Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sacramento River/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 15:49, 22 September 2010 [1].

Sacramento River

Featured article candidates/Sacramento River/archive1

Nominator(s): Shannon ^talk _contribs 23:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a large river, and it's in California… that generally means that it is relied on for water supply by millions of people. The Sacramento is California's biggest and most heavily used river; its waters rise in the Klamath, Sierra and Coast Ranges as scores of snowfed tributaries, but by the time it reaches the sea after its tortuous course, it's little more than a trickle for parts of the year. I have been working on this page for a few weeks (mostly in a sandbox) and feel it is ready to be a featured article (as I live in California, it feels fitting to pay tribute to this great river whose water likely comes out of my tap.) Shannon ^talk _contribs 23:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The article contains a link to the dab page Cache Creek; there are no dead external links. Ucucha 23:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed... Shannon ^talk _contribs 04:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Ref 4 is a note consisting entirely of unsourced information
Ref 11: the map lacks a source
Ref 14: as per ref 4 above.
Ref 21: Is this a scholarly source? It doesn't read particularly like one, although it does cite authorities
Ref 38 is to "Harton and McCloud". Is this the same as "Harton, Ron (2010" listed with the books? Why, incidentally, have these books been listed but not others cited in the article?
Likewise, ref 40: Royce and Wells", books "Royce, Ronald (2002)"
Ref 58: The Sacramento Press is a community news site. How does it qualify as a reliable source?
Ref 62: Inadequate information given. This is from "Vol. 25 No. 2" of a journal. Which journal, and what date?
Ref 77 lacks publisher information
Ref 82: Not necessary to list all 25+ contributors. "S.T. Lindley et al" will do
Ref 84: What makes http://yubanet.com/regional/Poor-Ocean-and-River-Conditions-Spurred-Sacramento-Salmon-Collapse.php a reliable source?
Ref 85: San Francisco Chronicle appears to be the publisher of SFgate
Ref 86: The link appears to be broken
Refs 92 and 94: consistency required in adding retrieval dates

Otherwise, refs look OK Brianboulton (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking… several books are listed below the references because they’re cited several times in the article. I could move all the books to the bottom, but that’d take a while. Shannon ^talk _contribs 20:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SFGate => San Francisco Chronicle fixed. Shannon ^talk _contribs 20:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all the links are okay… Ref 86 works fine for me… are you sure?Shannon ^talk _contribs 20:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 11 has a source, Sacramento River Watershed Program; Ref 14 (15?) is attributed to CEC, and Ref 4 is simply a note, could add USGS-NWIS urls to it if needed Shannon ^talk _contribs 21:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe references are mostly fixed; also added some to supplement the "unreliable" ones.

Comments

"The Sacramento, when combined with the Pit, is also one of the longest rivers in the United States entirely within one state – after Alaska's Kuskokwim and Texas' Trinity."

Doesn't the Pit reach into Oregon? The page says so in several places.

Nope, the Pit doesn't, I'll correct the article if there is. Shannon ^talk _contribs 03:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"The Sierra Nevada generally decreases in height..." I'm not sure, but isn't the term usually pluralized? The Sierra Nevadas? The Sierras? Similar to the Cascades, Rockies, Appalachians, etc. The terms occur in a number of places on the page, in singular form.

A bit of research makes me doubt whether this is even a minor issue. Looks like the singular form is alright in this case. At least, I don't know enough to say one way or the other, so I retract the point.

"two-thirds to three-quarters of northern California's precipitation though it has only one-third to one-quarter of the land. The San Joaquin River watershed occupies two-thirds to three quarters of northern California's land, but only collects one-third to one-quarter of the precipitation."

Shouldn't the San Joaquin River's watershed be said to occupy southern California, not northern?

Actually the San Joaquin drains central California. See the map on List of rivers of California. The San Joaquin Valley isn't close to the southern part... Shannon ^talk _contribs 04:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"During the Great Depression in the 1930s, the first plans for statewide water engineering projects emerged backed by first the Californian, then the United States government."

I'm not sure about this either, but isn't the norm to refer to state governments without using adjective name form? That is, the California government, the Washington government, the Florida government, etc, rather than Californian, Washingtonian, Floridian?

"It is surmised that between four and five years ago, the Sacramento and Snake-Columbia River systems were somehow connected by a series of now-dry wetlands and river channels."

Is there a word missing here? between four and five years ago?

"There were once 9 species of amphibians that used the Sacramento River, but their population is now declining drastically due to the loss of their habitat."

Are there still 9 species? Saying "there were once 9 species" implies there are fewer now, but "their population is now declining" suggests there are still 9 species, but fewer individuals.

"The riparian areas along the Sacramento once totaled more than 500,000 acres (2,000 km2); today, only about 10,000 acres (40 km2) remains, much of it consisting of restored stretches, there is also a significant amount of artificial wetland in the watershed"

A bit of a run-on sentence, no?

"Second only to the Columbia River on the west coast of the United States, the Sacramento and its tributaries once supported a huge run of Chinook salmon in the fall and spring."

I assume "second only" means in terms of the size of Chinook salmon runs, but perhaps the sentence could be made clearer.

A nitpicky comment: Some of the em dashes have spaces on either side and some do not. Perhaps they should all follow the same style? I tend to not use spaces around em dashes. If spaces are used they should be non-breaking.

Otherwise, the page looks good to me, at least in terms of "is well-written", "is comprehensive", "complies with Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS)", "has a satisfactory lead", and "is of appropriate length". The content is factually accurate and neutral. Pfly (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Parts of this seem well-done, but I also see big problems. Here are three:

The numbers in the geology section are way off. "While the Coast Ranges are young by geologic standards, only a few million years old, the Klamath Mountains were already forming some 7.5 million years ago." - The Klamaths are much, much older than that, comprised of terranes that merged with North America 150 to 130 million years ago, according to Ellen Morris Bishop in In Search of Ancient Oregon. Also doubtful is the claim that the Coast Ranges are "only a few million years old". Ditto the age of the Sierra Nevada, which the article claims is "a few million years". Where are these numbers coming from? The cited sources don't seem to support the claims.

Most FA river articles include a "Discharge" subsection in the "Course" section. Should this article have one?

Added a discharge section, it's probably kind of c*$#py, any suggestions? Shannon ^talk _contribs 03:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most FA river articles include something about climate (precipitation, temperature ranges, or any climatic factor that affects stream flows). How does weather affect the Sacramento River? Finetooth (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I was asked to look at the article and would like to see the responses to Finetooth's questions before making many of my own.

I do note that the article lists List of rivers of Oregon in the See also section, but this is not included on that list. I know part of Oregon is in the watershed, but the course of the Sacremento itself seems to be entirely in California. Why is "List of rivers of Oregon" included in See also? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the refs that are PDF should have the "|format=PDF" parameter. Would like to see other comments addressed too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.