Jump to content

Talk:Columbia River/GA1

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

Good article nomination October / November 2007

[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 1, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

Comment after failed GA - please see the detailed version of things that need to be done in the subsection below - that is the deifinitive version (strikeouts not all done here, hope that is OK). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good start, but needs some cleanup for GA.

1. Well written?: FAIL for now. Several WP:MOS issues need to be addressed. The lead is five paragraphs, three of which are only one or two sentences long. From the article length, it should be only three paragraphs long. Throughout the rest of the article, almost every section has at least one very short (one or two sentence) paragraph. This makes for choppy flow and they should be combined into larger paragraphs. As someone who writes stream articles, I would also add the length and drainage basin area to the lead.
The whole Drainage Basin section has one two references. I know some of the info is cited in the infobox, but I would add it again here (MOS - cite statistics). I would especially cite 4th largest in continent and largest draining into Pacific Ocean (extraordinary claims need proof). It would be useful to give the length and % of length within Canada, as is already done for the watershed (% area). If available, it would be useful to know more rough distances (i.e. distance from 1st Big Bend to the border, or distances to mouth when rivers enter). "This C-shaped segment of the river is also known as the "Big Bend;" during the Missoula Floods (10,000 to 15,000 years ago), much water took a more direct route south, through the Grand Coulee, which after the floods was dry until the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam in the mid-20th century." Awkward - why not just two sentences (or a better connection)?
Geology section - can you explain what the Drumheller Channels are (in the picture), and make the connection between the volcanic activity and the river clear? Indigenous Peoples section - can you give a clearer idea of the location of Celilo Falls? Warm Springs Tribes is linked twice. Modern History section - identify Captain Robert Gray as an American at first mention (makes later ref to him clearer). Jumps from 1825 to early 20th Century - can you add statehood dates for Oregon and Washington? Any important British Columbia / Canada dates? Could Modern History be retitled (perhaps with dates or Settlement?) then a new Modern History section with Dredging and Dams as subsections (just an idea). Dredging - again a big jump from 1905 to 1976. Dams - need cites for first paragraph extraordinary claims and stats, and in a few other places. Can you give an idea when major dams were built? Ecology and Environment section - needs refs (studies show... say which ones?) If you do put dredging and dams into subsections, perhaps give brief history before with some dates of dredging, dams, Hanford, then these subsections. Finally Tributaries is just a list (table) can you give some brief intro text? Refs - be consistent on date accessed (some have, some do not) for internet refs.
2. Factually accurate?: PASS
3. Broad in coverage?: PASS
4. Neutral point of view?: FAIL for now. Needs to cover Canadian and American aspects equally well. As one example, units should be both English and Metric throughout (also a MOS issue). Currently feet and miles are used in places without meters and kilometers also given. Another example is "... is the only American stretch of the river that is free-flowing, unimpeded by dams, and not a tidal estuary." but no comparable description in the same section on Canadian dams / free flowing etc. Also, although I know Canada as such was not formed then, perhaps more specific mention of the British in the lead (where Americans and Europeans are mentioned twice in context with early exploration and settlement) would help.
5. Article stability? PASS
6. Images?: PASS (and nicely done)

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the excellent feedback! I will do my best to address your concerns. I hope others will join in -- it may take a fair amount of work, especially to add in more meaningful Canadian/British perspective. (As an aside, in considering NPOV, I've mostly focused on develpment vs. ecological concerns, and native vs. pioneer. I confess I didn't put as much thought as I should into U.S. vs. Canada. That is a very hellpful observation.) -Pete 23:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. I have finished my comments and would be glad to clarify. This is my first GA review, so I apologize for slowness, but hope this helps. Nice article, just needs some cleanup for GA. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've completed some major work on cleanup as you requested, but there is a point I disagree on. For NPOV, the article clearly makes strong mention of the river within Canadian borders. But in terms of weight of content, the river is much larger and has a much bigger impact within U.S. borders. Thus, more info on the U.S. part of the river is in order. In B.C., it's just another river. But within the lower reaches it is commercial (Canada doesn't have a sea port from the river) and cultural edifice of vast proportions. Just as the Jaguar article focuses mostly on what is a big cat of Central and South America, rather than the relatively minute portion of its range in the States, this article naturally should contain more information on the U.S. portion of the river. VanTucky Talk 19:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This caught my eye:
The taming of the river for human use, and the resulting industrial waste, have come into conflict with ecological conservation at numerous times since Americans and Europeans began to settle the area in the 18th century. This "harnessing," as it was commonly described in the popular culture of the early 20th century, included dredging for navigation by larger ships, nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons research and production, and the construction of dams for power generation, irrigation, navigation, and flood control.
...as an example of POV taint in language/composition, i.e. the post-historical slant of "as it was commonly described in the popular culture of the early 20th century"; this kind of language is from a certain POV. As also the opening line; not all human use produces waste, albeit it may be wasteful or the system around it may be wasteful, but the cause-effect implication in that line is also POV, and from a particular POV as well. It's the quotation marks on "harnessing" that highlight the conscious presence of said bias in the passage. I don't know what to do to fix it but just commenting on the presence of what I call "prejudicial language".
Reply: Skookum, I've struggled with maintaining the right tone in this area, and welcome your input. At issue, I believe, is this: there was POV-pushing by the U.S. Government, woven deeply into the history of the river. The concept that the "wild west" was something that needed to be "harnessed" and "tamed" is a concept that was very intentionally broadcast to the masses for a number of decades, and had a huge impact on a number of policy issues. It is not my intention to evaluate that POV, but rather to report that it existed, and give appropriate weight to its presence. If you see ways to do that better, please suggest. Your specific point about waste is well taken, and I believe I have addressed it; please let me know if you have remaining concerns on that. -Pete 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also to comment that, perhaps in the intro where British Columbia is first mentioned, it should be commented somewhere here that the river is the namesake of the colony/province, in a secondary fashion as British Columbia signifies the British sector of the partitioned Columbia District, which was directly named for the river. Even though most of the colony was not in the Columbia's basin (actually when BC was first declared as colony, the Stikine Territory and Peace River and Vanc Isl/Queen Charlottes were not part of it and the remaining British sector of the Columbia basin was nigh on half the new colony's territory...)
Reply: An excellent point. I believe I addressed this effectively; again if you see a better way to do it, go ahead. -Pete 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coming to this comment late, but the article makes it quite clear the Columbia was named for Robert Gray's (an American) ship and had nothing to do with British Columbia as per this from the above comment "Also to comment that, perhaps in the intro where British Columbia is first mentioned, it should be commented somewhere here that the river is the namesake of the colony/province".Awotter (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the other way around. The commenter was trying to say that it should be mentioned that the province was named after the river. (Whether that's a matter for the intro is another question). Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wel, er, it's actually named for the fur district - which was named for the river, but just as the river was named for the poetic name of America as part of a ship's name, not to America poetically/directly. The sense of British to Columbia, as the old British name of the region Americans insist on callin the Oregon Country ;'-) (actually they're not the same, but...), similar to British Guyana being the British sector of Guinea/Guyana, British Honduras the British Sector of the Gulf of Honduras, British East Africa as the British sector of East Afrca and so on; the root is the name of the region in hte British world-view; a Briton of the period could not have conceived of using, alternately, British Oregon; Oregon was a politically-loaded word, somewhat propagandistic (the name is a reference to the Columbia, perhaps, and if so makes no sense to caim the Fraser and Skeena basins as 54-40 meant). BC's only indirectly named for the river, and by a few steps more for the New World or America or whatever.Skookum1 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the "Americans and Europeans" comment in No. 4, that's very true; and "Americans and Europeans" here being redundant, since "European" is being used in a racial rather than political sense; and myself I grimace when the term "European" is used to describe 19th Century Brits, particuarly colonial Brits, as direct-from-the-Continent Europeans were a distinct group, particularly in BC (or rather, set of groups). I note that American histories of the region often refer to "French traders" without making reference to them being in the service of a British company (either the HBC or NWC), and that this p.c. "levelling" of Britons into "Europeans" is another sidestep from the reality of the British role in the basin's/region's history.
Reply: I agree this is a tough one, and there is likely room for improvement. In the instance you cite, I think maybe "of European descent" is the best phrasing; I'll give that a shot. -Pete 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the article overly much but I'd expect there to be at least as much here on, for example, David Thompson vs. Lewis & Clark.
Reply: Yes, I think issue is balanced. -Pete 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the whole bit about the cultural thingamawhatzit of the Columbia basin south of the line vs that in Canada is a non sequitur; the Kootenay region in BC is a special social, industrial and cultural/commercial complex/culture in its own right within BC; maybe not as important as Eastern Washington economically, and in a different way, but no less important to the history of BC/Canada than Spokane and Missoula are to that of the US and the states in that region. The British/Canadian sector of the Columbia basin's vulnerability to that south-of-the-border economic machine is, indeed, part of its own story, and why there was such a complicated and so very twisty network of railways and, now, highways, in order to tie it into BC/Canada, i.e. because of the absurdity of the latitude-line border drawn across the valleys and mountains (something so nutty only a distant diplomat could dare to think it...). Anyway, if there's more on BC than on the US in this particular cross-border article, that's the result I guess of BC wikipedians adding stuff and it's also the opposite of most of the related or similar cross-border history/geography pages, where the opposite is generally true. The differential scale in economic growth and associated importance from one side of the line to the other is, by the way, a demonstration of the restrictive nature of Canadian industrial policy in the West; if market conditions had been similar to those in the Mountain States and Pacific Northwest, and not held back from industrial diversification (various policies in Canada made this so, long story..) the upper Columbia's role within its own basin would also have been more important....though it's also worth commenting that much of the wealth in Spokane and elsewhere was built on the booms in the Boundary and Kootenay countries in BC; it's not as if the histories of the two sides of the border can be all that easily separated, although the degree to which the American economy flavoured the silver and galena booms in the Kootenays is not generally well understood on the US side of the border; on the Canadian side it's the central fact....Skookum1 20:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Wow, you sound very well qualified to significantly expand this area in the article. I'm not sure what to do with what you say, as any attempt I could make to summarize your words would be insufficient. It's interesting, you seem to think that the article is weighted in some way too heavily toward BC history (?) which, I think, is the opposite of what Ruhrfisch was suggesting. Anyway, I hope you can contribute to this some more, either in the context of this GA or down the road… -Pete 04:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues still not addressed for GA

[edit]
  1. Combine one sentence paragraphs into larger paragraphs - the article still has 2 in "Geology", 1 in "Modern History", 2 in "Dredging", 1 in "Dams: "harnessing" the river", 3 in "Ecology and environment". This should be simple to fix, just merge paragraphs
    • Well, there are two one-sentence paragraphs left: in Geology "Water levels during the Missoula Floods have been estimated at 1,250 feet...", in Modern History "French explorers called the Columbia River Ouragan...". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that those ones are a problem…I agree that generally one-sentence para's are to be avoided, but occasionally they are the best way. If somebody else wants to take a crack at eliminating them I have no problem with it, but I don't personally see a better way to phrase those ones. -Pete 06:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree on Ouragan, couldn't the flood sentence just be combined with the following paragraph starting "The floods' periodic inundation of the lower Columbia River Plateau deposited..."? Your call, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Done, I think. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "add the length and drainage basin area to the lead" - still not there, gives some quantifiable idea of the size of the river, in the Infobox, so this is another easy fix
  4. "The whole Drainage Basin section has one reference." - Still only has one, needs lots more. There are all sorts of extraordinary claims in here that need to be cited, some of the refs are in the Infobox, so I think parts of this may be easy.
  5.  Done, I think. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Except for fixing a specific sentence, I do not think the other suggestions in Drainage Basin section have been addressed yet either (adding length of the river within Canada, other rough distances) - these may be hard to find depending on data available.
    USGS map shows river mile 745.0 at the US-Canadian border (745 official miles from border to Pacific). If the total length is known, then the problem is solved. —EncMstr 23:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Geology section - can you explain what the Drumheller Channels are (in the picture), and make the connection between the volcanic activity and the river clear? Drumheller now wikilinked, but not otherwise explained (even expanding the caption - a prime example of scablands). Other not done (First sentence of the section - how does this relate to the river?)
    • First part done, I think – I noted in the caption the the Drumheller Channels are part of the channeled scablands, which are described in the text.
    • Second part – would adding the following to the end of that sentence do the trick? "forming the landscape traversed by the river" -Pete 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Done, I think. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Indigenous Peoples section - can you give a clearer idea of the location of Celilo Falls? Warm Springs Tribes is linked twice. Neither addressed, both seem easy to fix.
    USGS database gave Celilo Falls at RM 200.5, though I don't see it on the map. It's about 10 miles upriver from The Dalles. —EncMstr 23:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Latitude(DEC):45.6498450, Longitude(DEC):-120.9789563, Latitude(DMS):453859N, Longitude(DMS):1205844W, Elevation: 164ft (50m) ~ WikiDon 00:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Done, I think. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Modern History section - still no identification of Captain Gray as American at first mention, which makes later assertion "Gray's discovery of the Columbia was used by the United States to support their claim to the Oregon Country,.." less clear. Easy fix. Still jumps from 1825 to "turn of the 20th century" - nothing happened in 75 years?
  12.  Done, I think. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Dredging - "again a big jump from 1905 to 1976". - Still not addressed.
    • I'm not clear on why this is a concern. My research has not given me any reason to believe that there were major developments in that time span – though of course, it's possible there was. What makes you think something has been left out here? -Pete 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now nothing is said about the gaps. If nothing happened, then say that. I do note that Oregon became a state in 1859, Canada was formed in 1866, and Washington became a state in 1889 (more Modern History than Dredging obviously). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  Done, I think -- section has been substantially rewritten. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Dams - "need cites for first paragraph extraordinary claims and stats, and in a few other places. Can you give an idea when major dams were built?" - Still not addressed.
    • I put in a few FACT tags. It might be helpful if you add any others, where you see claims that need to be cited. If we can agree what needs to be cited, I will do my best to track down citations. -Pete 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put in some more {{fact}} tags. Good Article criteria says (in part) "at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Lots of stats need refs (pretty much any number about the river) plus all the "nth largest/longest/biggest in the world/hemisphere/continent/province/state" statements. I like to see one ref per paragraph at minimum. A single ref can be used multiple times (ref name =). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  Done, all of Ruhrfisch's fact tags have been cited (in a few cases, the claim has been removed). -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Ecology and Environment section - "needs refs (studies show... say which ones?)" - Still not addressed.#:* Will do -- This study, and the Colville health consultation I just linked, will be good resources for this. -Pete 06:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Tributaries section "is just a list (table) can you give some brief intro text?" Still not addressed. OK for GA, will be an issue if you go for FA.
    • Don't see the problem. What text is missing? If it's a problem to have a section without prose, maybe the best thing would be simply removing the section header? -Pete 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19.  Done, I think, as far as GA is concerned. Could revisit before FA. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. References "be consistent on date accessed (some have, some do not) for internet refs." - Still not addressed.
    • Don't understand why that's a problem. I don't regard access dates as particularly important where a full citation for a print publication is given, because one can still verify the source by tracking down the print pub. Can you expand on your comment? -Pete 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, the examples for web sites all show access dates (see Wikipedia:Citation templates for websites). Secondly, being consistent is always good style (so all should be the same). Third and most important, having the date accessed allows you to identify which version you looked at as the ref. It also makes finding it in the Wayback Machine or web archives easier (I have had to do this myself - things change on the web). You can add today's date to all, just check that they work as refs before doing so. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21.  Done, I think these have all been fixed. Will scan for any missed. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. NPOV issues - still have feet, miles, acres without metric equivalents in Dredging section. Should be easy to fix. I do not mean the article has to be 50/50 on US and Canada, but if 15% of the basin is Canadian, it seems as if much less of the article is. My guess from the map is that by length Canada has much more than 15% of the river (probably close to 30 or 40%). Please also see Skookum's concerns above.
  23.  Done, I think, this has been a topic of much discussion and I think all involved editors are agreed that we've addressed the major issues. May be some room for improvement, but I think it's much better now. -Pete (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. A new concern: from the map it is clear that Idaho is almost entirely in the drainage basin, and several other states are as well, but only Oregon and Washington are mentioned. Met, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from the boilerplate above: "Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far." No note was left here on how the issues had been resolved. I also did not explicitly review again in 48 hours (although I have looked at it often). Let's say you have 48 more hours to address these issues. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much progress has been made, but unfortunately I still did not think it met the GA criteria. I have struck out the areas met above. I would be glad to look at this in the future after a major revision. Good luck and sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for apologies! Your input has been enormously helpful. Thanks you, and yes, I will keep chipping away at this list. Hopefully others will too! -Pete 02:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll echo Pete's comments. There's no need to be sorry Ruhrfisch. If this is your first review (didn't you say that?), you did a better job than I did on mine. Keep up the hard work, VanTucky Talk 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are too kind - it is indeed my first GA review. I have taken three stream articles to FA status, so I was trying hard not too be too picky (i.e. using FA instead of GA criteria). I left a possibly useful USGS website on Pete's talk page, and would be glad to look at this again after some revisions. Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That link does look very promising, thanks. Here it is, in case others want to use it: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wdr/2005/wdr-wa-05-1/ -Pete 04:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Issues

[edit]

This was an excellent and thorough GA review, and it looks like the article has made significant strides forward since November. As it may go up again for GA or FA, I'd like to comment on the NPOV issue above (#13 in reasons for GA failure). Ruhrfish expressed a concern that 15-30% of the river's drainage basin is in Canada, but the article shows a U.S. bias in content. That's true; however, I would venture that 95% of the Columbia's irrigation value, hydroelectric value, and navigation value is in the United States. Today, 100% of salmon migration is the U.S. The river is also historically and culturally more important to Americans than to Canadians. It is in closer proximity to major population centers and played a greater role in Native American history as well as Euro-American settlement of Washington and Oregon.

I've lived in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. In BC, nearly all of the population is in the southwestern corner (Vancouver metro area), and the Fraser River is culturally far more important to agricultural, tourism, and trade in the province. Few people in Canada think about the Columbia River as a major river. It's a long river, but most of its "notability" (cultural, economic, historical value) rests on the section in the United States. Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you live in the Kootenays, where the Columbia is the major river. Vancouverites, particularly the newer varieties, wherever they're from, think the city is the province, and many have not even visited the Okanagan. Its notability in Canadian history, though most Canadian historians are oblivious to BC history in general, is seminal to the existence of the British claim in the region, even to BC's very name. As for:
I would venture that 95% of the Columbia's irrigation value, hydroelectric value, and navigation value is in the United States.
Well, it just so happens that that irrigation value and hydroelectric value is inseparable from the bilateral Columbia River Treaty and what are called "downstream benefits", which were deferred in teh treaty until recently (during the NDP years) signed over to the US; this refers to power generated at Treaty Dams in Canada which was exported to the US exclusively until BC re-acquired the power rights and the promptly resold them instead of using them for industrial development in BC, which had been WAC's intent. Yes, Grand Coulee kicks out more megawatts than Keenlyside or Mica, but Grand Coulee and its sisters could not have been built without upstream flood controls provided by dams on the Canadian side of the boundary. This also applies, though not in treaty revenues/rights, to the control of water used for irrigation in the US part of the Columbia basin. It may b e true that the Columbia basin's agricultural and power importance is not as great in the Canadian sdcheme of things as Grand Coulee et al. are to the US or to the US states involved; but this is about the river, not the regional economy. Further, the Okanagan basin's profile in BC's agricultural economy is very high. There are other points, but I wouldn't readily underestimate the Columbia's role or position in BC just because people in Vancouver (or people in Vancouver who are from Toronto really) don't know anything about it....Skookum1 (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have antagonized you, Skookum. Your points are very well taken. The Columbia River is a hugely important river for EVERYBODY, and I shouldn't have understated its importance in Canada. I mean, they named a province after it for a reason, right? :) I certainly don't want to be engaging in Vancouver-style smugness (have I picked it up already?!?) or American arrogance (does it ever go away?!?). This article definitely has more room for Canadian content, and in fact I think more information about the Columbia River Treaty should be brought in here instead of being fully outsourced to that article. The fact that the article doesn't even mention the Okanagan is definitely a shortcoming. That said, my main point is that the perceived content bias should be considered in perspective during the next GA/FA review. This is probably the fourth most important article about Oregon, after Oregon, History of Oregon and Portland, Oregon. It's in the top six or eight for Washington. I'm not sure the same could be said about British Columbia; maybe I'm wrong. In the U.S., it's hard to overstate the river's importance along all dimensions -- geological, political, economic, cultural, historical, environmental -- and in most of those dimensions (except geological) it's understandable that there could be US content approaching 80 or 85% of the article. There are a lot of ways we can debate that percentage, but I think "percentage of drainage basin" or "length of river" on the Canadian side of the border is not the most useful measure.Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add....I just had a look at the Fraser River article and, franly, it's pitiful, consderng hte profile of the river in the provnce's hstory etc, especally n comparson to the Columba River article; unlike the Columbia article, maybe, it has notable subartcles - Fraser Canyon and Fraser Valley (NB the latter term only refers to the lowest 100km or so). I don't have time to work it up, but I'll bring this up at the BC WikiProject.Skookum1 (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to incorporate some information about the CRT in the opening paragraphs of the Dams section. Hope this is a step in the right direction. It would be very helpful if some work were done on the Columbia River Treaty article, as well; specifically, citations and a more comprehensive lead section. I'm not very familiar with this period of history, so having a better foundation would make it easier for me to expand the overview here. Skookum, as long as you're suggesting things at WP:BC, you might mention that. Thanks for all the input. -Pete (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something else that occurred to me about these issues is that a lot, and maybe the bulk, of the history/economy of the Kootenays et al. are completely tied up with the economies and socieites of Eastern WA, ID and MT; the Boundary and Slocan silver/galena rushes, the Wild Horse Creek/Fisherville Gold Rush, and the whoe point of BC infrastructure projects such as the Dewdney Trail or the southern mainline of the CPR werer all because of the integrated ties and geographic disposition of the area; what's importantly missing from this arrticle is some discusson of these elements n the history of the Kootenays; even West Kootenay Power & Light existed prmarly to serve American-0side customers. On a different tack, I wanted to say that despite the Fraser's mythology in BC, upon consideration it's nowhere near as important or vital to BC as the Columbia is to WA/OR. That being said, there is a distinct comparison to the role the Columbia and Kootenay/Kootenai Rivers play in the Kootenays alone, though not the rest of BC, and teh development of the Kootenays is partt of the developments adjoining in the US....this even applies to labour history, or especially in factSkookum1 (talk)

Respectfully, I think some of this may be outside the scope of the article. This information would seem to belong in the history of the Kootenays or Kootenay River. If we widen the article to include such information, we would also have to widen it to encompass the Snake River (and thus most of Idaho history) and the Willamette Valley (and thus most of Oregon's history). Then we start talking about the Yakima Valley and other major tributaries that have significant agricultural economies and populations. At some point, the article becomes unwieldy. I think a discussion of the Columbia's role in the history of southeastern BC is important, but if we get to the point that we're including information on Kootenay Power & Light, a subject which doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article, we may be broadening it a bit too far. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re the tributary basins, maybe the thing to do is to build them into Columbia Basin, which doesn't have much in it so far; Okanagan already exists, but as a BC-only region article, likewise Kootenay River on the other side; so Williamette Valley, Yakima Valley, Snake Basin, Clark Fork Basin (?) etc might exist separately, or as subsections of Columbia Basin. As for (West?) Kootenay Power and Light, I don't know about in WPWA or WPOR but in WPBC we've got lots of corporate articles, particularly historical ones; BC Hydro has an article, for instance, and Foley, Welch and Stewart and Cominco. Now, about the power thing, the reality is teh power in the West Kootenay was developed to supply American markets southward; that's the kind of cross-border inseparability that I mean; a history of the Kootenays cannot be complete without reference to what was going on south of the line, and while Americans can write their regional history as though Canada didn't exist, the reality is that a lot of development in the region south of the Kootenays would not have happened if it had not been for Canadian power supplies and/or also the boom in mining 1890 onwards. Also re salmon, that Canada doesn't have a role in Columbia salmon any more, that's not quite true: the International Joint Commission (or was it a Pacific Salmon Commission?) and the Columbia River Treaty involved a trade-off, as the damming of the Columbia killed off the salmon runs into the BC portion of the basin; in return, BC fishermen (read canneries) had the right to fish for Columbia River salmon and others stateside, and as part of the trade-off, American fishermen gained formal rights to a chunk of the Fraser catch; the details are somewhere but I remember this from school, years back, when the Columbia Treaty was a relatively new thing and my teachers were all hot and bothered by it. The deal over salmon is another example of the intertwined histories re the Columbia. I had a look at International Joint Commission, which does oversee the dams on the Columbia, but that article doesn't mention the Columbia River Treaty; this may be an oversight, as such articles are often written by Central Canadians oblivious to BC history, I'll check into it; the IJC and the salmon agreements should be mentioned here, and the concept of BC setting aside its own industrial development to aid Washington's and Idaho's is not a small issue to leave out. See Downstream benefits or if that's not an article it's certainly google-able and should be. More thoughts on this later, I've got to get ready to go house-hunting.Skookum1 (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the background, Skookum. I've worked a bit on most of the articles you mention, but obviously don't have the extensive background you do. I think Northwesterner and I are currently focused on getting this particular article to FA quality. Everything you bring up is worthwhile, but to the extent that some of these details are more appropriate for other articles, I'm probably going to be more focused on this one for now. I did add some brief coverage of the 1909 treaty and the CRT to this one; does it seem generally accurate to you? -Pete (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Columbia_River/GA1&oldid=1078750316"