Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Forest Park (Portland)/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 SandyGeorgia 23:50, 18 April 2009 [1].

Forest Park (Portland)

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it finally meets all the criteria. This urban park is large, heavily forested, and heavily used. I thought the article was nearly comprehensive months ago, but User:llywrch, who did a peer review, made many helpful suggestions about traffic, crime, and other park problems that I had completely overlooked. In addition, User:EncMstr provided photos of trails, trees, and trail workers that significantly improved the article. Finetooth (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly. Finetooth (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tech. Review -- Ref formatting (checked with
  external links (checked with the dab finder tool and links checker tool) are all up to standards.--Truco 17:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you, Truco. Finetooth (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I read this with interest, and could find little obviously wrong with it, apart from a formatting oversight, which I fixed. I'm sure that others will find nit-picks I've missed, but good luck with this. jimfbleak (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Another impressive article improved by Finetooth! I'd like to see a little more clear coverage of how Forest Park relates to Macleay Park (part of it, and maybe the best-known part locally), Washington Park (adjoining), the 40 mile loop. All are mentioned in passing, but I'd imagine many readers would want to understand how the park relates to these other major entities. Also, I believe Metro (Oregon regional government) purchased a large parcel of land adjoining the park after a 2006 ballot measure -- if that's as significant as I think it is, it bears mention. I'll do a little research. Fine article, though. Look forward to !voting support soon. -Pete (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metro's page about Forest Park strategy
  • Natural areas top Metro's to do list, 2007 Oregonian article (requires login)
  • 2002 press release about Metro purchase of 31 acre parcel adjoining Forest Park (so apparently they've done this at least twice)
  • Forest Park fallacy, a 2006 article analyzing the claims of Forest Park as being the "biggest" anything. (A subsequent letter to the editor noted that the study cited for this article was done prior to the addition of 800 acres to the park.)

Thank you for your kind words and helpful suggestions. In response to your suggestion about Macleay Park, I have altered the last part of the "History section to say, "These smaller parks became part of the larger park when it was finally created. Some of them, such as Macleay Park, are still referred to by their original names even though they are part of Forest Park." I hope that makes the connection more clear, and I thank you for the suggestion.

In the "Wildwood Trail" section of the article, Washington Park is already described as "adjacent" to Forest Park. The map in the infobox shows their exact physical relationship, and in response to your suggestion I have changed the map caption to say, "Location of Forest Park and Washington Park in Portland". Washington Park is so small on the map that it would be easy to miss without this addition to the caption. Thanks for raising this issue.

The "Wildwood Trail" section says that 27 miles (43 km) of Wildwood Trail is in Forest Park and that the trail is , "... the longest section of the

40 Mile Loop

, a trail network of roughly 150 miles (240 km) reaching many parts of the Portland metropolitan area." I honestly can't think of what to add to this that would make it more clear. The 40 Mile Loop article to which I've linked spells out the details and includes a map of the citywide trail network.

Your point about new land acquisition is a good one. I will carefully read the material you've provided links to and add something about what Metro is up to. I'll post an update here when I've sorted this out. Thanks again. Finetooth (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Portland Tribune article was most helpful. In light of the doubts about the "largest urban forest" claim, I've softened the lead to say "one of the largest", and in the History section I've changed the text to include the controversy, citing the Tribune. Finetooth (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad the comments are helpful, and I like what you've done. I'm sorry I didn't catch this when in peer review, as I understand these are kind of big concerns and take some time to address.

I do think that Forest Park's role as something of a cornerstone of Portland's park system, and its relation to these other elements, needs to be emphasized a bit more, though I don't know exactly how. Here's a couple options: the "Wildwood Trail" section could become a subsection of a new "Recreational use" section, which could have a brief overview paragraph. Or, the "Wildwood Trail" section and the "History" section could become subsections of a new "Human use" section, again with a brief overview. Thoughts on that? -Pete (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. We had an edit conflict, I think. I was about to add that your suggestions about Metro were spot on. I've added a paragraph about Metro's work to the bottom of the History section. That was a very good catch on your part. Most of the acreage that Metro has acquired or protected is outside the park boundaries and doesn't show up in the official park size. Nevertheless, it is important to the health of the park and the creatures that live there. Finetooth (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm willing to look for a reliable source that says the park is a cornerstone of the Portland park system, I don't believe it would be a good idea to create new sections along the lines you are suggesting. Finetooth (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, maybe the quote I've just added to the Geography section will do the trick. Does that help? Finetooth (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After further rumination, I've decided to remove the Houle quote, which doesn't seem to add much that is substantive, and to work with your Recreational use suggestion instead of resisting like a cat that doesn't want a bath. More later. Finetooth (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have reasonably addressed the cornerstone question this time. Looking outside the box, which was the park boundary in this case, I added a regional parks and trails context into which the park fits. 'Recreational use" morphed into "Recreational network" and became more interesting the more I looked. Please let me know what you think and if you have further suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for putting so much effort into that. I meant to work on it myself, but wikidrama, real life, work, and general laziness conspired to keep me away from this fine project for a bit. Your efforts have exceeded my expectations in nearly every respect. The only further change I'd make is to shift the emphasis on Metro's 2006/07 activity to putting it in the context of its Natural Areas Program, which it began exploring in 1991. I'd suggest something along the lines of the following paragraph (which probably belongs before the paragraph about the 2005 Oregonian article). I'm including it here instead of in the article, because it probably oughtta have that Finetooth polish before it goes in. (As a side note, I'm really disappointed in how little information about the program itself exists on Metro's site. Reading between the lines, it appears to be a major program with a life of its own within the agency; however, their web site treats only specific initiatives, and the new oversight committee, not the program itself. I think I may try to contact the committee and request that they update their web site with this info.)

-Pete (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing...I actually liked that Houle quote. I think you initially added it out of a desire to add substance to the article; and you're right, it wasn't the ideal way to do that. However, I am of the (perhaps minority) view that the occasional quotation like this really adds color to an article, as long as it's not a substitute for substantive citations. You may recall a similar discussion we had about the Tim Egan quote on Columbia River. I'd love to see that quote included somewhere. It's not going to diminish my enthusiastic support !vote for this FAC, but I'm just sayin'. -Pete (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say "one other thing?" I can't get enough of thinking about this article. I wonder if there is a good way to adjust the language at the end of the article. I remember the incident well about the homeless man and his daughter. It seems to me that (apart from a little initial, unfounded nervousness about the nature of their relationship) that the man was generally warmly received by the community and the press after they were found. Technically, it is accurate to say he committed a crime; however, I think that captures only a minor part of the story. The man was generally perceived as a father doing his best to provide for his daughter in spite of his significant lack of resources and, if I recall correctly, significant PTSD as a Vietnam vet (manifesting as an aversion to urban homeless life, both as his own preference and out of concern for his daughter's safety). He had a library in their makeshift home, and was doing his best to provide an education to his daughter. I believe there was a significant charitable effort that resulted in a large number of people donating money to enable him to rent a home.

Anyway, I don't think there's an obvious way to put it in another section, but I think there's probably a way to adjust the wording so that it makes it clear that "criminal" is not the primary identification for this man. -Pete (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>Thanks, Pete. I'll consider all this and work on improvements. Finetooth (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added the Houle quotation. I re-organized the "Crime" section as "Crime and other trouble" to include dogs, lack of funding, etc., and to allow splitting the father-daughter off into their own paragraph instead of having them rather insensitively lumped in with the murderers. I agree with you that they deserved sympathy and help, and I'm glad they got it. I revised the Natural Areas Program along the lines you suggested, adding the 1991 inception date and citation, and clarifying that the program covers projects in three counties. However, I think it's very important to note the 865 acres have not been "added to the park through the Natural Areas Program." The source you cite goes on to say, "More than 600 of these acres are located in proximity to the northern end of the existing park boundaries... " I've tried to make more clear in the revised paragraph that the Metro additions are mostly outside the park and that they include environmental easements on private land as well as actual land purchases by the public entity. Thanks for these additional helpful suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - All images have excellent descriptions and verifiable licenses.

Thank you for checking these and for your kind words. Finetooth (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't know for sure, but I think the ISBN for Hiking and Running Guide to Forest Park is
  ISBN 9781135134020. 98.166.139.216 (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Good catch. My set of the maps seems to have no ISBN printed on it. However, Powell's Books lists the set under the ISBN you cite, and I have added it to the map citations in the article. By the way, although you meant well, I'd rather not use the Harvard citations, and I removed them. It's best to discuss changes to the citation format with the main contributing editors before changing the format. I more-or-less see how the Harvards work, but I find them distracting. Finetooth (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Enthusiastically. Thanks, Finetooth, for your thoughtful consideration of my feedback, and for your hard work both before and during this FAC. Great work! -Pete (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pete, for your kind words and your many helpful suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, nice work. I couldn't find any issues. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Julian, for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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