Talk:Chetco River/GA1

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 23:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(begin review)

• Sequoia needs disambiguation.

Lead

• " European American settlers arrived soon after gold and other precious metals were discovered in the 1840s and 50s." I am pretty sure European American settlers were already there before gold was discoverd. Also, who discovered the gold (and other precious metals)?
• What happened between the 1850s and 1912?

(Probably more should go in the "History" section)

Course

• I recommending ditching the huge map of Oregon that is blank except for Butte Creek at the bottom. Butte Creek is not mentioned in the article, so I am unclear why readers need to know where it is.

(will continue)

Xtzou (Talk) 23:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for the speedy review. :) Wow, I could of sworn sequoia wasn't a dab page a few weeks ago... fixed. I also fixed the settler issue, hopefully. I added a small bit in the history section about what happened in the late 19th century, but I'm not sure if it needs to be included in the lead. My bad in regards to the map; it was supposed to say 'Chetco River', not Big Butte Creek. (I copied the geobox from Big Butte Creek). Do you think it should still be removed? Thanks again, LittleMountain5 16:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the Oregon map is better than nothing, in terms of locating the river. Of course it would be better to have a map of the river. Also, it would be good to add Brookings and Harbor to the map, as you mention them in the article. Right now it looks like the mouth of the river is on the California border.

Regarding another subject, I know from reading other articles on the history of the area, including the

Maritime Fur Trade, for example.) Xtzou (Talk) 16:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I've re-added the old map, which has a closer and more centered view. Also, the watershed map has Brookings and Harbor included.

As for fur traders, etc., you're very right. I've found some good sources and will be adding a bunch more history tonight. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 22:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I was surprised to learn how much history occurred in the area besides the gold rush stuff. The general area actually has a complicated international history. Xtzou (Talk) 22:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit more, but I couldn't find much pre-1850s information. I am also not quite sure what you mean by 'complicated international history'; is there something I'm missing? Thanks, LittleMountain5 14:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply In

Maritime Fur Trade, it touches on how the Russians were obtaining furs on the Northwest Coast as far down as the Russian River in California, and the British Hudson's Bay Company was very active in the fur trade as were the Americans before the gold rush era. Perhaps they overlooked Chetco River and the Native Americans there, but that seems unlikely, given the history of intense exploration of the coast line. But maybe there is no specific information about it. Xtzou (Talk) 15:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I couldn't find too much, but I did find a tidbit about Jedediah Smith and company traveling through the area in 1828. I'll keep looking, LittleMountain5 00:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

• "Gold and other precious metals such as nickel, cobalt, and chromium were discovered" - I don't think nickel, cobalt and chromium are considered precious metals.

Reworded. LittleMountain5 00:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like your improved maps. Very nice. It makes a big difference! In general, this is a fine article, but there are way too many links to common words that an English-speaking person can be expected to know. The goal is to only link to meaningful words that enhance the readers understanding of the article. We don't want the reader to be distracted by "low value" links, as that teaches the reader not to bother clicking on a link at all. Xtzou (Talk) 21:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It looks like you removed most of the overlinking... I don't see any more obvious ones. Sincerely, LittleMountain5 00:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clearly and concisely written

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Sets the context

   B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   :

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Good job. Xtzou (Talk) 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the detailed review. LittleMountain5 14:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]