Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aliso Creek (Orange County)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:44, 23 February 2010 [1].

Aliso Creek (Orange County)[edit]

Nominator(s): Shannontalk contribs 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Aliso Creek rises in the looming shadow of the highest mountain in Orange County, and converges with the sea at the mouth of a dazzling precipitous gorge on the border of one of the maniacal region's most beautiful cities. But in between, it merely exists as the convenient garbage chute of seven monstrous, lucrative, separable-only-by-name congregations of suburban sprawl that don't give a thought. This is the second time I'm putting Aliso Creek up at a shot at FAC and I'm sure all of the problems mentioned in the previous one have been addressed. All of the potentially unreliable sources have been taken care of and all the dead URL's and dablinks have been fixed. The context covers just about everything that can be proved about the little stream. I feel that it fully meets the criteria and has been improved dramatically since it was passed as a good article. Shannontalk contribs 01:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm confused about how you've cited the sources. You have inline citations listed under References, which is fine, but then under Works cited only two citations. I see some of the inline citations list the full citation, and others don't. I thought perhaps you were distinguishing between books, articles, and websites, but I see a book listed as an inline citation (with a full citation), but then not mentioned in Works cited, so I can't work out what your system is. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the book citation to the References section. Shannontalk contribs 22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (This is independent of SV's concern listed above, which would need to be dealt with.) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comments' - I'd suggest renaming the "References" as "Footnotes", and "Works cited" as "References". Also, consider differentiating the templates with a {{citeweb}} for non-news sources; and a {{citenews}} for the news sources such as the LA Times and the OC Register. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Shannontalk contribs 22:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I filled in what I could, but I don't know how to do alt text for maps, nor what the "road-sign template" is. Shannontalk contribs 22:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance on alt text for maps; there's a worked-out example in Template talk:Geobox/River. An example road-sign template usage is "{{jct|state=CA|CA|1|road|[[Pacific Coast Highway (California)|Pacific Coast Highway]] (1926)}}", which generates " SR 1 / Pacific Coast Highway (1926)"; please see {{jct}} for documentation. Eubulides (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added alt text for maps, and finished the road-sign alts as well. Shannontalk contribs 16:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, almost done, but one image is still missing alt text. Please add a |map1_alt= parameter. The example at the bottom of WP:ALT#Maps suggests how to word alt text for locator maps like that one. Eubulides (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Shannontalk contribs 02:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, looks good. Eubulides (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have just done some work on your first paragraph. All the right info seemed to be there, but badly ordered. Can I suggest you check other paragraphs and put linked ideas together so that the info flows logically. Amandajm (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm enjoying this article. The SoCal creeks are fascinating: particularly for those who don't realize a single rainstorm will turn a seemingly dry creek into a raging river! Anyway, a few problem sentences:

  • "The Wisconsinian era was responsible for chaping the watershed to its present-day form, with its deep side canyons and broad alluvial valleys." Shaping? Also, set the "Wisconsinian era" in time for those of us who don't know when it occurred.
Hehe, "chaping". Also added the rough time frames for the Ice Age and the Wisconsinian. (Not sure how the Wisconsinian got its name.) Shannontalk contribs 05:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It prevails in urban runoff because this source of runoff is created by tap water, whether used for irrigation, car washing, or other daily activities, flowing untreated down storm drains." Needs a rewrite (something like this): The sources for chlorine pollution in urban runoff include tap water, irrigation, car washes, and the chlorinated water flows untreated into storm drains.
Fixed, with a few tweaks
  • The map of the area is nice but teeny: try giving it a boost to 300 px.
Done. Shannontalk contribs 05:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get back as I make my way through the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is "conquistador" the correct term to use? That term refers to early explorers, rather than the missionary period that began in the 18th century, I think. My understanding is that the main California missions were established in the 18th century, and in some areas the Spaniards also sent soldiers, such as in Santa Barbara, but that was past the era of exploration.
yup, conquistador was actually for Spanish explorers to Mexico and South America. Fixed, Shannontalk contribs 04:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The conquistadors explored the Americas in the 16th century; yet in the article's "History" section it mentions the conquistadors came to the area in the 1770s. I believe by the 18th century the Spaniards in California were no longer referred to as conquistadors. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant to boost the map in the "Geology" section. In fact all the images could do with a boost. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Increased geology map, but most images have to be thumbed per MOS, I think. Shannontalk contribs 04:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure the thumb size can go as high as 300 px. Will check on that after work. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This defines current default as 180px, soon to change to 220 px, and acceptable to 300 px, just so you know you have a bit of room to work with! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I note that the redirect links to the tributaries are in the geobox and can't be removed, but fixed everything else. Shannontalk contribs 06:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Needs some rewording in the "History" section:
  • "It is widely held that in Native American times," needs tweaking
Changed to "It is believed in..." Shannontalk contribs 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The creek's use as a tribal boundary is, however, disputed." try not to split the verb with "however"
Put "however" in front, fixed. Shannontalk contribs 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As other southern California tribal boundaries have suggested, " a little awkward - they don't literally suggest
Changed word. Shannontalk contribs 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kroeber (1907) was the first to support this theory, and many other archaeologists have supported this as well." repetitive use of "this"
Fixed. Shannontalk contribs 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around the 1770s, Spanish conquistadors came upon Southern California and took over both of these Native American groups." needs rewording
Fixed. Shannontalk contribs 02:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, a really nice article. I've enjoyed reading it! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth. This article is in much better shape than the last time I reviewed it here during its first FAC. The prose is clear and flowing and is now largely free of small errors. The article certainly seems comprehensive, and I find it very interesting. For the record, I should add that I peer-reviewed the article in October 2009 and that, like the nominator, I'm a member of WikiProjectRivers.

  • Big problem: I'm leaning toward support but I don't think the fish story in the "Wildlife" section can be defended as RS. What makes the source of this story reliable? In the "Historic" subsection, the quote that troubles me begins with "a long-time resident of southern California and angler". The quote comes from a source (CEMAR) that attributes it to a single person, Frank Selby, who made the claim in a letter to CEMAR. Frank Selby is not a reliable source and he is reporting hearsay, literally a fish story told to him by an unnamed other fisherman. His claim is so much at odds (big steelhead in the creek through 1967) with what the National Marine Fisheries says that I don't think including Selby's claim in this article can be justified. Unless you can find at least one RS to support Selby's claim or something like it, I think it must go.
Much better. Three of the four new citations you've added make the claim much stronger. The fourth new one, citation 51, seems unrelated to the fish claim, and I think you could just remove it. I'd also suggest shortening the caption to say, "Steelhead trout have been said to exist in Aliso Creek" since the Marine Fisheries has found no evidence of steelhead in recorded history but the locals say they saw or caught them as recently as the 1970s. I'm striking this one, and I'll just trust you to do the tweaks if you agree with my reasoning. Finetooth (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another big problem: I don't think the licensing of File:Southern California Indian Linguistic Groups.png is sufficient. Since the author, Mdhennessey, has apparently left Wikipedia, we can't ask him or her what the sources are. It's not reassuring to see a lot of "unfree" and "copyright" warnings at User talk:Mdhennessey .The problem is that "Image prepared by me utilizing a PD (public domain) image as a basis" does not specify what PD image and from whence it came. How do we know that the base map is PD? And what is the source for the linguistic boundaries? They are not common knowledge. The map might be under copyright, and/or it might be wrong. How can we tell without any sources?
I removed the image. I'll try to find a replacement, maybe not a map, but something else. Shannontalk contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Working on adding references. Shannontalk contribs 22:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Course section, a sentence begins, "Passing south of several residential areas on the north, El Toro Road... ". Does this mean that the Road passes south of the residential areas? If so, this is confusing because the rest of the section is presented (properly) from the point of view of the river, as though we were floating down it and looking at things left and right.
Fixed, put the name of the creek before El Toro Road.
  • In the "Tidal lagoon" section, the conversion, "about 0.2 miles (0.32 km) long" should be rounded to 0.3 km. Ditto for "3-to-5-foot (0.91 to 1.5 m)-deep lake" shortly thereafter. Better would be 0.9 m.
Fixed. Shannontalk contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add (MYA) in parentheses after the first mention of "million years after" in the first sentence of the "Geology" section so that the later use of MYA needs no explanation.
Fixed. Shannontalk contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe east–west takes an en dash rather than a hyphen. I see a couple of these in the "Geography" section.
Fixed. Shannontalk contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which lies to the north of Aliso Canyon—the water gap that Aliso Creek passes through the San Joaquin Hills" - "... gap that Aliso Creek passes through in the hills"? And maybe just "hills" to avoid repetition.
Changed to "the water gap in the San Joaquin Hills through which Aliso Creek passes". Shannontalk contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd use "Since the 1960s" rather than "Today" for the head.
Fixed. Shannontalk contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Cities and protected areas timeline", should the sentence that starts, "By the 20th century, more than 70 percent... " actually say "By the end of the 20th century... "?
Fixed.Shannontalk contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Crossings", what is the purpose of a red link to an image?
Whoops, that was the highway sign template. Got it corrected. Shannontalk contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you add the place of publication to the books in the "Reference" section?
Couldn't find place of publication?! Shannontalk contribs 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can usually find the missing data via WorldCat. I tried this for the first book in the list and found two editions. The 2001 edition, the one you cite, gives Clovis, Calif.: Word Dancer Press for the publisher info. Here is a link to the specific WorldCat page. For the second book, by Gudde, World Cat here lists several editions of which the 2004 edition is the fourth, published in Berkeley and London. I'd revise part of your entry to say, California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names (4th edition). Berkeley, Calif., and London: University of California Press". I'll leave the third book and any changes to the article itself to you. Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing you struggle a bit with the first one, I went ahead today and did all three. Please adjust if you don't agree with my alterations. I had two more thoughts as I looked at the page again. You might want to move the watershed map down a bit or to the right to get it away from the timeline subhead. You should probably delete the source and mouth coordinates from External links since the geobox already lists them. I leave these small matters as well as the fish caption in your hands, and I am changing my "Comments" to "Support" above. Finetooth (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this a while ago and commented on the previous FAC. It is looking much better, and I am close to supporting, but had some suggestions for polishing the language first. I am also a member of WikiProject Rivers (and made the California locator map used in the Geobox).

  • Would The Native American name of Aliso Creek has almost for certain been lost. read better as "...has almost certainly been lost."?
  • I think this could be tightened a bit The time of origin of the current name of Aliso Creek is not known, but it is certain that the name was given by Spanish conquistadors sometime between the 1750s and the 1800s.[4][8]
  • I know the source elevation is listed in the Geobox, but could it be added to the beginning of the Course section too? I think doing so would also help clarify Loma Ridge rises about 1,500 feet (460 m) above the creek's headwaters.[2] (assume Loma Ridge is thus about 1500 + 2300 = 3800 feet tall).
  • I think between needs to have two or more things, so For much of its course, the creek is channelized and confined between urban development[s]; ... or perhaps For much of its course, the creek is channelized and confined by urban development; ...
  • This is awkward - I think part of the problems is the "south of"... "to the north" reference. Passing south of several residential areas on the foothills to the north, Aliso Creek and El Toro Road run parallel for much of the creek's length north of Interstate 5. perhapos something like Aliso Creek and El Toro Road run parallel for much of the creek's length north of Interstate 5, and pass south of several residential areas on nearby foothills. would be clearer?
    • The tweak is better, but I still have trouble with the Passing south of several residential areas on the foothills to the north, ... phrase. If a passes south of B, isn't it redundant to then say B is north of A?
  • The word subdivision is only used once in the article, so how can it be "another subdivision"? At this confluence, the creek turns more to the south, then crosses under El Toro Road and bisects another subdivision.
  • Three sentences in a row in the second paragraph of Course start with "It" - could "the creek" be used once here?
  • Could it just be "also crosses on an earthfill" here instead of After receiving the fork, Aliso Creek passes into three massive culverts that cross under Pacific Park Drive, which crosses also on an earthfill.
  • Awkward - could this be split? Here, it receives from the left its largest tributary, Sulphur Creek, which is about 4.5 miles (7.2 km) long and drains a fair portion of northern Laguna Niguel, 7 miles (11 km) from the mouth. could this be something like Its largest tributary, Sulphur Creek, enters here from the left, 7 miles (11 km) from the mouth. Sulphur Creek is about 4.5 miles (7.2 km) long and drains a fair portion of northern Laguna Niguel.
  • "at" instead of "of" here? ... until one of two factors causes it to breach: either waves of [at] high tide wash away the top of the sandbar, or...
  • I think this would be smoother than the current version Because of the raised flow of the creek and the construction of a parking lot in Aliso Canyon, [since the 1960s] the lagoon since the 1960s has never been able to fill to its much larger, historic extent without breaching.
  • I think either the "also" or "another" could be removed here There was also another gauge—now out of service—at the Jeronimo Road crossing just downstream of El Toro. (if "another" is removed, it needs to be preplaced with "a")
  • I think this would be clearer in chronological order Prior to 1960 and after 1931, the average peak flow was 511 cubic feet per second ... so change it to After 1931 and prior to 1960, the average peak flow was 511 cubic feet per second ...
  • Also awkward After 1960 and before 1980 (not including 1961 when there was no data recorded)—when the gauge ceased operation—the average peak flow was 1,178 cubic feet per second (33.4 m3/s), nearly twice the average before 1960.[18] Could this instead be something like After 1960 and before 1980, the average peak flow was 1,178 cubic feet per second (33.4 m3/s), nearly twice the average before 1960. (No data was recorded in 1961 and the gauge ceased operation in 1980.)[18] or even start it Between 1960 and 1980, the average peak flow...
    • I like your tweaks, but was OK with keeping the no data for 1961 nad 1980 end of operation (your call).

OK, I am stopping here for now - more comments tomorrow. Looking good, these are mostly nitpicks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Geology section - the second paragraph ends with The Wisconsinian era was responsible for shaping the watershed to its present-day form, with its deep side canyons and broad alluvial valleys.[5] which seems to be about the most recent glaciation. The next paragraph is all about this ice age and the Wisconsinian glaciation, so I think the sentence quoted here should be combined with the third paragraph of Geology (not just moved, as it repeats some stuff that could be pruned back).
    • If you think this is an important transition, then keep it, but to me it still seems a bit repetitive here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not understand this sentence (I think there is an error here): It is estimated that at that time Aliso Creek was a 16-mile (26 km) waterway with a drainage area of 140 square miles (360 km2). The creek is currently 19 miles (31 km) long, so shouldn't it have been longer still (not 3 miles shorter) when the sea level was much lower?
  • [1]

More soon, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comments; (quite a lot of tweaks!) and just of note, the Geology section is older than most of the rest of the article, and I had started a rewrite a while back, but never finished it. Shannontalk contribs 01:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will try and finish my comments very soon, this looks quite good and I am very close to supporting. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On to the Watershed section, starting with Geography first, where there is a major problem with the number of cities on the creek.

  • I have a problem with this sentence (left over partially from the last FAC): There are eight major cities in the watershed, which are, from mouth to source, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, Foothill Ranch, and Portola Hills (considered a part of Mission Viejo).[26] The first problem is that both Foothill Ranch and Portola Hills are former Census-designated places (and are not now and never were cities) which both legally became part of the city of Lake Forest in 2000. I also note that the map at the end of the article, File:Alisocreek orange map.png does not show either of these former CDPs, and also shows the creek passing through city of Laguna Woods, which is not listed at all in this sentence. I would make the sentence something like ''There are seven cities in the watershed, which are, from mouth to source, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Woods, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, and Mission Viejo; the former Census-designated places Foothill Ranch and Portola Hills mear the source were incorporated into Lake Forest in 2000.[26] The mention of eight cities in the lead also needs to be changed to seven cities. I am not sure what makes a "major" city - in 2000 Laguna Woods had about 16,500 people, more than either CDP and roughly the same as both CDPs combined.
    • I also think it could be something like Nine communities were established in the creek's watershed as it was developed in the last half of the 20th century. By YEAR seven of them had become cities (from mouth to source, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Woods, Laguna Hills, Lake Forest, and Mission Viejo) and the last two, Foothill Ranch and Portola Hills, were incorporated into the city of Mission Viejo in 2000.
      • This is still a problem. It now reads There are eight major communities in the watershed, which are, from mouth to source, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Mission Viejo, and Portola Hills (considered a part of Mission Viejo). Seven of these are incorporated cities.[26] For unknown reasons, Foothill Ranch has been dropped, although it was a CDP (like Portola Hills) and had 10,899 people in 2000 (compared to Portola Hills 6,391 people). If the article includes Portola Hills, it has to also include Foothill Ranch. The other problem is that legally Foothill Ranch and Portola Hills are now part of Lake Forest (which incorporated them in 2000), but the article says Portola Hills is part of Mission Viejo - which I do not understand and the source does not support. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bacterial pollution section seems to have some needless repetition. I love the cesspool stew quote, but don't think the phrase needs to be in the article twice (I would keep the longer quote with the phrase and drop and even "a cesspool stew"). We are also told three times that the bacterial levels at the beach exceed the legal limits (2nd, 3rd, and 5th paragraphs), which seems a bit much
  • In the Recreation section I think the "Fishing:" and "Trails:" at the start of two paragraphs could be removed.

OK, I have read all the rest of the article closely and made a few copyedits. Nothing else major remains to be fixed (beyond what ihave already listed above). Once thse issues have been addressed, I plan to support. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was BOLD and fixed the only remaining objection I had on the number of cities / communities in the watershed, then switched to support. While I would like to see a few more tweaks, they are not enough to prevent me from supporting this. Nice job, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support: If you can add in what the actual source of the river is, and do something about It is said that Aliso Creek is one of the "most publicized" , It is known that Aliso Creek's polluted water, It has been speculated that many of the trees, passive statements gaahh! Why does the pollution discussion, as a result of urbanization, occur before the discussion about urbanization? The writing is quite good, however, and moves along, easy to read. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking back so Sandy can take some action: I see that headwaters are mentioned, but is this a lake or pond, glacier, or is this a stream that forms when it rains? Can that be made explicit? Otherwise, if Shannon's preference it to keep the pollution information before the urbanization discussion, I suppose that is her prerogative, but I suggest giving that some thought. The passive statements have been fixed. --Moni3 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, in the Course section? I’ll make sure that info is there. (I wouldn’t expect Southern California to have any glaciers though. :)
  • Support, with comments. Particularly scrutinizing the Geology section.
  • Most of Southern California, including all of Orange County, was periodically part of the Pacific Ocean, with the most recent epoch approximately 10 million years ago (MYA). - with the most recent epoch is weak, maybe a semicolon (; the most recent epoch...)
Fixed. Shannontalk contribs 06:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • About 1.22 million years ago, the San Joaquin Hills along the Orange County coast began their uplift along a blind thrust fault extending south from the Los Angeles Basin.[22] - any idea which fault?
I think it's just called the San Joaquin Hills blind thrust; it says so on that article too. Shannontalk contribs 06:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same phenomenon occurred to the north with Laguna Canyon, and to the south with San Juan Creek. - with --> at
Fixed. Shannontalk contribs 06:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uplift also changed the course of Aliso Creek's largest tributary, Sulphur Creek, to turn north to join Aliso Creek.[5] - Awkward. Maybe better as first half ... Sulphur Creek, causing the river to turn north to join Aliso Creek. If you dislike that, feel free to add your own.
  • The Wisconsinian era was responsible for shaping the watershed to its present-day form, with its deep side canyons and broad alluvial valleys.[5] - Here, with can work, though I think there's a better way to phrase this.
Fixed. Shannontalk contribs 06:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, great work! ceranthor 00:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Unclear sentence By then, the rivers and streams had diminished to their original volume.[23] I am not sure what the "original volume" refers to (since the previous paragraphs have described the past creek as both longer and shorter than it currently is). I am also not sure what volume is meant here - presumably the inclreased flow rates in It was this surge in volume that allowed Aliso Creek and other rivers to cut through the San Joaquin Hills.? Can this be made clearer please?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Aliso_Creek_(Orange_County)/archive2&oldid=1142499578"