Talk:Ravenna, Seattle, Washington

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] tree

I don't see what the redwood at the UW has to do with the old growth trees in ravenna. The redwood is not native here, it was not part of the original oldgrowth of the area. 69.91.144.167 (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


The Redwood is mentioned as a contrast to how much taller and grander the original primeval forest must have been. Old photographs from the 1880's to 1910's indicate massive Douglas-Fir some 10 to 14 feet in diameter, and said to have been 300 feet and taller. --75.175.86.186 (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style notes

Summary: +, cit, so cl, rephrased; see Talk.
Explication: See Talk:Seattle, Citing sources.

Suggestions: (that Seatttle, Washington is in USA contributes anything particularly needful to the article? Would readers of English recognize Seattle and Washington? "Seattle, Washington" makes a symmetrical complement with Ravenna, Italy; else "Seattle, Washington, USA, named after Ravenna, Italy, EU.") Full year need not be linked unless particularly relevant (MoS (dates and numbers) ).

Like paragraphs grouped together.
"Many of the residents are grad students at the University of Washington"--or "some residents"? Aren't most Rav-Bry residences still owner-occupied? Citation would be useful for accuracy.
"[A] mile and a half to the south" is the smoother conventional form, as well as the usual form where an article is used with none or both members joined by conjunction.
"[W]alking or biking route between": unlike a typical trailhead hike, the route is two- or three-way (with B-G Trail).
For residential "considered part of the University Village neighborhood", some citation would be useful for accuracy. I dunno, folks I knew a while back would say "Ravenna near U-Village", that they were in relative quiet, not in the actual commercial district, albeit across a street or so. AFAIK, U Village is zoned retail-light commercial without housing.

Verifiably, where is this U Village any residential neighborhood? Suggestion: Change the name to be consistent with WP style, such as [[University Village (shopping center)]], since the U Village entity has surrounding buildings not directly connected with its mall. --GoDot 11:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
What neighborhood would you say you lived in if you lived just west of 25th Avenue near the Blockbuster, or on Blakely Street? --Lukobe 17:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
We can say whatever we please. I would say "SWAH-tsoo-gweel ('portage') near the creek" : ) , but for WP, MoS would guide.
4715 25th Avenue NE is within [1] per Seattle neighborhoods#Informal districts sources and Talk:Seattle, Washington#About sources cited. Seattle neighborhoods#Defining neighborhoods may help explicate.
Blakely Street is within [2]
So far, "U Village" in print has been shown as the private uvillage.com holding (map).
With respect to Wikipedia, please see also near the end of the Talk:Seattle, Washington#Assemblages of neighborhoods section, keyphrase (and WP quote) "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." --GoDot 07:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC) 07:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather leave such information out altogether, then, if you're going to stick to that. You'll find I'm not alone. BTW: Wikipedia:WTF?_OMG!_TMD_TLA._ARG! --Lukobe 17:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Moving off-topic with respect to article, so reply will be on your User_talk:Lukobepage. --GoDot 04:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Discussions like these might make even more sense on Talk:Seattle, Washington where more people than just us two will be able to join in. --Lukobe 06:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:Seattle, Neighborhood articles issues, U Village; thread continued there. --GoDot 06:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Note re. Street layout of Seattle provides references for accuracy. Also may reduce redundancy.
Bug with multiple uses of the same footnote corrected using <ref name=Foo>Foo</ref> & <ref name=Foo /> command set syntax. (Ed. --GoDot 10:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC))

{{Citation needed}} noted where needed to distinguish from citation following.

--GoDot 06:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you're re-citing references already cited in the Historylink article. Is this really necessary? --Lukobe 18:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
That to which you might be referring hasn't been found so far. Plese explain.
"Further Reading" listings were made because these were of particularly outstanding value with respect to the purpose of this article. --GoDot 06:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV| citation is Higgins. --12:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoDot (talk • contribs) 04:31, 2006 September 5 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MOSHEAD

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)

Spaces above and below headings are completely optional. Spaces between the == and the heading text are also optional (==Heading== vs == Heading ==). With the current Mediawiki software, these extra spaces will not affect the appearance of the heading in any way; the rendered page is identical.

WP:MOSHEAD #Nesting
WP:MOSHEAD #Spaces

Spaces between the == and the heading text make for friendlier, more readily human eye-scannable text.

!!! 1 Wording - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MOSHEAD#Wording 1.1 Capitalization - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MOSHEAD#Capitalization

In general, heading titles should be nouns or noun phrases. See also is an exception to this rule. Thus "Effects of the wild", not "About the effects of the wild".

"The", "a" and "an" should be omitted from the beginning of heading titles. Thus "Mammals", not "The mammals".

Avoid restating the subject of the article or of an enclosing section in heading titles. It is assumed that you are writing about the same subject, so you usually do not need to refer to it again. Thus "Early life", not "His early life".

1.2 Linking - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MOSHEAD#Linking

Avoid links within headings. Depending on settings, some users may not see them clearly. It is much better to put the appropriate link in the first sentence under the heading. [edit]

1.3 Special characters - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MOSHEAD#Special_characters

Avoid using special characters in headings, such as an ampersand (&), a plus sign (+), curly braces ({}), or square braces ([]). In place of the ampersand, use the word "and" unless the ampersand is part of a formal name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MOSHEAD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) !!!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoDot (talk • contribs) 04:31, 2006 September 5 (UTC)

[edit] Accurate content, sufficiently significant content

Accuracy is a goal.

Re. "native people", this is specific detail particular to this specific neighborhood. Ethnography is presented because this is likely unfamiliar if not unknown to most readers. Cf. links. --GoDot 11:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ravenna and Ravenna-Bryant or (Bryant) are well-recognized and documented neighborhoods.
"The principal arterial" is less awkward and more to the point.

Cowen-Ravenna Park is very much more than a point of interest. It's too big. That it is an aside on walking or biking routes is part of the character of the neighborhood.

It isn't so much of an aside as a destination in itself, wouldn't you say? --Lukobe 06:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
'Need find the best (or better) wording that the park and neighborhood are both close and seemingly remote. The B-G Trail asd Green Lake are prominently documented and hugely patronized. Ravenna tends to like thinking of itself as quiet and very residental even though it is so close to the urban center of the UW and the B-G–Green Lake recreation traffic. Cowen-Ravenna Park is considered a refuge in that way, and that it is so surprisingly tranquil and quiet within the ravine. So far, "an aside" is out of consideration for folks in Ravenna; most parks are most visited by those who live nearby, apart from the huge draws like Green Lake. --GoDot 04:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Per sources, Ravenna Park is not accurately on the desigated route between the Green Lake and the B-G Trail or U Village.
Items in the article of more interest and importance than "[t]he dividing line between Cowen and Ravenna parks" that is of little additional consequence. --GoDot 11:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

(Green Lake is the most-visited park in the city, these routes are popular access for altertnative-mode transport. The link to the B-G Trail is similarly important.) That the parks are being restored is a very big deal to local neighborhoods. This is journalism-style topic paragraph content.
The grocery on the boulevard neatly follows the preceding sentence, so it is not particularly parenthetical: That particular area is eclectic, as content in a subsequent paragraph elaborates. Sentence constructions are selected toward particular purposes.

"[T]he neighborhood's most well-known" is redundant in that most everything in the article is about the neighbohood. It is Candy Cane Lane in that it has been on long enough that it is as proper as a proper noun. "The lane exists since 1951" in that it continues in the present tense [candycanelane.org]; better might be, "its most well-known street is Candy Cane Lane (1951). The lane exists on the length of Park Road". It no longer exists along the full length of Park Road in that some Grinches have moved in. "NE" is particularly redundant in that there is only one in the city, and it's only a block and a little roundabout long.

A verb in the present tense before the word "since" doesn't strike me as standard English. "Has existed" would be preferred, I think. And Park Road does in fact carry two separate names, officially...even though they only differ by placement of the NE and the house numbering scheme. --Lukobe 06:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
'Needs better wording that conveys that CCL has both been around for long enough to be an actual tradition, and that it is ongoing in the present and in preparation for winter 2006. The compass designations add little essential while interrupting the flow of the sentence. There's only one Park Road, so the compass designation doesn't matter when looking for the street name, as well as that all the designations around are "NE". --GoDot 04:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Queen Mary, the Duchess, and Ravenna Volvo are properly "[m]ost emblematic" in that they are the three most superlatively characteristic of the neighborhoods so far. Further candidates would be welcome.
"University of Washington); the only Volvo dealership" is part of the first sentence because, together with Queen Mary and the Duchess, these are the "most emblematic of the neighborhood".
Else perhaps, "Most emblematic of the neighborhood are Queen Mary, serving Victorian English Tea, the Duchess tavern (1934) (along with the Blue Moon, the oldest still-extant around the University of Washington), and that the only Volvo dealership in town is family-owned, and in Ravenna-Bryant."
"English Tea" is a proper noun for a very proper style, so as such should be capitalized.
Grammar has been selected for particular clarity.

"Tea", "tea", and "English Tea" are each distinct. The usage in point is specifically the latter.
"Most emblematic" sentence is of the form "Most emblematic are A because X, B because Y, and C because Z". --GoDot 11:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The parenthetical "([t]he division between it and Cowen, which stretches west of the bridge to Brooklyn Avenue NE, is in name only. For all practical purposes, they are one park.)" uses a sentence to say "conjoined" (and the purposes are more than just practical). More accurately, they are two parks in more than name. They have different histories and different patrons.
"Reach", "extend", or just "is" might be more appropriate for a little park of a few hundred yards or so,[3] the ravine only a small remnant of the salmon stream that once flowed from Haller Lake.
More accurate could be "Cowen Park-Ravenna Park [...] reaching from nearby Brooklyn Avenue and Ravenna Boulevard, under the 15th Avenue bridge", since the namesake feature is integral and spans more than just Ravenna.
"then the west end of the Cowen Park ravine when streams were diverted" is less accurate than the source data.[Dolan & True, p. 143.] Sentences are also constructed for accuracy.

"Until they were cut down" is a weasel-word phrase (politely, an ignoble euphemism). If anything is said at all, it should at least include a quote from Shakespeare, (but for WP:NPOV.
"When only an approximate date is available the abbreviation "c." (Latin: circa, "about") may be used;" (WP:MoS (dates) # Years). If we have dates, they should be given ("'1700s' is not a century, but a decade" [MoS]). We can (and should) let readers make their own approximations {verifiability also means accuracy}. (--GoDot 06:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC), ed. --04:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC), --17:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

Tall trees were and still remain characteristic of low-elevation mature forests in non-exposed areas throughout the Puget Sound country. The aspect of significance is the story and what the story reveals, not merely the trees per se.
"Construction spoils" is a specific term and does not necessarily mean waste material. --GoDot 11:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"It has seen major restoration by activist neighbors, including daylighting of a portion of the creek and restoration of fish habitat." [emphasis added] is less accurate now that the entire creeks (plural) within Cowen-Ravenna Parks have been daylighted, excepting only competition for open space with playing fields at the SE corner. The second use of "restoration" is redundant. "Riparian habitat" would be more accurate. The upstream portion in Cowen Park is crucial to the viability--and inviting appeal--of the Ravenna Park creek restoration, as well as forming a landscape for the main entrance to the head of the ravine.

--GoDot 06:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC), --17:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's just make edits without having our explanations longer than the article itself. I really do appreciate your thoroughness and attention to detail, but I'm sorry, this post is just too long for me to deal with :) By the way, just out of curiosity, do you live in Seattle? For some reason I had the impression you were British. --Lukobe 18:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Reduce circular edits by providing explanation, inspired by tips at WP:HEP.
Cf. Northgate. --GoDot 02:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Might you not be taking things too literally? You're not meeting your goal if the explanations you provide are too difficult for other editors to deal with. --Lukobe 06:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Posts on this page make one of a couple such experiments. Another approach is some circular editing with explanations after each circle. So far, it may turn out that the better approach is somewhat circular editing until a good result sifts or pans out. --GoDot 04:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking that may be the case. --Lukobe 07:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explication of edit summaries

Summary: + ft, cit, cl. wrt cit; see Talk.
Expansion: Add short full text (ft), citations, cleanup grammar, phrasing so congruent with respcet to (wrt) citations; see Discussion for explication.
Edits per GoDot 06:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC), above.
Conventional order of directions is N-S-E-W, or N-E-S-W by the rose, unless to some praticular purpose. The existing writing has been retained. --GoDot 17:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary: + ft native, + ft streetcar visible, wkfy daylighting, + cite web, cl. refs having author; see Talk.
Expansion: add shor full text native ethnicity, add short full text streetcar line visible, wikify daylighting (streams), add cite web template, cleanup references having author; see Discussion.

Suggestion: Combine Ravenna Creek as a prominent section heading in this Ravenna neighborhood. As for the Homewaters Project of Thornton Creek, the visible stream and the restoration in their urban setting are integral with people. Neither Ravenna Creek nor Thornton Creek in living form exist independently of their stewardship: the people of the neighborhoods and the city.

--GoDot 08:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary: fmt cit, cl wrt cit; see Talk
Expansion: Format citations with respect to (wrt) Manual of Style (MoS) WP:CITE and WP:CITET. Clean up text per MoS, making congruent wrt sources. See Discuss this page, please cf. under section heading, above. --GoDot 11:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference style

Restored lost citation data & notes. Multiple "ref name=" can be confusing where no multiple exists. Consolidation of consecutive citations reduces distraction of excessive superscripts.

In order that article text be approachable for casual editors, tech code in-line is minimized. Where a citation has an author, <ref>[AuthorLastName] ([YY xor YY-MM-DD]), pp. [xx-yy] (if page numbers)</ref>

Use of a standard template form allows casual editors to recognize that additional common fields exist. --12:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoDot (talk • contribs) 04:31, 2006 September 5 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#References and Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Further_reading The References section is for Cited References while the "Further reading"/Bibliography section is for uncited, and not referenced, reading for someone to learn more about the subject. Please also see Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes for a domonstration of how to combine the usage of Footnotes as well as References, this option seems to come closest to what you are trying to accomplish. Not all of the items currently listed in the Bibliography section are referenced in this article, and these are the only ones that should be in this section. All referenced sources should be in the References section, while the notes about where the citation comes from should be in a Notes section.
—Asatruer 20:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)