Talk:Balch Creek/Archive 1

Resource

http://www.web.pdx.edu/~changh/balch.pdf Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions

So, is Balch the creek that follows the trail through Macleay Park? Is Balch's cabin the busted up stone house halfway along the trail? And most importantly, is Mr. Mortimer Stump petrified and preserved for all time as the Big Stump that's a popular hiking destination at the other end of Forest Park? -Pete (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes to first question. I don't think so to the second question. Absolutely to the third. I must get back to work on this article, but I've been madly busy since Wednesday. I'd like to fill in more of the Balch story if I can find reliable sources. I'm sure I can find reliable geology, course details, and quite a few other things even though it's a small creek. The Balch stuff has got me interested in the Forest Park article as well, on which I plan to continue tinkering. Finetooth (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be fun to do a Danford Balch article if we can find the sources. First person hanged in Oregon seems notable to me. I imagine the library would have microfiche news articles.Northwesterner1 (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. It's a Forest Park variant of Romeo and Juliet as well. Finetooth (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Balch Creek research produced new material for the Forest Park article, some of which I've added. I plan to add more and also to create a Portland Audubon Society article if nobody gets there first. Besides Johnson Creek (Willamette River) and Fanno Creek, the other most important water bodies in Portland are the two big rivers, the Columbia Slough, and Tryon Creek. Tryon is the only one left with no article at all, although it's mentioned in Tryon Creek State Natural Area. Finetooth (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

GA

I think I've taken this one about as far as I can and far enough to be thinking about GA. I still need to solve the problem of making a watershed map. The exact method I used for the Johnson Creek map will not work because the public-domain Census maps of Northwest Portland don't seem to show Balch Creek at any scale. I think I will have to use the Census map as the base and try to draw the creek by hand with reference to more than one source map. Then I will have to more-or-less repeat the process for the watershed boundary. If anybody knows of a better method, please let me know. We won't need the watershed map for GA, but we will probably need it if we make a later try for FA. Have I missed anything else? Does the article flow reasonably well? Is the structure logical? Does the lead fairly summarize the main text? Finetooth (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The two watershed maps that I've found do not look probable to me because the shape of the watershed in the flats has been mechanically altered, and the exact shape of the historic watershed may be unknown. A city version is here. Another version appears on the front cover of a document cited in the article, but it looks to me like a fair approximation rather than a precise map. In lieu of excellent source maps, I settled on a map that shows the city-county boundaries crossed by Balch Creek, the city street grid, and the creek's orientation to Forest Park and other features. Finetooth (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Quibbles

Hard to critique such an excellent article, but thought I'd note these: (1) "resting place for hikers" is an awfully nice way to describe the place that I will henceforth erroneously refer to as "Mr. Balch's house," which to my recollection is often littered with needles, condom wrappers and an array of…intriguing…odors. (2) I think the map of the entire state might be more than is needed…it's clearly stated that the creek is in Portland, and the Portland, Oregon article has plenty of maps. (3) What the heck is an Industrial Sanctuary? (That last one is a throwaway..just sayin'!) -Pete (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• (1) Removed "resting place", which was a matter of my source's opinion and not needed. The caption was a bit too long anyway.
• (2) I find the locator map useful since the red dot shows where the mouth of the creek is. The red dot feature is built into the infobox template and depends on the mouth coordinates; therefore, no other map in Wikipedia is likely to exactly duplicate this bit of information. I would agree that the Johnson Creek (Willamette River) locator map, for example, looks much like the Balch Creek locator map, but I don't see this as redundant since they appear in different articles.
• (3) Yes, the name got my attention. One of the things I find most interesting about Balch Creek is its mixed nature, and the two sanctuaries (Audubon and Industrial) express this duality nicely. Finetooth (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

All makes sense, thanks! -Pete (talk)

rainfall

Article states "Rainfall in the watershed from 1977 to 2002 averaged about 40 inches (100 cm)." An average must state a period of time covered. Is this 40 inches per month, per calendar year or per some rainfall year, etc. Hmains (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. It's per year, and I'll make that change. Thank you for spotting this. Finetooth (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Balch Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

An excellent, well-written, well-researched article. I'm honestly amazed by how much information you found on a 3.5 mile creek! Passes without hesitation. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tree height

I removed the claim, inserted about a week ago, that the Douglas-firs in the Balch Creek watershed reach heights of 200 to 240 feet. My source, Houle, does not say this, and I've been unable to find reliable confirmation elsewhere. If you have a reliable published source for this number, we can put it back in with a citation. Finetooth (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Some kind person found a source. I have added the new data, with a citation to the Portland Parks Department, to the second paragraph of "Vegetation". Thanks for raising the question. Finetooth (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)