Jump to content

Talk:Bothell, Washington

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

Education

[edit]

I reverted the changes to the final sentence in the education section. No school in Bothell is part of the Edmonds School District, there are no Edmonds School District schools in Bothell, and there is no connection between the two school districts. The list of Edmonds schools are available at http://www.edmonds.wednet.edu/schools/default.cfm, and the map of those schools is at http://www.edmonds.wednet.edu/about/map/elemmap.cfm (the secondary school coverage is the same). See Northshore School District to compare. Brier is within the Edmonds district. There are places where Brier borders on Bothell on its northeast, but none of the areas covered by Brier schools are in Bothell. In any case, even if there were some slight overlap the added text was incorrect.

Koganei, Tokyo as a sister city?

[edit]

I've heard that Koganei, Tokyo is the sister-city to Bothell. If someone can confirm this, please add this info. I do know that Cedar Park Christian School in Bothell has had several exchange students travel to Koganei (and vice-versa). -- Eptin 08:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics section?

[edit]

Is the "Politics" section intentionally bolded instead of section-headed? It looks wrong as it is. Solarbird 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The politics section seems to be correctly formatted. It is a subsection, and in the code it uses three equal signs instead of two. --Eptin 19:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand - it just seems odd as a subsection of demographics. I agree it's too small for a section of its own, it just seems, you know... odd. (No, I'm not going to make a Wiki case of it. ^_^ ) Things like that, I've started putting into talk: as kind of a storage bin until there's more. (C.f. Kenmore's talk page.) Solarbird 04:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen similar information in other demographics sections for other cities, though not usually set aside in a subsection. I wonder if, even though this is census information, it might make more sense in the Government and Politics section that I just added? Llachglin 01:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gibbard

[edit]

As far as I know Ben Gibbard never lived in Bothell (as it states in the Residents section)... any sources? Abcdemily 03:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization of sections

[edit]

Per Wikipedia guidelines, I deleted the Trivia section. I think I'm the user who created this section in the first place, moving information that was in History that didn't really belong there. Rather than delete the content, I moved it into a new Culture section (matching usage for other city articles). I made the existing Civic Events section into a subsection here, and created a Sports subsection with information from the trivia section (and new info about Pop Keeney Stadium) and grouped everything else in an admittedly nebulous "Popular Culture" subsection. All three items in that section are national media references or events that featured Bothell. It's possible none of these items are encyclopedic enough to really belong in the article at all, but I didn't want to make that call without opening a discussion. The Blake Lewis item in particular is probably more relevant for the Blake Lewis article. I also think the list of famous people from Bothell is also probably not necessary for this article, and not standard practice in most city articles, but I don't want to make that call either.Llachglin 01:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motto

[edit]

I'm not sure we have the motto right. An official source for that would be great, but I don't know if that's possible. I know it's what we have on our welcome signs. As far as I know, it might be just "Bothell - For a day or a lifetime" or "For a day or a lifetime". I can't just trust that the full text of the sign coming into town is the official motto. I've seen Bothellites using different versions.

This Seattle Times article gives the motto as "For a Day or a Lifetime"

Even looking at the city's official site lends credibility to the shorter version, it seems to me. Its graphics read:

The City of Bothell
Welcomes you...for a day or a lifetime

You see that? It has the "For a day or a lifetime" part, but the rest is just rearranged in front of it.

Hmm...*strokes beard*

Misha Vargas in Bothell (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in the city and the note about "Hype" is funny because I remember when that happened. It was a very common occurance among the local teen population in the 1990s (i.e. spraying the BOT out of the welcome sign). Welcome To Hell For A Day Or A Lifetime was a motto among the Bothell High classes of the early '90s.HansEworth (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it still happens. A few years ago I was heading into Bothell and the BOT on the sign was much brighter than the HELL, suggesting it had been repainted only recently. Love that place! Begeun (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bothell, Washington/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article is okay. History section needs more references along with the notable people. -- Hdt83 Chat 22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bothell, Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bothell, Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Area of Bothell

[edit]

In "Geography", it is stated: "According to the City of Bothell, the city has a total area of 13.7 square miles (35.48 km2), all of it land."

How can that be? The Sammamish River cuts right through Bothell. Note that the cited source does not support the assertion that all of Bothell's area is land. So I am going to modify that statement. --Alan W (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Census Bureau must not have counted it. The raw 2020 Gazetteer files list the water area as "0". SounderBruce 06:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good. You found a reliable source (which I overlooked in the InfoBox). I meant no "original research"; I just couldn't see the statement allowed to stand as it was, since it was not supported by the cited source. Still seems odd to me; but "you can't fight city hall". Or the U.S. Census Bureau. :-) --Alan W (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information in History section

[edit]

The first paragraph of the history section features incorrect information. I am going to post the correct information here since my corrections keep getting reverted.


Current:[1]

"The Sammamish River valley from Lake Washington to Issaquah Creek was historically inhabited by the indigenous Sammamish people (Lushootseed: sc̓ababš; also known as the "s-tah-PAHBSH", or "willow people"), a Coast Salish group with an estimated population of 80 to 200 by 1850. Among them were the "ssts'p-abc" ("meander dwellers"), who settled near the river's mouth at two villages—the larger of which was "tlah-WAH-dees" between modern-day Kenmore and Bothell. Most of the Sammamish were removed from their lands in 1856 following the Puget Sound War and assigned to the Port Madison and Tulalip reservations."

My proposed changes:[2]

"The Sammamish River valley from Lake Washington to Issaquah Creek was first inhabited by the Indigenous Sammamish people (Lushootseed: sc̓ababš), a Coast Salish group with an estimated population of 80 to 200 around 1850. The Sammamish had a major winter village, ƛ̕ax̌ʷadis, at the mouth of the Sammamish River, between what is now Bothell and Kenmore. Although the Sammamish resisted removal efforts by settlers, they were eventually removed to Fort Kitsap following the 1855-1856 Puget Sound War. Some Sammamish continued to live in the area, working as laborers and farmers, but after the removal of the majority from ƛ̕ax̌ʷadis, the village was destroyed."

Here are my comments, which are OR but at this point I am justifying their existence:

"...inhabited by the indigenous Sammamish people (Lushootseed: sc̓ababš; also known as the "s-tah-PAHBSH" [sic; it is written "s-tsah-PAHBSH" in the source on p. 31], or "willow people")..."

  • The name is sc̓ababš as stated (Bates et al. 1994 p.50-51). "s-tah-PAHBSH" is meaningless in Lushootseed. Buerge is approximating how the Lushootseed language sounds, equivalent to using respell (suh-MA-mish. We don't spell Sammamish like that???). Should be removed.
  • What's more, the etymology is disputed, variously translated as "meander dwellers," (Hilbert et al. 2001, p.81) "willow people" (Buerge 1984, p.31), or "hunter people" (Dougherty 2008). The name comes from sc̓ap/sc̓əp (which is the disputed part) and =abš, the suffix meaning "people," typical in the names of Lushootseed-speaking peoples. Due to being surrounded by vowels, the final p in sc̓apabš becomes sc̓ababš. FWIW, as a Lushootseed speaker, I think Buerge's or Waterman's are probably the most likely, however, we can't pretend there is one accepted version ("willow people") when there are multiple propositions. I think the etymology should be removed as it is explained in detail on the main for Sammamish people.

"Among them were the "ssts'p-abc" ("meander dwellers")..."

  • Nonsensical, this is just a diferent interpretation of sc̓ababš. This is derived from T.T. Waterman's original recording of the name sc̓ababš. It is seen on page 81 of Hilbert et al. 2001: "The people living here were called the sts!apa'bc. The name for the people has been applied to the lake and the river." Waterman's orthography uses "c" as "sh." (Ibid. viii) This is a major blunder from the King County streams assessment. The "ssts'p-abc" and the "s-tah-PAHBSH" are the same people, just using different ways of pronouncing the name sc̓ababš.

"...who settled near the river's mouth at two villages—the larger of which was "tlah-WAH-dees" between modern-day Kenmore and Bothell."

  • I don't know if "larger" is verifiable. It says in the sources that it is a "major" village (History of Bothell n.d. p.1; King County Streams Monitoring Update for September 2018: Sammamish River 2018 p.3). Please correct me if I am missing where it says it is larger.\
  • The village's name is ƛ̕ax̌ʷadis (Hilbert et al. 2001 p.81, 86). Also see the Waterlines map by the Burke Museum, and the City of Kenmore, which recently named a park after the village. Again, "tlah-WAH-dees" is an attempt to sound out the name. You can see a similar spelling on the park website ("Tl' awh-ah-dees").[3]

"Most of the Sammamish were removed from their lands in 1856 following the Puget Sound War and assigned to the Port Madison and Tulalip reservations."

  • FWIW, I think it should be added that they initially resisted the removal, because that's why they were moved following the conclusion of the Puget Sound War. They participated in it and lost, so the leader's people let themselves be moved to Fort Kitsap (Buerge 1984 p.31). Only later were they assigned to Tulalip (Ibid.) which I don't think it reflects in the article.
  • This is why I added the fact that "[s]ome Sammamish continued to live in the area [Bothell-Kenmore area], working as laborers and farmers, but after the removal of the majority from ƛ̕ax̌ʷadis, the village was destroyed." (Kenmore by the Lake: A Community History p.15, 16). This is relevant because it regards the village that precedes the modern settlement of Bothell. It is in the article, having survived being removed, so I assume @SounderBruce believes the village's existence near Bothell to be relevant. Adding one sentence about its demise further adds context, instead of just going from "there was a village" to "now there are American settlers."
  • SounderBruce takes issue with the fact that the Kenmore Historical Society source is self-published. I believe it is reliable because the history was supported by King County and the City of Kenmore. There are several other sources in the article (such as "History of Bothell" by the City of Bothell) which are published by historical societies or the city/county itself, and I think they are just as legitimate.

References

  • Bates, Dawn; Hess, Thom; Hilbert, Vi (1994). Lushootseed Dictionary. Seattle: University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-97323-4. OCLC 29877333.
  • Buerge, David (August 1984). "Indian Lake Washington" (PDF). Seattle Weekly. pp. 29–33.
  • Dougherty, Phil (January 28, 2008). "Sammamish Names Then and Now". Sammamish Heritage Society. Archived from the original on May 7, 2015. Retrieved November 21, 2023.
  • Hilbert, Vi; Miller, Jay; Zahir, Zalmai (2001). sdaʔdaʔ gʷəɬ dibəɬ ləšucid ʔacaciɬtalbixʷ - Puget Sound Geography. Original Manuscript from T.T. Waterman. Lushootseed Press. ISBN 979-8750945764.
  • "History of Bothell". City of Bothell. Archived from the original on February 19, 2022. Retrieved February 19, 2022.
  • Kenmore by the Lake: A Community History (PDF). Kenmore Heritage Society. 2003.
  • "King County Streams Monitoring Update for September 2018: Sammamish River" (PDF). King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. October 24, 2018. pp. 3–5. Retrieved February 19, 2022.

PersusjCP (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being prepped for GA and eventual FA status, so there is great care needed to curate "high-quality reliable sources" to meet the FA criteria. While Lushootseed Press might meet the RS standard, it does not meet the high-quality qualifier of FACR. Anything cited to Lushootseed Press and other sources that don't meet that criteria should not be included, period. Also a reminder that comments should focus on the content instead of calling out users for perceived slights; this is wandering into contentious territory and is unacceptable. SounderBruce 03:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "call you out for percieved slights," I mentioned you because you are the one trying to get it promoted to GA, and the second mention of you is simply what you wrote as a reason for your revert: "Kenmore Historical Society is self-publishing their book."[4] Other than two words, the rest is on content. Also, frankly it feels infantilizing and threatening to warn me for pinging you, and saying that pinging is "unacceptable." If you would like me to not ping you, please ask, instead of jumping straight to calling my behaviour unacceptable. I was not aware of any rules against pinging people in discussions they might be interested in.
In regards to the reliability of the Lushootseed Press sources, I will comment here on the RS noticeboard to keep it in one place. PersusjCP (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ping is not the issue. The tone of the comments above are what is straying into PA territory, and frankly is what keeps me from commenting further on this talk page to avoid being unnecessarily stressed. Accusing me of being threatening is an absurd claim, especially in light of previous comments made both on and off wiki. SounderBruce 07:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What tone?? I am genuinely asking here. I seriously tried to be neutral and civil. I didn't mean to have a mean tone and I apologize that it came off that way. Tone over text is something I struggle with and I was just trying to put the correct information.
Every time I have been called out for edit warring or said something uncivil I have apologized. In the case of the off-wiki comment, I apologized to you and deleted it. Other than that, I don't know what you could be referring to other than the couple times I was breaking the two-revert rule when I was starting out or so. I was just saying how it has felt hostile to me. I am the same in that these conversations cause me a lot of stress and I have almost stopped editing because of it. I don't want to argue any more than you do. PersusjCP (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @PersusjCP and @SounderBruce - I have reinstated PersusjCP's efforts from the revert done by SB in regards to claims that a reliable source is not of high quality and therefore should not be included. I also fail to see any WP:COPYVIO issue nor is any source listed unauthorized. Sources are admittedly reliable, content is contextual and pertinent to the history of the Bothell area. A nomination to GA status does not prohibit additional ongoing or future editing, the summary/topic explanations are not covered or granted under WP:STEWARDSHIP, and despite SB's clear GA history and experience, it is up to the GA reviewer(s) to decide the determining value of all included refs. To note, the article is being nominated for GA, not FA, and a future FA designation cannot be foreseen; the mention seems to suggest the article to be limited to any future additions/edits and must be approved of for an indetermined and unforeseeable time.

Additionally, I find it wrong that SB declared his denials of PersusjCP's edits based on absolutism (see use of aggressive "period" in first reply) and that his accusations of lack of civility from PjCP (in this topic conversation) to be unwarranted and entirely unsupported. Also, that PjCP cannot continue to explain themselves, or their efforts, should stop because of SB's stress levels is out-of-bounds and not material. In closing, PjCP's worries over feeling threatened are valid - "this is wandering into contentious territory and is unacceptable". Dismissing the claim as absurd, immediately after SB writes about their stress, is concerning.

SB's above actions - denying the use of a RS, denying content, denying a right for a user to explain their efforts - and using GA nomination status, unseen personal attacks, and mental health concerns to back his command over the article, to be highly questionable and should be noted to the future GA reviewer(s) of the Bothell page. If PersusjCP wishes to expand on the Sammamish people's history before or after the creation of Bothell, based on their original written words in this topic, they should be able to do so without impediment.Shortiefourten (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYLINK is policy. WP:RS is policy. Reverting to a version that violates these policies is simply not acceptable, nor is hounding and trying to diagnose my mental state (seriously, WTF). There are expectations of simple courtesy, especially when an article is being nominated for a process that requires stability, to discuss changes and wait for a discussion to have been resolved before re-adding contentious content. SounderBruce 19:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These changes were largely discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lushootseed_Press_as_a_reliable_publisher. There seems to be consensus that the sources are reliable (We can de-link the Buerge article if you feel it is a copyvio, that's fine). Also, I don't think Shortiefourten is hounding you just because they replied once on a talk page. Hounding involves repeated attempts to disrupt and follow another editor around, and, going by this interaction timeline between you two, that is hardly the case.[[5]] PersusjCP (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please detail what you believe to be hounding. All accusations of such need to be supported.
  2. You shared/mentioned your own stress as a reason that the conversation should end which I find immaterial. No diagnoses was stated nor inferred.
  3. I do not believe COPYLINK is qualified in this matter and we can disagree. RS is a policy and you superseded it. Since PersusjCP is willing to remove it, although I find it unnecessary, this may be a moot point.
  4. Simple courtesy goes both ways. The same courtesy you ask for, such as for the situation to be resolved, was not given to the prior editor; see "period".
I have reverted your revert per WP:BRD. You are overruled per that policy, SounderBruce. If you feel BRD does not apply, you are free to ask for an arbiter.
Shortiefourten (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BRD is not policy. You cannot use it to start another edit war. SounderBruce 00:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

@SounderBruce, PKT, and Pfly: Hi, all three of you have placed redlinks to North Creek (Washington) in various articles. Considering that there is no Wikidata item for the North Creek that flows through Bothell, but instead there are two other Wikidata items for streams known as North Creek in Washington state, North Creek (Q99215893) & North Creek (Q109507411). Using North Creek (Washington) thus might be better suited for a disambiguation page.

Perhaps it would be better to link instead to North Creek, Washington#Geography for these particular articles, as that section does describe the North Creek that flows through Bothell. If you concur, I can move forward with that. Peaceray (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative is North Creek (Sammamish River) based on the norm for rivers, but this North Creek should be the primary topic under the (Washington) disambiguator. As North Creek CDP is not a permanent designation, it'd be best to develop a separate article in the long-term. SounderBruce 03:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the North Creek (Washington) redirect to North Creek (Sammamish River) & switched to [[North Creek (Sammamish River)|North Creek]] in this article. Peaceray (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. MagentaCat1 (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bothell, Washington/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 06:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: MagentaCat1 (talk · contribs) 18:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Heya imma be taking on reviewing this one (might take me a little bit given that it's my first review and I work a lot) MagentaCat1 (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Funky writing stuffs :3

[edit]
  • “ ƛ̕ax̌ʷadis” is technically written in latin characters but reading from an English perspective it looks about as familiar as Greek. It isn’t technically a MOS violation but it compromises readability. Try and see if you can find an Anglicanization of the word somewhere, and if you can’t consider changing the phrasing of “but the village of ƛ̕ax̌ʷadis was later destroyed” to something like “but the Sammamish village was later destroyed.”
    • Any translation needs to be run through a reliable source first, and I am not seeing any that are accessible and not self-published.
      • This is acceptable then
  • “Although the Sammamish resisted removal efforts by settlers” who were these settlers? Although with any knowledge of PNW history one can infer they were some variety of white people, it doesn’t hurt to specify their flavor (Americans, British, French, ect.)
    • It is not specified in sources, so it cannot be included.
      • Both sources seem to indicate Canadians but it is unclear enough that it can be kept how it is.
  • “but the village of ƛ̕ax̌ʷadis was later destroyed.” Specify who did the destroying (“was later destroyed by the settlers” would work nicely)
    • Again, not specified in a reliable source.
  • “Bothell was incorporated as a fourth-class town on April 14, 1909” what on earth is a fourth-class town? Given that there is nothing to link to elsewhere for a clarification, I’d either the town class entirely, or provide an extremely brief explanation. (I’m not sure if the town class is important or not, given that I have absolutely no idea what the differences are.)
  • “At the time, the town had a population of 599 residents” feels redundant given that the 1910 census data which has the same numbers is located in the table in demographics.
    • It fits with the rest of the sentence's content and a little redundancy is fine in my view; forcing readers to scroll down a few sections to figure out the population is not intuitive.
  • “Passenger traffic on the railroad, how under the management of Northern Pacific, ceased in 1938.” typo, I fixed it myself.
    • Thanks for spotting that.
  • “ The 1990s also saw more high tech businesses relocate to Bothell, including biotechnology firms, call centers, and manufacturers of medical equipment and electronics.” I wouldn’t consider call centers to be high tech, I’d separate call centers from the list of high tech industries.
    • Changed to "technology businesses", as making that determination would be WP:OR.
  • “ The highest point in the city is Nike Hill, a former Nike missile silo that sits 510 feet (160 m) above sea level” if the hill itself was literally a missile silo then this is written fine. If there is a former silo atop the hill then I’d recommend you rephrase it.
    • Reworded.
  • I don't expect you to do this at all, but the list of subareas in the geography section could seriously benefit from a map (not at all a requirement, just a fun suggestion if you wanted to do it).
    • Maybe if I can get QGIS to play nice with my PC. One of the updates broke my workflow and I haven't bothered to try and set it up again.
  • “The city has a large concentration of Asian Americans, of which 33 percent identify as Indian and 29 percent identify as Chinese, and Hispanic/Latino Americans. Approximately 20 percent of Bothell residents were born outside the United States, an increase from 11 percent reported in 2000” as of when?
    • Added year to the last sentence.
  • The religion information in the Demographics section isn’t referring to actual religious population statistics, but is just noting a select few places of worship. This would make more sense in the Culture section, but given that it is such a brief mention and only refers to places of worship significant to the Asian community in Bothell, unless you want to add material about other places of worship, I’d recommend removing it entirely
    • It is meant to tie into the demographic information in the same paragraph, so it is appropriate in my view.
      • I understand that it is meant to tie in, but it isn't a demographic, it's a cultural feature.
        • Moved to the Culture section, but without a subsection.
  • “The mean commute travel time was 30.2 minutes with more than 57 percent of residents driving alone to work, 26 percent working from home, and under 6 percent using public transportation.” These statistics would make more sense in the Transportation subsection of Infrastructure.
    • The statistics are meant to tie into the workforce data, which is why they are bundled there by the Census Bureau.
  • “ Unlike other major suburbs, Bothell lacks a major big box retailers and traditional shopping centers but has several commercial districts that are anchored by supermarket stores.” This is just untrue, from an extremely brief scan on google maps Bothell has a Home Depot and a Fred Meyer, both of which are cited as examples of Big-box store, in fact Fred Meyer is actually the OG American big box store from the 30’s.
    • Changed to "many", but anything further would constitute OR if contradicting a reliable source.
      • The source states "Some regional-serving businesses, including “big-box” retail outlets and businesses which sell high-cost items like automobiles, are located along major corridors with high-visibility (e.g., SR 527, SR 522, and near I-405). A limited number of smaller neighborhood-serving businesses are also located throughout the residential areas," this blatantly contradicts the point you are trying to make, please remove it entirely.
        • Fine, removed.
  • “The Parks and Recreation Department also organizes recreational activities for residents at city parks and facilities, including sport leagues, concerts, yoga, and instructional classes;[216] these programs were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic” cancelled is British, I changed it to canceled for you. It is unclear to me whether this section is saying that classes were canceled during the pandemic and have since resumed, or if they were canceled because of the pandemic and never resumed. If they were canceled and have not resumed it honestly seems like a pretty mundane thing to include in the article, and even if they are still continuing class offerings of these types frequently change and keeping this section up to date would constitute an unnecessary for a very minor thing. I’d recommend removing this entirely, or changing it to something along the lines of “The Parks and Recreation Department also organizes recreational activities.”
    • This was written years ago, so I have removed the COVID bit but the listings are pretty standard and not expected to change year-to-year barring another global event.
  • “It is the 10th largest school district in Washington state,[238] with 35 schools and an enrollment of 23,577 students as of 2020. The district is governed by a five-member school board elected from geographic districts, of which three include portions of Bothell.” This is information for Northshore School District’s article, not Bothell’s.
    • It is relevant to the city, especially mentioning how much of Bothell is represented on the school board.
      • My apologies, I was unclear with what I meant there. The information regarding how much of Bothell is represented is very much relevant, the enrolment information is not.
        • Culled and moved up the school count.
  • “Two of the district's other high schools, Inglemoor in Kenmore and North Creek in unincorporated Snohomish County (opened in 2017), also serve Bothell residents.” Were both Inglemoor and North Creek opened in 2017, or just North Creek? If only North Creek was opened in 2017 why is there an opening year for North Creek but not Inglemoor?
    • Removed the year.

Overall the article seems solid, barring the small concerns mentioned above, it is extremely well written and well cited. MagentaCat1 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MagentaCat1: Replied to your responses. SounderBruce 08:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Since Magenta invited me to make a comment) Regarding point 1, there is a park in Kenmore which was named after the village. The official name is ƛ̕ax̌ʷadis, but it gives "Tl'awh-ah-dees" as a secondary name.[6] I remember there being some discussion about removing hyphens from Native American names at WP:IPNA, so either Tl'awhahdees (Lushootseed: ƛ̕ax̌ʷadis) or Tl'awh-ah-dees (Lushootseed: ƛ̕ax̌ʷadis) could work, since the original Lushootseed is preserved in the article for those interested, but is more? readable. I'm not sure if there are any other alternatives. Personally, I think the first looks nicer, but its not literally what the source says, and that's just my opinion. Regarding the third point, and SounderBruce correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the source says explicitly that it was destroyed by settlers (it is implied). Hence why it wasn't included. PersusjCP (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes regarding native history

[edit]

I have some concerns regarding the disputes you had concerning the native history of Bothell with @PersusjCP. The conclusions seems to have been to implement her changes. I would like a confirmation from you that you don't plan on reverting that section back to how you had it before Persus's edits, hence ensuring stability. MagentaCat1 (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MagentaCat1: This comment should probably be struck, lest you be seen as an involved party in the dispute. SounderBruce 05:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved, I had concerns about the articles stability with regards to edit waring. An article must be stable as per criteria 5. I will not be striking this comment. MagentaCat1 (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add on to my previous comment that the dispute seems to me to be resolved, and I just wanted to confirm such. If it is indeed resolved it will not affect this review.MagentaCat1 (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty everything looks good, imma pass you MagentaCat1 (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by SounderBruce (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 239 past nominations.

SounderBruce 05:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - The sources are from 2016 and 2018. Can we assume this crow commuting is still going on in 2024 without an updated source? Otherwise, some kind of wording with "reported in the 2010s" should be used

QPQ: No - Not done yet
Overall: genuinely interesting factoid (t · c) buidhe 23:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bothell,_Washington&oldid=1248288953"