Jump to content

Talk:Roses in Portland, Oregon/GA2

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

GA Review

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 11:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues from previous review

[edit]
Resolved

I was asked to comment here regarding my failing Talk:Roses in Portland/GA1. My decision was based on my concerns regarding WP:WIAGA 3(a), which specifically concerns whether "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" as one of two considerations of whether the article is "Broad in its coverage". I.E., I am concerned about the breadth of the article. My July 26 decision to pull the trigger on the FAIL was hastened by Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/June-July 2012, which ended July 15 with an extension to complete all reviews by the end of July. I enumerated several concerns. Specifically, I stated the following concerns which, from what I recall, remained unaddressed:

  1. What are the other leading varieties?
  2. How is Portland recognized outside of Portland? What do national magazines based outside of Portland say about their roses?
  3. Do fragrance companies use Portland Rose petals for perfumes and Potpurri?
  4. Please describe the economics of the "Rose Industry"?

By far, I am most concerned about the last two, especially the very last one. I continue to find it inconceivable that all these roses are grown and nothing happens to them afterwards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that this article was immediately renominated at WP:GAC without any change to my FAIL. I believe that this is incorrect process. The nominator has some misconception that a third party consideration (2nd opinion) is a right. If I ask for a 2nd opinion and then decide I don't need one, the GAC review is still valid. Thus, either you address some of the concerns in a significant way or you are suppose to take the article to WP:GAR to reconsider the initial review. In fact, counting changes made since the renomination, nothing has been added to address my concerns. Personally, I think the article should now be addressed by a wider audience at WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I thought that your primary concern was simply unreasonable. When you failed the article, I went to WP:GAR and tried to find out what to do. That page says:
If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, read the review first. If you can fix the concerns, find them unreasonable, or the review inadequate, it is usually best to renominate the article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, rather than requesting a community reassessment: there is no minimum time limit between nominations!
And I did just that: I renominated the article, with another major contributor, User:Another Believer, listed as co-nominator. I thought that a different reviewer would see my point of view about the article being broad in its coverage. I could hardly believe it was controversial in the first place.
I'll take a look at the other three questions you had during the first review, although I believe that I've either already addressed them or couldn't find the answers to them. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am still doing research on the subject in an attempt to answer some of your questions. Unfortunately, I am not finding answers, which means I do not have additional information to incorporate into the article at this time. It should not be assumed that Portland exports or creates products from its roses, especially if sources don't mention these byproducts. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would, in general, agree. Does Tony have sources that mention these things? Are these things in the current sources but aren't mentioned in the article? I'm also leaning towards letting the community review this at WP:GAR as it would be beneficial for all parties. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Viriditas (talk · contribs) has asked my opinion on whether this should be closed and sent to WP:GAR. I am open to a new reviewer considering my concerns and having the freedom to override them. I am no expert on Roses. I do know business and am curious about things that seem missing. I will leave it to Viriditas to determine if my concerns are reasonable or unreasonable as suggested by, Jsayre64 (talk · contribs), the nominator. If he considers my concerns unreasonable, he can go forth and evaluate the article. If he considers them reasonable, he can Fail/Close the nomination and encourage a WP:GAR nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked uninvolved parties to look into it and determine what we should do. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, since Viriditas asked, the issue is not leaving out material discussed in sources. If I could find answers to Tony's questions I'd be happy to incorporate that information into the article. May I also take this opportunity to thank Tony for not only conducting the first review but for returning to the second review. This shows dedication, and I think all parties involved here want the best possible article for the subject. Tony's questions are valid, and I am curious about some of them myself, but that does not mean they can be answered. Tony, if you find ANY sources with information needing to be added to this article, please share. That might not be an interest of yours, but I am simply offering (I am sure Jsayre would offer the same) to assist with expanding the article if you find any details related to your questions. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case it isn't clear, I'm the one who invited Tony to comment here. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you did! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Tony's points, let's go over them again:
  1. What are the other leading varieties?
  2. How is Portland recognized outside of Portland? What do national magazines based outside of Portland say about their roses?
  3. Do fragrance companies use Portland Rose petals for perfumes and Potpurri?
  4. Please describe the economics of the "Rose Industry"?
I think we can answer (or try to answer) points 1, 2, and 4. Working backwards, point 4 seems to be partially answered by the Events and Local namesakes sections already in the article. Point 3 assumes that there is a commercial industry for Portland roses. Point 2 appears to be answered in other places. In the article International Rose Test Garden, it says "It is the oldest continuously operating public rose test garden in the United States and exemplifies Portland's nickname of the City of Roses...Portland is the only North American city that can issue its awards to roses of merit throughout the world." Point 1 may have answers here. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find an answer to that varieties question on the rose test garden page. It says that there are many, many varieties, but its only example is Madame Caroline Testout, which is already mentioned in the article. At first I thought it was an individual rose bush, but I guess I was wrong. I can see how the French dressmaker would have wanted not just one rose bush, but a whole rose variety, to be named for her. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Tony has specific concerns or additional sources for you to look at, I'm not sure what else you can do. Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help so far. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience. I'm sure we'll have this worked out soon. I may just go ahead and do the review. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Resolved

Since the main article link to the International Rose Test Garden was removed, do additional details need to be added about the garden and its significance to the article? That garden, in particular, is noteworthy, but I don't want to include too much information when it has its own article. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the IRTG is already linked five separate times, which is too much. I will try to get to this in the next 24 hours. Sorry, but I've been working on trying to close out another GA. Thanks for your patience. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed three of those links, leaving one in the lead and one in the history section. Is that good? Jsayre64 (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • Roses have a significant history in Portland, Oregon.
    • That's sort of an odd intro. Obviously, roses must have a significant history in Portland in order for us to write about them on Wikipedia. It's almost unnecessary to say if you really think about it. This is just an observation, and I'm not asking you to change anything, but rather I'm asking you to think about how to best capture the interest of the reader. You could just as well dive right into the subject by reversing the order of the first paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Located within the marine west coast climate region, Portland's warm, dry summers and rainy but mild winters, along with "rich, heavy, yellowish" clay, are ideal for growing roses outdoors.
    • I think you can get away with describing Portland's soil as clay loam without quotes, as that's the actual type. Using quotes for types isn't needed. For example, all sources classify Kīlauea as a shield volcano. You wouldn't write, "Kīlauea is a 'shield volcano'" with quotes. Viriditas (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the quote from 1910 and changed it to "heavy clay soils" which is the standard type and term. More research should investigate whether this includes clay-loam, which I think it does. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holman has a 1908 essay that may even be more informative about the history: "Where Rose is Queen" (1908). Of course, you'll want to skip over the racist statements. Viriditas (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the above, the lead appears GA-ready. If anything comes up during this review, I'll add it here, but I like what you have so far. Short and simple and to the point. Good job. Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The chronological skipping around in the lead really bothers me. It goes from the present to 1888 to 2003, then to 1907 and back to the present. Then it skips back to WWI, then to 1921, and then to the present again. You may wish to experiment with a different style that will allow you to keep the history separate from the current events. In some ways this is ideal because it presents the reader with an introduction to the main points and then allows you to expand on their significance in a current context:

The city of Portland, Oregon, is ideal for growing roses outdoors due to its location in the marine west coast climate region, its warm, dry summers and rainy but mild winters, and its heavy clay soils. Because of these conditions, Portland has been known as "The City of Roses", or "Rose City", since 1888. The Rose City Park neighborhood in northeast Portland was formed in 1907, the same year of the first annual Portland Rose Festival. During World War I, nursery owners in Portland planned a large rose garden in the hopes of protecting European rose species during the war. The garden became the International Rose Test Garden in 1921.

To promote the city of Portland, the Portland Rose Festival occurs each June, along with a carnival, parades, and navy ships docked along the Tom McCall Waterfront Park. The International Rose Test Garden has grown to cover 4.5 acres (1.8 ha), with over 8,000 rose plants and more than 550 different species. In 2003, "The City of Roses" became the city's official nickname.

Just something to think about as an example of another way of writing the lead. No need to take action on this. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead should mention that the official rose of Portland is the Mme. Caroline Testout, and that its planting on city streets by the thousands led to Portland's nickname, "City of Roses". Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]
  • The text implies that the Portland Rose Society was established in 1888 but the source says 1889. Looking at the source, it appears to be an editorial error as the source clearly says it was established in 1888 but founded in 1889. This is confusing because "established" and "founded" are both synonyms and mean the same thing, but if you look deeply into the source material, the facts begin to emerge. Apparently (as far as I can tell), the first rose society "show" was held informally in 1888, but the society wasn't formally organized until 1889, and I assume that's when they had their first major public showing. See The Rose City of the World: Portland, Oregon (1947) OCLC 2534603 You really need to use this source in the article as it has pretty much everything about the early history of Roses in Portland, as far as I can tell, but I don't have full access to the book. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • More info: "The Portland Rose Society is the oldest and largest such organization in the country, founded in 1889. The festival started because the society made roses very popular and the rose garden parties were the social thing to do, Jarvis said, before they decided to kick it up a notch and do a full-fledged carnival in 1907." (Andrea Damewood. "Petals to the Metal." The Columbian (Vancouver, WA). 2011. HighBeam Research. (August 19, 2012). http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-28968113.html) Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Case closed. According to the Oregon Historical Society, "In 1888, Mrs. Henry Pittock invited rose enthusiasts from among Portland’s high society to show — or more rightly perhaps, their gardeners’ — finest roses at a tent erected at her home on what is now the Pittock Block in downtown Portland. The following year, the Portland Rose Society was founded by attorney Frederick V. Holman."[2] Viriditas (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname (The City of Roses)

[edit]
  • This nickname likely inspired the name for Rosy, the four-year-old female Asian elephant who arrived to Portland in 1953. The first elephant ever to live in Oregon, she remained the matriarch of the herd and gave birth to six calves before her death in 1993. On August 31, 1994, her daughter Me-Tu became the first elephant in North America to have twins. On August 23, 2008, her granddaughter Rose-Tu (the surviving twin) gave birth to Samudra, the first third-generation elephant born in the United States.
    • This has little to nothing to do with roses in Portland. Maybe a brief mention is fine, but this is too much. I'm also not too keen on a separate nickname and garden section distinct from the overall history section and separate subsections about specific topics, but that's my own opinion. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the history of roses in Portland split between the history and nickname sections? Viriditas (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cities officially named "Rose City" exist in Michigan, in Texas, and in Minnesota; additional cities nicknamed "City of Roses" can be found throughout the world, including in Chile, Iran and South Africa.

Gardens

[edit]
  • Regarding this edit, the question should be whether or not this information is relevant. The source is reliable, however, being the office site for the City of Portland. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for bringing this up. The source in this case is a job application, which is considered a primary source and not exactly reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. The content you've written, "Portland Parks & Recreation's rose collection is managed by botanic specialists hired by the City Portland" should be sourced to secondary sources whenever possible, because we want the sources to determine the weight and importance, not Wikipedia editors. If you can't find secondary sources, then I'm open to putting this in a footnote with less interpretation, such as "According to job applications posted by the City of Portland, Portland Parks & Recreation hires botanic specialists to maintain their rose collection." However, I would be against doing this because we really need to rely on secondary sources for our content. When I write articles, I only use the primary sources after a secondary source has discussed it. Look for a source that discusses botanic specialists who maintain the collection. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local namesakes

[edit]
  • Except for the first sentence (which overlaps with previous subsections) the murals, the rose sign, the Visitors Information Center, the Rose Garden, and any mention of the sports associations are missing from the lead. The section doesn't mention anything about the famous Portland Rose train. To the disinterested reader expecting to read about plants, this section comes as a bit of a shock. When I think of "roses in Portland" I don't think of namesakes, but it is an interesting take. The question is, how do you get away with writing about it without making it sound like glorified trivia? The other problem I have is that there is more about local namesakes (which has nothing to do with the plants) than there is about the history. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the purpose of the article is not address only actual plants. Roses contribute to the cultural identity of the city, hence the many namesakes, imagery and events related to the flower. I believe this article needs to address all these aspects, beginning with how and when roses were introduced to the city, how the association grew between the flower and Portland and its impact. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, so you need to explain that in the lead. Can you do that? Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I must have read your comment too quickly, as I thought you were arguing the namesakes section was "glorified trivia" (my mistake for not reading the full context). Happy to help with expanding the lead. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's "glorified trivia" in the sense that we have editors noting that these sports teams are named after Roses, not the sources themselves. The second paragraph of the namesakes section isn't sourced to citations about roses in Portland, but to sources about the sports teams. That means editors are saying, "look, this team is named after roses" rather than the source saying that. However, as a list of rose-themed teams, I think it is OK. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Resolved

Further reading

[edit]

Checklist

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Important wikilinks, dablinks, etc. missing; a copy edit should fix this
    WP:OVERLINK
    Lead should mention that the official rose of Portland is Mme. Caroline Testout.
    Lead can be expanded to fully summarize the main points.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Portland Rose Society was formally organized in 1889 not 1888.[5] The first informal showing leading to the formation of the society was in 1888.
    I removed the link to the job application as a primary source lacking a secondary
    I removed the OR trivia about similar "Rose Cities". If the sources aren't about Portland, we can't use them.
    I removed the elephant material in its entirety. There is simply no reason to include it as the source says nothing about this topic.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The Nickname section goes into unnecessary detail, particularly in regards to the ancestry of Rosy the elephant.
    This will not impact the outcome of the review, but efforts should be made to acquire 'The Rose City of the World (1947) by Ruby Fay Purdy. It has essential information for the history section.
    The climatic conditions mentioned in the lead are important enough for their own section, just before the history section.
  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):
    It would be informative to have an image of Mme. Caroline Testout or a related hybrid tea rose variety. As a reader, I would expect to see such an image.
  7. Overall: I think the article now meets the GA criteria. I have made detailed notes regarding my concerns about expanding the lead to summarize the importance of the namesakes, adding an image of a Testout rose (important, don't you think?) and a recommendation to discuss more about geology, climate, distribution, and origins of the rose. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass/Fail:
Thank you for a great review! I'm glad the article passed, and I'm sorry I couldn't get to the later issues, but I had few opportunities to edit. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, Viriditas. Your time and assistance are much appreciated. I think we have constructed a stable article, but I also think there remain opportunities to expand the article as well as a few unresolved "suggestions" (I differentiate suggestions from concerns) that would further improve coverage of the subject. I look forward to watching the article continue to evolve. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:35, 26 August 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roses_in_Portland,_Oregon/GA2&oldid=1141739674"