Talk:Corvallis, Oregon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Oregon (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
The current collaborations of the month are Create stubs for notable Oregon newspapers & Land use in Oregon.
WikiProject Cities (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Rankings and recognition section[edit]

"About Corvallis URL accessed 11 May 2006" does not satisfy my reading of WP:RS. The five entries citing that reference must be deleted unless reliable sources can be found. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a fine reference to me. What part of WP:RS do you think it violates? VegaDark 03:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, now that I take another look at it I do see why there could be concerns. It says "rumor and fact" for the claims on that page. Does that mean that it is both rumor and fact, or that mean some of the claims are rumors and some are facts? I would say we should try and find a better reference for the things that is used as a reference for, but I wouldn't necessarily say that what is currently there should be deleted, at least not for a week or so after cite needed tags have been placed on the info. VegaDark 03:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
this link rehashes the same claims made on that page without stating it as possible rumors, hence would pass WP:RS. Odds are that they just got the info from that about Corvallis page in the first place though, but who knows. VegaDark 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that this list is not verifiable in that it is not published by a reputable publisher. I don't know anything about the editorial standards of "Visit Corvallis Oregon" or "Coho Cohousing" web sites and I doubt that many of my fellow editors do either. By way of contrast, I have more confidence in the Corvallis Gazette-Times and I think it qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. Moreover, I deem the list to be a compilation based on published news sources, if indeed it is accurate. Consequently, we editors need to track down those sources and cite them with their dates of publication so that they can be verified. Please see WP:V, also. Cite tags don't seem appropriate to me since the items are cited. My opinion is that the article would benefit from shorter, but better sourced and more notable list. I think it is telling that so many of the organizations allegedly conferring recognition are redlinked. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Revisited[edit]

Is this section even encyclopedic? I think any relevant info should be merged with the rest of the article and the section deleted. The article needs a history section, which when written could include a mention that "Corvallis has recieved many awards over the years, including blahblahblah", listing the more notable ones and citing the sources. Thoughts? Katr67 20:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I added this section and I think everything that is sourced (which happens to be everything) should stay in the article, although I agree it would be better to merge the info into the body of the article. VegaDark 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Though it's not the best example (because the Eugene article needs a lot of cleanup), Corvallis is similar to Eugene, Oregon in that it could stand to have a Community or Culture section to address the unique (read: countercultural) aspects of the city, and some of the rankings (bikes, vegetariansim) info could go in there. As long as it's not written like a review, of course. Sections like that tend to attract a lot of POV and original research. Katr67 23:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a lot needs to be written/rewritten, and hopefully the rankings section can be eliminated by the end if we can incorporate all the info to these sections. VegaDark 23:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Katr67 that it should be integrated. Also should "rankings" that are more than 5 years old be included? And shouldn't the OSU campus safety/beauty things go there and not on Corvallis? Aboutmovies 00:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Katr and AM. I don't think the specific rankings, or their sources, belong in the text of the article; something along the lines of "Corvallis has been considered, by various entities, to be among the top US cities for bicycling, doing busines, …" would be worthwhile, with a couple footnotes to support it. Also, yes, the OSU-specific items should be moved to that page. -Pete 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

After many years, I've simply nuked this section as unencyclopedic. Valfontis (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

More Photographs?[edit]

If any Wikipedian lives in Corvallis, is it possible that you could take some photographs that better represent what the town looks like apart from public buildings? Maybe some photos of the nature surrounding/included in the town, shots of long distance vistas, the main street(s), et cetera? Wowbobwow12 01:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I would still love to see a "main street" or downtown shot of Corvallis. Can anyone provide a photograph that gives a sense of what the town "feels" like? Thank you Wowbobwow12 (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Lest there be any doubts about the 2000 pop, the Census says 49,322. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion section[edit]

I think the new paragraph on religion should be deleted in its entirety. It is inaccurate and misleading, and it misstates the nearly three year old source it cites as a reference. It conflates statewide and national statistics from that reference.

I don't have an axe to grind. I think the statistic cited, if accurate, could be a plus or minus depending on the reader's point of view. But the statement is unsupported by the data cited.

John L. Barlow (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded the section to better match the source. VegaDark (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
That is an improvement, but the source is not very reliable. What you have written is accurate, but what is encyclopedic about the entry? There are countless studies on a number of topics that implicate Corvallis and Benton County, but should an encyclopedia entry focus on one particular one?
Hope you're enjoying law school--sometimes practice is so tiresome that I actually get nostalgic about the law school days!
John L. Barlow (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, we can only write about what we have sources to cite from. As of now, that's all we have about religion in Corvallis. It would indeed by nice to have many more sources to be able to draft a better and more comprehensive section, but that requires time that apparently nobody has been willing to put in yet. Until then, we might as well leave what information we do have, even if it is just one study's interpretation. That at least gives the reader some information on the topic, and perhaps they will, as you have, investigate the source themselves and make their own conclusions. As for law school, does anybody really enjoy law school? VegaDark (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The only citation is over ten years old and no longer exists on the web. No subsequent study seems available, although the article asserts that it's done every ten years. As currently written, the only function of this section seems to be to slam that segment of the population who alledgedly did report some religious affiliation (and of course we have no idea what percentage that truly is, since the link cited is broken). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.159.59.2 (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I have resurrected the citation. Hope that helps. —EncMstr (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Employers[edit]

I see that Agilent Technologies is still listed as a major employer. They haven't been in Corvallis for a number of years now. What used to be Agilent in Corvallis is now Marvell, and Aptina (a subsidiary of Micron for now).

C-Class Article[edit]

I saw that someone had listed Corvallis for request for being listed as a C-Class Article. I figured I would give my assesment of this and hope for others responces back and mave the article forward.

First thing straight from the criteria for the Start Class Article. An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources.

So here are things I see that fall in to this area.

Developing[edit]

  • History- The history section is in need of more developing as it is only 2 small paragraphs about it. Joseph C. Avery is mentioned as the founder of the town in 1845 or atleast settling there. the 1853 name change is mentioned along with the 1857 incorporation. Even the breif period of it being the territorial capital.What happened to Corvallis after 1857? did it instantly become the town we know today? Did it become a major logging hub, a transit hub? did it have anything to do with the riverboats like Albany or was it always a college town? The college would be a vital part of it history but if this is added be careful not to make it about the college as it has its own page to have that covered but noting its oragens might be good. Pretend you don't know anything about the town and you have to do a full page or 2 report on its history. Could you do that from what we have here?
  • Goverment/Politics This section is lack luster. I know Corvallis had a mayor that was female and the longest running mayor of the city and that it two members of the city council who are from the green party Green Party. Has that been updated since the last election (AKA is that curent)? We need more though, does it have a home rule charter? And is it council-Manager run? How many council memebers and how long do they and the mayor stay in office for each term? Where is the city hall do they have one? (On a side note some of the Rankings and recognitions stuff could be placed in here instead of the R&R section if it is related to the government.) Let us know about ow this city runs and what the government provides for us.
  • Education The education section is hard to make vary big in smaller towns but we could get a few more details. We know it has a higher education rate that is really good. Does it have public schools I would bet so but by reading this we would never know that? how many High schools? What is the name of the school district? Does it have its own wiki that could be linked here with details about the achools? how long has it been serving the community? what are the Student populations of LBCC and OSU? moght be good information
  • Infrastructure this could use some minor detailing like when the bridge was built. I know it is on the page for it but a minor note about it other then just its name under the bridge section would be good. Some blurb about the Corvallis ariport to again I know it is in its page but a small catcher so people will look deeper in to it?


  • LISTS!!!! Listes aren't really what we needed at this point. They have given us details we need but need developed in to more formal statements now. The list of famus people can be put in to list of notable people from corvallis that is linked and this section can be developed in to statements about corvallis and it long list of people.

for example: With Oregon State University located in Corvallis it has a long history of residents becoming NFL players starting with (First NFL players name from Corvallis) back in 19XX leading through a long line of players such as (Name A), (Name B), (Name C), even including (Most famus Player from Corvallis).

just a thought on that something that would make it less a list and more a statement providing a bit more detail to it. makes it better to read.

  • Rankings and recognition this section has been mentioned before and should be removed from here. Alot of this stuff could be moved to the right area

Elample: -1994: OSU named "Safest Pac-10 Campus" (University of Southern California study)[43] Should be moved to the OSU page if at all is it still the safest otherwise this is not relivent. At one time L.A. was safe those days have passed so not really of not anymore if that is the case.

-2009: In 2009, Corvallis High School won $20,000 in sustainability contest "America's Most Eco-Friendly School". Move to school district page

-2008: On February 18, 2008, Corvallis was named the fifth smartest city in America by Forbes Online Magazine. move to education section and work it in

They can all be worked in to make it seem a bit better. Also keep it encyclopedic. it is not a competioning to prove one city better then another.

reliable sources[edit]

I'll keep it quick here.

Sections missing some sourcing:

  • Notable works of fiction - Could use a little sourcing
  • Notable people - nothing is sourced. Though I have no reason to dispute any of them I don't have and proof they are related to this town either.

*Infrastructure

  • Sports


Now on to the things that look like it is C-Class. straight from the criteria for the C-Class Article. The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.

Substantial[edit]

  • Geography it is small but it is a hard section to make really large so I would say it will pass for C-Class
  • Demographics it is got enough detail to pass but lets get the 2010 stuff added in too.
  • Economy again hard to get on a small town it will pass for C-Class but lets keep moving forward.
  • Infrastructure though there are a few areas that need work it has a realy good start to it.

Good sourcing[edit]

  • Rankings and recognition lots of good sources but lets get these shifted to there needed locations.
  • Water/Greenpower got good amount of sources for there areas too.
  • Arts and culture has good sourcing but lets get it off the list and in to a good set of statements about them. Let us really know Corvallis.
  • Economy Good to go on sources.
  • Demographics got some good sources here too. needs the 2010 stuff as mentioned before.
  • History got the sources for the info that is there.


conclusion[edit]

After reviewing all this I would say it is borardering on the C-Class but needs those thing to be fixed up a bit first. with a few people and a few days of fixing it up it will ne ready in my opinion. Let me know what you all thing. MathewDill (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Corvallis, Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Corvallis, Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Corvallis, Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corvallis,_Oregon&oldid=818312831"