This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
William Overton (Portland founder) is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Labeling this article in its current form a stub misunderstands the amount of available material. This article includes a lot more about the man than I thought existed -- possibly all that is known about the man. Well, unless someone digs thru Texas records & finds out what happened to him -- if that is where he went & if he kept the name. Okay, it also leaves out that he is usually called a Mountain Man. William Overton is a mysterious figure known for one notable act -- helping to found Portland, Oregon. -- llywrch (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
I agree, and have changed the assessments to start-class. If the article really does give "possibly all that is known about the man", then C-class would be appropriate (despite the article's short length), as the current text appears to be well-written and cites good sources for almost everything, but I don't know enough about the subject to be able to judge that myself. But it is certainly better than stub class. SJ Morg (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Very much agree. -Pete (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
