Wikipedia:Peer review/Portland, Oregon/archive1

Portland, Oregon

Seattle is today's featured article, and I think it's time Portland makes the jump as well. Before I suggest it though, I'd like to see what critical concerns can be generated about the article in its current state. Sarge Baldy 00:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• There are some improvements that I could suggest after looking through the article, which includes the following:

1. External links should only be in the external links section.
2. There are a number of single sentence paragraphs. Stylistically, this is discouraged.
3. Image:Portland downtown.jpg and Image:Portland rose.jpg do not have copyright tags or have questionable copyrights. You should instead use images with GFDL-compatible licenses. Image:Portland rose.jpg should also be replaced with an image that shows Portland in general (could you get a picture of a rose garden in the city? An image of only a single rose could be located anyway in the world). Pentawing 22:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I've dealt with #1, which was a problem (some of the external links were even used in the place of working internal ones). #2 is more of an issue, with some of the single sentences really not fitting with anything else, although I'll look at expanding them when I get a chance. I agree that more and better photos are necessary. I've been meaning to get there and take some, but haven't had an opportunity to as yet. Thanks for the input. Sarge Baldy 23:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I should have spotted this earlier, but this article is missing an economy section. Also, the article should be kept below 40 kB (36 to 38 kB to be safe); there are some users who object to large article sizes. If the article starts going over the 40 kB limit, you should start eliminating unnecessary information (e.g. information that concentrates exclusively on an institution rather than its relationship to the city) or moving some sections to sub-articles. One such section that comes to mind is "Portland's five sections", which you could summarize and move the details to a sub-article. Pentawing 06:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• I haven't looked too closely, yet, but I wanted to note this before I forgot. This paragraph needs some work:

"The Portland metropolitan area is located within the Willamette Valley, which follows the Willamette River and the I-5 Corridor. The valley consists of suburban municipalities sprawled around patches of farmland farther south. The further north you travel, towards Portland, the thicker the population density becomes. The vast majority of Oregon's population lives in the Willamette Valley. Interstate 5 bisects the valley and a significant number of commuters travel the I-5 Corridor daily."

1. (Minor point) Stylisticaly, might as well remove I-5 Corridor from the first sentence, since it's covered in the last.
2. The Willamette valley is mostly farmland, isn't it?
3. Describing the population density of the valley as increasing as you go north is oversimplified at best. Eugene, Oregon, at the south end of the valley, is Oregon's second-largest metropolitan area. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Some of the sections seem a bit thin, and there doesn't seem to be many images of the city and its landmarks. James Pinnell 16:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think overall it is a decent article but not one that especially jumps out at me as great. Something I dislike about articles of this nature is that they read a bit much like a cross between the CIA World Factbook and run-of-mill guidebooks. Youth subcultures are a huge part of Portland and recognised in novels such as After Nirvana and the popular media. Under the heading of "people" you might include some aspects of Portland's subcultures rather than repeat basic census information. If the article is made more interesting, I could see it becoming a feature, certainly.--Mike 21:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)