Talk:Hillsboro, Oregon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Hillsboro, Oregon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 5, 2014.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cities (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Oregon (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
The current collaborations of the month are Politics of Oregon & Oregon Children's Theatre.

Recent tweaks, pre-history, quibbles[edit]

I agree with Dr. Cash, the GA reviewer, that this article is nicely done and not far from a run at FA. The only lacuna that jumped out at me was absence of information about the original inhabitants. I added a paragraph about them to the "History" section that is a short, slightly revised version of the one I used for Fanno Creek. I added it boldly, but if it doesn't suit or needs work, please revise.

I turned a couple of lists into prose per my understanding of MoS guidelines. Ditto for the unbolding. I see a few other low-level things to fix such as italics missing from newspaper article titles in citations. The citation 61 link is dead.

I'd be happy to create a table of monthly high/low temperatures per Dr. Cash's suggestion and add it to the bottom of the climate section if other editors here think that's a good idea. Finetooth (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good, feel free to add the climate chart. I'll try to get to the notable residents section and turn it into more of a prose section, plus other outstanding tasks: Add to geography about street numbering, N-S, one-way grid, mix of city-county numbering (citation: city program trying to fix). Plus I think the lead needs to get changed to 3 paragraphs as the first is a bit chunky. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Climate chart added. I used Weatherbase for the data. Detroit, which is FA, uses Weatherbase, so I think it's reliable. Its high and low temps differ slightly from the Taylor numbers already cited above the chart. Taylor is averaging 30 years of data, whereas Weatherbase is averaging 50 years. That probably accounts for the tenths of a degree variations. We should probably use identical numbers in both places. We could use Taylor throughout except that he doesn't seem to give all the numbers we need. Finetooth (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I took care of the last of the items I think needed to be addressed and other issues raised. I think your suggestion to using all Weatherbase info would be best. Once that's done, I guess another read through and we'll be ready for FA. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Lens polishing[edit]

I synchronized the weather numbers and attended to a few more nit-picky things. Along the way, I noticed some oddness in the citations. Specifically, some of the news refs have a double page-number entry, such as "pp. West Zoner, p. 8". Since these have no urls to track down the originals on-line, I think an acceptable fix would be to include "West Zoner:" at the beginning of the "title" attribute and to change "p. 8" to "8". Also, since the date formatting in the citations should be consistent, "January 4, 2009" is I think what we want in the West Zoner citation. The revised citation would look like this: Potter, Connie (April 23, 1992). "West Zoner: Hillsboro students eager for trip to Japan", The Oregonian, p. 8. Retrieved on January 4, 2009. If everybody here is OK with these changes, I will go ahead and make them. Finetooth (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence "Due largely to the presence of the technology employers, commuters increase the daytime population to 110,000" belongs in the Demographics section rather than the lead since it does not seem to appear anywhere except in the lead. The lead should summarize the whole article but should not include material that is not mentioned in the rest of the article. Finetooth (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I just went ahead and boldly moved the 110,000 sentence, and I'll fix the citations later today. Finetooth (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to make the dates in the GR templates conform to the rest. Not sure it can be done. I don't know what to do with citations like 99 and 100 that have access dates but no urls. Finetooth (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll look into the {{GR}} problem, but it looks like we'll just have to remove that template and replace it with a standard cite template. As to West Zoner, that is the section of the newspaper its from. Unfortunately the cite template/button doesn't have a section section. It's also why there are access dates for things without URLs. Since I don't have my MLA book handy for how a citation would look per some style guideline, I think your solution should be fine. Aboutmovies (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Done. I replaced the GRs with cite templates and resorted to putting the retrieval date on citation 42 outside the template. All the dates now meet the internal consistency requirement probably needed to get the article to FA. I think the article is ready for PR with FAC as the step after that. Finetooth (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

One other thought: Maybe we should simply erase the access dates for citations like #102 that seem not to have come from the web but rather from a printed version of a newspaper. If a document was never available on-line, the access date has no meaning. Finetooth (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
That's fine with me, though they are available online through the paid archives. That's why I don't add a URL for those. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Post-PR[edit]

I believe all of the issues raised by the two peer reviewers have now been addressed with the exception of the suggestion by User:Peripitus that the health care section would be better with "a bit of history . . . What happened prior to 1918". If Tuality was the first hospital in Hillsboro, I think that would be a sufficient bit. If it wasn't the first, we could add the first and its opening date. I went back and forth about one of the other suggestions from Peripitus, that we use European instead of European-American to describe the people who drove out the Atfalati. The European explorers brought new diseases to the Columbia River basin, but the surviving Atfalati continued living in what became Washington County until the settlers, European-Americans, drove them out.

Every time I re-read any article, I find a few more nits to pick, but I think this article would now have a good chance at FAC. The image licenses look OK to me, but reviewers might suggest that the image descriptions be expanded in some cases to include date, location, description, author or photographer, "self-made" or "own photo", or anything else that might be helpful. Something is wrong with the link to citation 83; I think it's probably dead or semi-dead, and I don't know what to do about it. Aboutmovies is the main contributor and would be the one to nominate the article at FAC and would be the go-to editor on questions that might arise (as they always do). I'll be glad to help with the FAC suggestions or anything else however I can. User:Katr67 has worked on the article too and might like to join in the fun. Finetooth (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I addressed the health care issue and the ref 83 issue. I disagreed with some of the suggestions, but whatever. I'll take it to FA, but it'll probably be March. Thanks for all your work. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Economics: Solarworld & Hillsboro[edit]

After Genentech's announcement, it would be appropriate to add information about Hillsboro now being home to North America's largest photovoltaic solar panel manufacturing facility developed by Solarworld, the German solar manufacturing firm. Announcement was in 2007. Phase 1, a re-tooling of a former Komatsu Group silicon wafer manufacturing facility, is complete and Phase 2 is under construction. Korynasz (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, did you see the coverage in the history section about SolarWorld? That's a more prominent spot as it is higher up, though once it is finished with its planned phases - and same goes for when Genetech us completely up and running (going by job boards they are still doing a lot of hiring) - then the econ section should be updated to reflect those situations. But SolarWorld is covered. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

More readable demographics[edit]

Since the census data of 2010 was bot-added, U.S. city articles have included a double whammy of eye-glazing statistics. I think it would improve this article for humans to revise the bot work by eliminating the 2000 data while retaining the 2010 data, with tweaks such as rounding for readability. I would also suggest replacing the general FactFinder link with one that goes more directly to the Hillsboro stats: here. If no one objects, I'd be happy to do the work, which could then be revised further if needed. Finetooth (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone agree? Disagree? Finetooth (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes and no. I think it would be good to be able to compare 2000 vs. 2010, so perhaps merge them together. Something like:
  • "As of the census of 2010, there were 91,611 people (XX,XXX in 2000), 33,289 households (XX,XXX in 2000), and 22,440 families (XX,XXX in 2000) residing in the city."
Otherwise rounding and the specific link would be good. We also need to see about 2010 data for the income/education paragraph at the end. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Rounding done; all paragraphs tied to at least one RS, the FactFinder site. The more specific link I had in mind doesn't seem to work, though the one that's there now is OK. Otherwise, I'll leave the two sets of stats alone. They may be easier to decipher unmerged. Finetooth (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)