Talk:Snake River

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Snake River has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
April 14, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Geography (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Oregon (Rated GA-class, Mid-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
The current collaborations of the month are Lake Oswego Transit Center & Oregon Ballot Measure 80 (2012).
WikiProject United States / Idaho / Washington / Wyoming (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Wyoming (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Rivers (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

comments on water volume[edit]

More images at User:Maveric149/images/Idaho. If you use any, then please either drop me a line on my talk page or move it from ==Orphan== to ==Images that have homes== on my image page. --mav 04:52, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The average volume of the Snake River is hardly 50,000 cfs. I really question the source of the person who claims it is 50,000 cfs. The Colorado and Sacramento Rivers are both larger than the Snake River. The mouth of the Snake River is near Anatone Washington and the average flow is about 27,500 cfs. The Sacremento is about 30,000 cfs and the Colorado 43,000 cfs. User:Peckvet55 17:49, 14 Feb 2007

Source http://waterdata.usgs.gov/id/nwis/uv/?site_no=13334300&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060

You need to look at data over an entire year and for a series of years – not simply grab the current measurement for one particular day. When I went to the same site and grabbed data for the Snake River at Ice Harbor Dam, I saw the following data (year, cusecs):
1963 46,310;
1964 56,610;
1965 73,120;
1966 37,390;
1967 48,830;
1968 45,480;
1969 54,960;
1970 54,050;
1971 74,640;
1972 70,300;
1973 36,130;
1974 76,140;
1975 64,840;
1976 63,720;
1977 27,940;
1978 53,730;
1979 41,620;
1980 46,710;

Myasuda 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

GAN?[edit]

Anyone have comments on if this article is ready for GA yet? I'll wait until November 30 for a reply, then I'll put it on GAN myself. Shannontalk contribs sign!:) 00:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, heh, I'm two weeks late in responding, so anyone who wants to object has until the Santa Ana River Ga review is done to comment. Shannontalk contribs 02:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Largest Tributary[edit]

The clearwater is the largest tributary of the Snake, not the Salmon. According to USGS, the mean flow of the Clearwater is about 15,000 cfs, and the mean flow of the Salmon is just under 12,000 cfs. Check out the wiki pages on both the salmon and the clearwater for the source link. I suggest changing this to be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.196.128 (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The USGS's water data for the Clearwater is only from 1914 to 1927 and there's a lot of years missing in between, so there were only five years recorded on the Lewiston gauge. Additionally, the early 20th century was a wet period. The Salmon River has data from 1911 to present and it's true that the average flow is around 12,000 cfs. The Salmon is also longer and drains more area. However, this may need some additional research. I've seen conflicting statements between whether the Salmon or Clearwater is the largest tributary, so this might need some further poking around. Shannontalk contribs 00:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snake River/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Toolbox

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: I found 13 disambiguations. I could not determine whether Snake River Aquifer should disambiguate to Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer or Western Snake River Plain Aquifer; I could find no suitable target for Flathead; I fixed the rest.diff

Link rot: I repaired three and tagged one dead link.diff

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Very well written, I venture to suggest that this approaches FAC class. I did make a few minor copy-edits.diff
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    ref #89 [1] requires a login - that needs to be stated in the reference
    ref #86 [2] and ref #90 [3] are tagged as expring news links by WP:CHECKLINKS.
    Dead link fixe. Yes check.svg Done
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    This article thoroughly covers the subject without going into unecessary detail.
  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):
    All images tagged and captioned
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Excellent, I ma very happy to passs this as a good article. Well done!

New 1871 photo[edit]

Snake River near Taylor's Bridge, by Jackson, William Henry, 1843-1942 cleaned.jpg

I've just uploaded an 1871 photo of the Snake River, see right. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 03:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like a nice replacement for the low res image in the exploration section. Shannontalk contribs 18:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lower Snake River Controversy[edit]

The Lower Snake River Controversy section is a contribution from a student in Spring 2011 Conservation Biology (Bill Platt) at Louisiana State University. Any feedback on the contribution by the community will be appreciated. BJC 16:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your contribution to this Wikipedia article, and welcome to Wikipedia! As a Wikipedian and an Idahoan who grew up a stone's throw from the Snake River, I have some feedback, including the following three main recommendations: (If I find the time, I will come back and try to do some editing in the article to reflect this feedback, but in the meantime, anyone else is welcome to incorporate these suggestions also.)

  1. This section on the Lower Snake River Controversy is too long. One option would be to write a much more concise summary of the controversy -- in two to three paragraphs -- and then move this longer discussion into a separate article that you could create entitled "Lower Snake River Controversy."
  2. This section also does not fit best under the "Biology" section, since it deals more with politics than the actual biology of the Snake River. It could be moved into the "River modifications" section under "Dams" -- which already refers briefly to the dam removal proposal. Alternatively, a new section could be added to this article entitled "Controversies," which could contain this summary.
  3. My most important recommendation: This section violates the NPOV rule of Wikipedia, which is that all articles should present a neutral point of view. The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia's NPOV policy page, subheading Impartial tone:
Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view.

In general, this section on the Lower Snake River Controversy is making an argument in favor of dam removal, and more broadly, it is heavily biased towards the side of the conservationists (perhaps because it was written for a Conservation Biology class -- which is fine for that class, but not for Wikipedia). When it does attempt to address both sides of the argument, it primarily only addresses the ecological and energy-related drawbacks to dam removal and does not provide equal treatment of the views of people in the agriculture and transportation sectors and the residents of the affected area in general (the majority of which are opposed to dam removal and view it as an extreme solution, according to [4]).

Examples of this POV (point of view) problem can be found throughout the section. I have copied a few such examples here, and after each example, I have provided an example of how the sentence could be modified to fix this problem of bias:

  • ORIGINAL: Dam removal is necessary for restoration and recovery of salmon, but politics get in the way.
  • SUGGESTION FOR REVISION: Advocates of dam removal argue that it is necessary for restoration and recovery of salmon. ("politics get in the way" is too biased of a phrase and should be eliminated completely.)
  • ORIGINAL: Save Our Wild Salmon website also recommends removing the four lower Snake River dams, which they believe would enable salmon to rebound with more habitat and easier passage on their journey to the ocean. The website criticizes the government for spending eight million dollars on salmon recovery that has failed. In addition the Save Our Wild Salmon group disapproves of the government for getting around legal requirements and politicizing science - ignoring sound science.[125]
  • SUGGESTION FOR REVISION: Add a brief description of the group "Save Our Wild Salmon" to make it more transparent that this organization has a particular agenda and is not a neutral scientific party in the debate. E.g. "Save Our Wild Salmon, a coalition that lobbies for restoration of salmon populations, recommends removing the four lower Snake River dams..." Also, to provide balance, add a quotation from or summary of the views of an organization that opposes dam removal, such as Northwest RiverPartners, a coalition of farmers, port operators, hydroelectric companies, and small businesses (information on their views can be found at http://www.nwriverpartners.org/).
  • ORIGINAL: Although many people in support of the Columbia salmon plan state that other factors such as climate change contribute the most to declining salmon populations, and that dam removal will not be an effective solution, in an article about the myths and facts of Lower Snake dam removal on the Save Our Wild Salmon website, it states: “In fact, the current federal salmon plan permits the federal dams to kill more than 90% of some of these salmon”.
  • SUGGESTION FOR REVISION: Advocates of dam removal attribute the deaths of more than 90% of some salmon species directly to the current federal salmon plan.[5] However, some ecologists point out that factors such as climate change are the primary factor contributing to declining salmon populations and that dam removal will not be an effective solution. (Insert source here - an example of ecologists who make that argument.)
  • ORIGINAL: The Snake River Controversy is an ongoing conflict and it will not be resolved until a greater degree of transparency is reached by the government, and until biological and ecological values are placed above purely economic concerns.
  • SUGGESTION FOR REVISION: Delete the whole sentence. While such conclusion sentences are good for policy or academic papers, they are not necessary or suitable for encyclopedia articles, since an encyclopedia article is not making an argument and thus does not need a sentence to sum up that argument.

Just some ideas. Thanks again for your contribution and for joining Wikipedia's efforts. Resplin.odell (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Simplest solution was to revert it back to GA version. The diff is here. AIRcorn (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Discharge[edit]

Something doesn't seem right about the discharge stats here. There appears to be two key sources used: 1) Snake River below Ice Harbor Dam, WA, 1963-2000 (footnote #7), a gauge below Ice Harbor dam that operated from 1963-2000). 2) Ice Harbor Lock and Dam Pertinent Data, USACE (footnote #8), the "Hydrologic Data" section of that page says it is "based on streamflow data for the Snake River near Clarkston, WA", "period of record 1915-1972"--that must be some other now discontinued gauge.

Data from the first source, [7]: "Summary statistics": highest daily mean 305,000 cfs (19 June 1974). "EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD": Maximum discharge, 312,000 cfs (19 June 1974) (presumably something other than "max daily mean", perhaps "max instantaneous peak"). "Annual mean": 54,830 cfs. "Min daily mean": 2,700 cfs.

Data from the second source, [8]: "Instantaneous max": 369,000 cfs (29 May 1948); "Extreme outside period of record" (ie, estimated): 409,000 cfs ("flood of June 1894"); "Instantaneous minimum": 6,660 cfs (2 Sep 1958); "Average annual flow": 48,840 cfs.

Anyway, I have to go and can't say any more. But it looks like these two sources are both used but not described quite right. Pfly (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Rivers of North America (p. 607) gives the mean discharge "below Ice Harbor Dam just before it enters the Columbia" as 1,565 cubic metres per second (55,300 cu ft/s). This pretty much confirms the "annual mean" data from the first source. The discharge at Clarkston would naturally be smaller because Clarkston is quite a ways upstream from the mouth, and tributaries enter downstream of that gauge. Finetooth (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Back. The main thing was that the Discharge section describes the 369,000 cfs peak as the "max daily" recorded at the Ice Harbor gauge. I've a bit of time now, so I'll just fix it up. Pfly (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)