Talk:Cave Junction, Oregon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oregon Portal
This page is part of WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon.
To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
PSU stuff & Applegate Trail are the current Collaborations of the week.
B This page is rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article is rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Cave Junction, Oregon was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 3, 2007
A fact from Cave Junction, Oregon appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 5 October 2007.
Wikipedia


It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Oregon may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Refs for future use

[1][2][3]Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Knapweed: [4] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Trees/forest:[5] [6] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wine: [7]

Rough and Ready: [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs) 19:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

-- Peregrine Fisher 21:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loss of lumber mills

The statement that the lumber mills dwindled due to goverment regulation and roadless federal lands sounds specious to me. Most of the mills were gone in the late 1960s, decades before such regulation was contemplated and before road construction on federal forest lands was curtailed. Cave Junction residents from the late 1950s and early 1960s will remember extensive clearcutting on the Siskiyou slopes around the Illinois Valley. Over forty years later one can still see the damage caused by those clearcuts, which haven't produced any harvestable timber of note. The one mill that lasted the longest, Rough and Ready, did so because they relied heavily on well-managed private timber holdings. Offhand, I'd say the mills disappeared mostly due to greed and lack of foresight. —QuicksilverT @ 21:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree the statement sounds specious. The phrase used to say "clearcutting and over-harvesting on the surrounding mountainsides" but someone changed it to the current wording. So I tagged that for "citation needed" but I don't think our little Wiki article on Cave Junction needs to be a POV battleground about the pros and cons of the timber industry. I'm removing the phrase, and if anyone can actually find a source for the mill closures being due to either clearcutting or overregulation, then please do put it back in. Katr67 21:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on latest additions

I thought the treehouse resort was in Takilma? Katr67 14:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

True. It has a CJ address, but I made a note of that in this article. - Peregrine Fisher 16:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe the things that aren't actually in CJ should be taken out and the nearby locales put in a "see also" section, but I think your solution works fine. Since I'm not from there, I don't know what the locals consider to be in CJ, and we know the USPS doesn't always agree with the locals. (In that region, however, I've noticed some people seem to equate Ashland with Medford, but I'd say those are separate locales.) Great job with expansion! I can see a few things I'd like to tweak, so I'll do that and you can see what you think. Do you think the newspaper or the Great Cats place merit their own articles? Because I generally prefer to make things like that redlinked wikilinks rather than embedded titled links, Like this, then use the external link as a reference until an aricle is written. Katr67 16:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm done messing with it. You can see there are some commented out sections that can be uncommented and expanded as needed. I'll see about checking the good book for some history one of these days. Katr67 17:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. I didn't know the correct section headers and it will be easier to expand on these. I'll try and find maybe two refs minimum for each section. Ashland and Medford are definitely seperate cities, but I would consider Kerby (to a lesser extent) and Takilma (to a greater extent) part of the "greater Cave Junction metro area," if one wants to call it that. Takilma doesn't have any stores and its closest town is CJ. Kerby doesn't have anything besides two galleries and their teeny museum. Takilma is about 7 miles outside of downtown CJ and Kerby maybe 2-3 miles. If I CJ ever becomes too large (doubful), some of the info can be moved to the other pages. - Peregrine Fisher 17:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) That works for me. (re:moving content) Sometimes the city articles list things that are 100 miles away as "notable attractions", and besides wikipedia not being a tourist guide, each article should actually be about the place in the article title, and not everything w/in a 100-mile radius. Obviously these need to be treated on a case-by-case basis though. I defer to people who are familiar with the areas in question. I do know that I signed up for a popular Internet networking service and it says the populous place in Marion County in which I live is actually part of Portland. News to me. Katr67 19:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A note on the re-class to B. This does now meet the low end of the B class, but note 1) generally due to conflicts of interest we do not rate articles we contribute to (see WP:GA for an actual ban for that classification). 2) The number of references really has very little do due a classification; B class is about broad coverage of a topic (with maybe one part missing) so an article about a city could have 50 references for it's history section and not cover the economy or geography at all and thus would only be start; now adding a bunch of references will move a start class article up if references were the only thing deficent. Just a few notes for the future.
As to continued improvement, the glaring issue I can see is the lead needs expansion. Aboutmovies 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've gotta work on the lead and history sections, and add a government section. COI is about article space, not talk pages, but I get what you mean. - Peregrine Fisher 22:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Prosification

It's fine to have just have a bullet point to certain things, especially if they have their own articles. So for the newspaper, just a link to the article I'm sure you're going to create (hint hint) is better than repeating that information in this article. Basically this article should be reserved for info about the city of CJ and the details about the things in CJ should go in their own articles. I think you need only the briefest mention of Oregon Caves, and people who are curious can click on that article to learn more. Katr67 02:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into too much detail on the newspaper and the caves, but I like to put a few sentences in so people can get a rough idea of what it is without having to go to another page, where they can get a detailed article on the subject. - Peregrine Fisher 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate

Is the 61 inches a typo? That is a lot more than Portland and atypical of Southern Oregon outside of the coastal cities. Aboutmovies 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I was using Yahoo real estate, but they may not be accurate for Cave Junction. I think they may be basing it on the weather at a nearby mountain, and not in the actual city. The Chamber of Congress puts it at 50 to 55 inches, and has different numbers for snow, temp, etc. I'll change the info. - Peregrine Fisher 20:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 3, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article does not comply with the Manual of Style. The Forest fires section should be a part of the history, not the last section. Wikipedia is not a travel or tourism guide, and a Points of interest section violates this. Much of the content is suitable for other sections. The Caves parts should go into Geography. The resort and wineries paragraphs need to go in to Economy, as does the Great Cats World Park bit. Historic sites should be a part of the history section, and along with Climate, the article should do all it can to avoid single-sentence sections. The following is most egregious violation of not only MoS, but some of the basic pillars dictating Wikipedia content. Having a Hippies section is a gross violation of a properly formal encyclopedic tone. Many people object to the characterization of hippie, which makes it POV and even possibly original research. Environmentalist and hippie are not precisely analogous terms, and characterizing all of the individuals possibly included in that section as hippies makes the article read like it was written in 1969. In order for the article to comply with the MoS and the GA criteria, this section should either be removed entirely, or moved to History and completely rewritten.
2. Factually accurate?: The bare minimum of inline citations are one at the end of each paragraph and for quotations. The article generally does an okay job of this, but several sections are woefully uncited. Demographics, and the intro to the Culture section both need basic citations.
3. Broad in coverage?: The History section only goes up until its incorporation in 1948, which certainly isn't comprehensive. That's more like pre-history. The Geography section is pretty thin, and it could go into quite a bit more detail about how the unique geography has shaped the town and its growth. The Government and politics section should not focus primarily on the political leanings of its citizens, as it does now. The section should be a concise overview of the city government and any relevant history, which it is not now.
4. Neutral point of view?: The article contains an entire section which violates a neutral point of view, as noted in the first section.
5. Article stability? Not the subject of any recent or on-going conflicts.
6. Images?: Present and accounted for with proper licenses.

Closing comments: As the necessary changes would, in my estimation, take longer than the maximum hold period of a week to complete, and the article meets one or more of the quick-fail criteria, I have failed it without the customary hold for minor improvements.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky Talk 20:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed assessment. I wasn't totally satisfied with the layout myself, but I didn't know what to do. I had looked at other GA city pages, but they weren't a lot of help because CJ is such a small town. If and when I fix the above problems, I'll bring it back to GA. - Peregrine Fisher 20:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about Cave Junction, but I found this part of the lead odd: Residents range from very liberal to strongly right-wing. This describes just about every city in the United States. Is there something special about the politics in Cave Junction? If so, we can probably replace this sentence with something more descriptive. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The demog section is already cited with [1] as are all the Rambot-produced city articles that use 2000 census data. These don't need citations at the end of every paragraph. Katr67 21:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. For those who don't know about this bit of Wikipedia history see here for an example what the bot initially produced for every census locale in the United States. Katr67 21:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment While I completely agree that Wikipedia is not a tourist guide, I disagree that having a "Points of interest" section violates this principle. For example, look at the GA Youngstown, Ohio, which has a section entitled "Attractions", the use of which I tend to discourage for the Oregon city articles. I think "Points of interest" is more neutral and less tourist oriented. Salt Lake City, Utah, another GA, has "Sites of interest and city architecture". However, if you look at Salem, Oregon, which is far from being a good article, though it has the potential, you can see how I rearranged some of the sections today in keeping with Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline, which recommends headings such as "Arts and culture" and yes, "Museums and other points of interest". Now, the way the section is written is another matter that I haven't looked into, but the headings themselves do not violate WP:NOT. Katr67 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • First off, "other violations exist" is not a valid argument. Second, calling something "points of interest" is patently advice-like, advocating edifices or attractions which would be good tourist destinations. That clearly violates WP:NOT. But whether you agree on that or not, all of the information in that section belongs in other sections, some of which (like geography) are extremely flimsy. There is no reason to have a POI section - something not advocated by basic MoS section guidelines - when other essential sections are seriously lacking. VanTucky Talk 22:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I know this is an old discussion, but VanTucky, your citing of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is inaccurate, and brushes off a perfectly legitimate argument by Katr. This is not a deletion debate, and the examples Katr cites are from articles that have passed GA. If there was a problem with the "Points of interest" section that's one thing, but your claim that such a section title is necessarily "patent" violation goes beyond the task of reviewing an article for GA. We needn't get into that here. -Pete (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Takilma, Oregon

Shouldn't the information pertaining to Takilma be moved to the Takilma article? Otherwise perhaps the general culture of the region should go into Josephine County, Oregon or Southern Oregon articles. Katr67 (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've thought of that. It would make it easier to pass GA, I guess. The article I've created here is really about the Illinois Valley, which most people would call Cave Junction. The only parts of it that are CJ spedific are Demographics, Government and politics, Education and part of Media. The rest are partially or wholly about stuff outside the city limits. I would say people outside of the valley would call the area Cave Junction, and residents are about evenly split between calling the area CJ or something more specific. When the new york times writes about takilma, they say Cave Junction at the beginning or their articles, for instance. The main accomplishment of the hippies is the Health Center, which is now in CJ but started in Takilma. Also, the descrimination against them happened in CJ. I'm not super informed on the rules for city articles, but I would say that most people would expect to find Takilma's info within this article. Takilma isn't really any different from other, non-unicoporated parts of the valley besides a bunch of hippies moved there. I could probably come up with maybe six sparse paragraphs for the Takilma article, which is why it seems this is a better place for the info. It's kind of like Redwood, Oregon where people who don't live there think it's part of Grants Pass, and I suspect a lot of the younger residents are also unaware that they're not part of GP. Maybe creating a redirect to CJ at Illinois Valley is the best way to go. I wish there were some other pedians familiar with the area, but I don't know of any. I guess I could ask at the Grants Pass page. Those people might have something to add. I can't think of a good northern Oregon parallel. Everything up here is so much more populated and notable it's easy for a good article to be created on it. I'll look for some refs that discuss it, but I'm not sure I'll find much. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crime section, maybe

On December 11, 2007 former mayor Tom Green was found beaten to death outside his Cave Junction home. Green sheltered homeless teens at his home and homeless nineteen-year-old Timothy Waddell was picked up by police and charged witht the murder. According to witnesses, Waddell repeatedly bashed the 70-year-old Green's head into the asphalt in an unprovoked attack. Green was mayor in the late 80's and early 90's.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs) 22:36, December 11, 2007

  1. ^ American FactFinder. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved on 2008-01-31.
  2. ^ Former Mayor of Cave Junction dead; teenager arrested. KXLY. Retrieved on 2007-12-11.
Oh that's just awful. I'm not sure it merits inclusion in this article though, since Green doesn't seem to be notable by Wikipedia standards, even if he was a good guy. Katr67 (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm trying to find general crime data, but figured I'd wtite this up while I'm at it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)