Talk:Sammamish River

Review

Hello @Generalissima: here's my review & feedback. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. For now I'll mark the status of this review "on hold".

Review based on this version: Special:Diff/1357713208

More information Rate, Attribute ...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Looks good
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Question: Could you add the native name (alternative name) to the first sentence of the article? Looking at the source now, I'm not uncomfortable definitively citing Hitchman without attribution now. He gives separate etymologies for Lake Sammamish (and the Sammamish themselves) and the Lushootseed name for the Sammamish River, but these are "samma" (blue heron) + "mish" (river) for the lake/people, and "Sts-ap" ('crooked') for the river. I uh, rly doubt this, because the Lushootseed dictionary says the people are the sc̓ababš, derived from "sc̓ap" ('crooked', the Lushootseed name for a river bend) and "abš" (a suffix meaning 'people', seen in Duwamish/dxʷdəwʔabš). So I'm unsure what to say here, lacking a source which clearly gives the etymology of the river without needing OR.-G @Generalissima: oops, I replied *below* this table with comments about the native name. Could you take a look at that response and let me know what you think? (see my other comment below this table, made in this edit: Special:Diff/1358109228) I really appreciate you digging into this info & assessing the Hitchman source so closely. I don't necessarily have definitive info about the name myself, aside from what I shared in my other comment. So I won't push on this point any further, unless you want to go with the info cited by Sound Transit instead. Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 16:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources are organized well and follow the style guide. Previously I asked about adding chapters to the Tetra Tech references (because they each have their own page), but in retrospect I think that's more of a preference and not related to this criteria.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	From revision Special:Diff/1357713208:  Done — 1c, 1g, 7, 11b, 24b, 27, 37h Question: For [3-b]: Article says "All of the river's present course in what is now Marymoor Park was likely an extension of Lake Sammamish prior to the opening of the ship canal" but I'm not getting this on page 37 (or the map on page 45?) -- am I missing something? Y Historically, this entire reach was likely part of Lake Sammamish prior to construction of the locks. -G Question: Could you provide a quote to support citation [35]? (citation removed) Additional spot-checks (from revision Special:Diff/1359599277):  Done - 30c, 31, 35b (mentions small-scale farming), 35c, 39b, 39c
	2c. it contains no original research.	Looks good, no original research
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	CopyVio tool only matches one quote, which is nothing of concern. But, admittedly: not many sources are scanned by the tool. In my source spot-check, I did not see any plagiarism or copyright concerns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Question: I think you should expand coverage to include: wildlife (river otters, beavers, herons, and Canada geese)  Done Sammamish River Trail  Done present-day farming (In retrospect, the article already mentions the agricultural protection area in the 80s. Not sure what else should be said here, so striking this point) In the section on Human History: Can the 2 opening paragraphs be included in their own subheading? "Early history" or something like that? Can you clarify if "human modification" specifically means colonial-era modification? The second paragraph that begins by talking about the Marymoor Archeological site is too indirect for an introduction to the original native people who lived around the river. I recommend rewriting this paragraph to start with those people and then end with the archeological site, if that makes sense. I also think that this paragraph should be first in the section. Let me know if you have any thoughts/questions about this. I don't think so; we don't know if the inhabitants of Marymoor site are related to the modern Sammamish, and moving out of chronological order would imply the archaeological site (from millennia ago) is chronologically after Sammamish presence (which we have no way to attest one way or another) -G @Generalissima: Fair point. All I know is that some have said the site may be linked to modern Muckleshoot and Snoqualmie tribes, based on tools that have been unearthed & also how the researchers were (and still are?) working with those tribes (Seattle Times, 2015 ; Redmond Reporter 2015 ). I don't have any better sources about it though. - Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 16:26, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes, written in summary style & stays on topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes, neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit war
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Done Images look good: Infobox image CC BY-SA 4.0 File:Sammamish_River.jpg CC BY 4.0 Downstream image CC BY 4.0 Otter CC BY 2.0 May Blossom steamer Public Domain (> 100 years old in the US) Bike trail under I405 CC BY 2.0 Parking lot seen from river CC BY 2.0
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes, relevant media
	7. Overall assessment.	Well-written article with broad and neutral coverage of the topic. Source spot-checks are good, images are good.

Close

Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 00:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I just saw your edit removing the Lushootseed name for the river (from the Hitchman book). This is far outside of my knowledge of the area/history, but I just wanted to note that apparently Sound Transit (in a memo about history of the area) used Puget Sound Geography: Original Manuscript from T. T. Waterman from Lushootseed press (see page 110 in PDF for bibliography) to find the native name ("sc̓əp") and translation ("deep water hole"), which is different than what Hitchman said. Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 16:43, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Chilicave What do you think of my feedback above, specifically for criteria 3a and adding info about wildlife and the Sammamish River Trail (a major recreational feature of the river)? Personally I'm ready to accept this article for GA status once those two details are added in & also a quote is provided for the one remaining source spot-check listed above. Do you agree? Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 04:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Chao Garden

apologies, not ignoring you. Give me a few hours to reply properly. Chilicave (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Chao Garden, I agree with your feedback on 3a. Regarding wildlife, a brief list of the most prominent animals associated with the river should be mentioned. Regarding the Sammamish River Trail– since it's a major recreational feature beside the trail, a brief mention of it would be great if reliable sources are available. Also, asking for a quote to verify citation 35 is perfectly reasonable since it's not readily accessible. Overall, your GAN review is good! Chilicave (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Generalissima:, just checking you've had a chance to see my updates above. I'm ready to pass this GA, but I have three outstanding pieces of feedback:

• add wildlife (otters, beavers, herons, etc)
• add Sammamish River Trial (major recreation feature)
• provide a quote to help me verify citation #35

Also, I understand your hesitancy with the (possibly wrong) native name you saw in the Hitchman source. I posted an alternative source (memo from Sound Transit, which references a more comprehensive book about Lushootseed language), by the way, if you want to take a look. Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 08:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Generalissima: friendly ping, just checking in. How goes it? Any concerns about the feedback above? — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 17:05, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@Chao Garden: My aspologies, just got back to this now. Added info about wildlife, the trail, and removed the errant cite 35; that is just supposed to be to Ruby et al 2010. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 04:37, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Generalissima: no worries at all. Thank you for making those additions, they look great! One more question I had for you: I was doing another quick random spot-check & had some difficulty verifying the info from this citation: 35c — Maybe the page is wrong? Also, I removed the Hitchman source from the bibliography because it isn't being used anymore. — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 09:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Chao Garden Huh? That checks out on Kerwin 2001 pages 391 to 392 (though I realize the year on the Ballard Locks off; sources disagree on that but I think 1916 is more generally accepted.)

The river corridor was heavily logged from the 1870s through the early twentieth century, by which time it had been essentially cleared of its old growth forest. Small-scale farming was attempted in the floodplain, but farming became feasible on a much larger scale after the opening of the Chittenden Locks in 1916, which lowered Lake Washington about nine feet, effectively draining most of the sloughs and wetland habitats of much of the corridor, especially in the lower reach (Stickney, 1977; Martz, et al, 1999). Lake Sammamish was lowered by this action as well, which increased the elevation difference between the lakes to approximately twelve feet, strengthening the river current somewhat Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 09:24, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I do see that quote. I was specifically trying to find the 12 feet (3.7m) measurement for the elevation. Am I missing it? — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 09:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Generalissima I'm sorry, I totally missed this line on page 392: "Lake Sammamish was lowered by this action as well, which increased the elevation difference between the lakes to approximately twelve feet, strengthening the river current somewhat." So, everything is in order! @Chilicave, are you all right with me promoting this GA? — Chao Garden 🌱 ~ say hello 09:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@Chao Garden, go for it:) Chilicave (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)