to me. Otherwise, it looks good. ceranthor 23:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit to them. Thanks! LittleMountain5 15:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nitpick: It looks like this is in en-us, but the things that measure the streams are called "gauges". In the US, they are "gages" (yes, it looks weird at first). Awickert (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Did it. Don't have time to thoroughly review the article at the moment though so can't support or oppose (drop me a message if you do need another review though). Awickert (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, didn't know that. LittleMountain5 20:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Though strangely enough, the general-use verb in US English is still to gauge. Awickert (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.