Talk:Restoration of the Everglades/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Restoration of the Everglades/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am reviewing this page and will post detailed comments shortly. I am also fixing typos and minor copyedits. Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, here we go. Because of the article’s length I am commenting in stages. This first bite takes us to the end of "Everglades Forever"

First impression: I am very impressed by the amount of detailed information that as been gathered for this article. Because of its somewhat technical nature, great care needs to be taken with organization and presentation, and with explanation and linking of unfamiliar terms. There are some problems with fluency, and I have made several suggestions as to how some awkwardnesses might be overcome. It is possible that some of my points will have been raised and dealt with at the concurrent peer review.


 * Lead
 * I am a little perplexed by the opening sentence. A "culmination" is a finishing point, the final result of a process. The process itself cannot be a culmination. Thus your start: "The restoration of the Everglades is the culmination…" seems wrong to me. The fully restored Everglades will be a culmination, but your article is about the process. I am also edgy about the lower case "restoration" in the first line – I don’t know why, but it niggles.
 * At over 500 words, I think the lead is too long and over-detailed. It also has a tone, particularly at the start, which is more redolent of a conservation pamphlet than an encyclopaedia article - not quite POV, but not quite neutral either. It’s not a major problem, but it needs watching.
 * Is it necessary to specify “human” history in this context?
 * This sentence needs reworking: "Before the canal was completed in 1971 conservation and sporting groups were demanding its restoration". You need to specify "it", otherwise the sentence is misleading.
 * "It became the first C&SF project to be removed…" "It" has changed from the previous sentence: and is "removed" the right word?
 * "backfilled" needs explaining
 * "wetland" could be usefully linked at first mention
 * This sentence needs some work: "Though costly and lengthy court battles were waged between various government entities to determine who was responsible for monitoring and enforcing water quality standards, Governor Lawton Chiles proposed a bill that determined which agencies would have that responsibility, and set deadlines for pollutant levels to decrease in water." The “though” at the beginning reads oddly; and was it the governor, or the bill, that set the deadlines?
 * In the final para, shouldn’t "act" be capitalized?
 * Reading the first sentence of the last para, I wonder in what respect the Act was "successful", given the reported negative consequences for South Florida. And again, in the following sentence: "…if nothing was done…" The supposedly successful Act was presumably an example of doing something?
 * Another sentence needing attention: "In 1999 the result of an eight-year study was submitted to US Congress that evaluated water control systems in Southern Florida warning that if no action was taken the region would rapidly deteriorate". Suggest "..results…..were submitted". Also, as written is sounds as though Congress evaluates the water control systems of Southern Florida – I’d be surprised if that were true.


 * Background
 * "tourism and development of the state" combines a specific with a generality – tourism is part of development
 * Similar point: "arrival of railway lines" and "political motivations" are an odd combination together
 * Shouldn’t Governor Broward’s attempt at canal construction (over a 14-yr period) be pluralized? (attempts)
 * "Floods from tropical storms again in 1947…" is awkward wording
 * The general historical comment in the last sentence of second para looks misplaced, would be better elsewhere.
 * "The remaining 25% of the Everglades" – the sums don’t add up. 37% + 27% + 25%
 * The map is useful, but not at present closely related to the descriptions in the text.


 * Project Everglades
 * Land Conservation Act needs explaining
 * "Florida began establishing environmentally unique and irreplaceable lands” In this context, what is "Florida"? Was it, or they, establishing or restoring?
 * You should say who these voters were, and how they registered their approval
 * This sentence is convoluted, and its beginning is a repetition from the previous sentence. "UNESCO listed the park as a World Heritage Site because it is an outstanding example of a major stage of evolutionary history of the earth, biological evolution where the temperate climate of North American meets the tropical climate of the Caribbean, and a natural habitat that supports rare and endangered species" Some rephrasing necessary
 * The map illustrates changes between 1900 and 1972, which is not the period covered in this section. It’s also quite hard to interpret.


 * Kissimmee River
 * Suggest rephrase of first sentence to: "In the 1960s the C&SF came under increased scrutiny from…"
 * I had to consult the dictionary to find that "ha" was the abbreviation for hectare. You give acres as your principal area measurement – for whose benefit is the conversion?
 * Another problematic sentence: "Even before the canal was finished conservation, naturalist and sports fishing and hunting groups…" The problem is that "groups" is too far removed from some of its qualifiers in the sentence. I suggest something like: "…conservation and naturalist groups, also sports fishing and hunting organisations,…"
 * "Marshall was as successful in portraying…" The "as" suggests a comparison is coming, but it never does.
 * "…instead of only conservation organizations" reads poorly. Suggest: "rather than being the preserve of conservation organizations" or words to that effect.
 * You choose an odd time to drop in Mrs Douglas’s age. Is it relevant here? If it’s at all relevant, perhaps it should have been given at her first mention.
 * I know it’s in a quote, but I’m a bit puzzled by "when we do the restoration of the Everglades". Isn’t that what they were doing?


 * Water quality
 * The medical information (beginning When mercury is ingested…) really needs some specific citations, even if they are to the same basic source’
 * Link raccoons. I’m sorry, but we ignorant Brits don’t know what they are – big, small, tame, fierce, etc. We only know they used to make coats out of them.


 * Everglades Forever Act
 * Suggest "a period of 12 years" is better than "total" since we are talking about a passage of time rather than a sum of components
 * This whole sentence needs some reorganization: "Critics of the bill argued the deadline for meeting the standards was unnecessarily delayed until 2006, a total of 12 years, to enforce better water quality".  Suggest: "…meeting better water quality standards was delayed until 2006, a period of 12 years". (or perhaps end the sentence at 2006?)

Comments on remaining sections will follow. Here, indeed, is more


 * Widlife concerns
 * Links suggested for each of the following: wilderness, estuarine, panther, cougar
 * "allowing many species survival" reads better as "enabling many species to survive"
 * "their roles (plural) during drought". Only one role has been demonstrated
 * "they remain endangered from their first designation in 1975". Does this mean: "they have been designated as endangered since 1975"?
 * The sentence: "Collisions with vehicles also are a leading cause of death" repeats information established earlier in the paragraph ("After vehicle collision,…")
 * Personally I have problems with the choice of the verb "crowded" to describe the squeezing-out of panthers from SW Florida, but its probably a BritEng thing. Later in the sentence, though, I would suggest that Fort Myers began to "expand", rather than to grow, into the western Everglades
 * I thought "per cent" was two words. Perhaps not in AmE
 * Final para begins: "Perhaps the most dramatic loss of any group of animals…" This seems possibly to contradict the previous para in which Florida panthers were stated as the most endangered species.


 * Invasive species
 * Opening: should specify the sharp rise as in "human" population
 * "Many animals have been released as pets". I assume this to mean "any pet animals have been released"
 * For clarification, say “Of imported plant species…"
 * Hurricane Andrew should be linked at first mention
 * A further slight rewording: "many of them as released exotic pets"
 * "Virtually all lizards….are introduced" means, presumably, "have been introduced from outside"
 * Last sentence of section is two unrelated clauses linked by "and"


 * Homestead AFB
 * Can you "revitalize" lost money? Recover, or recoup, perhaps?
 * The sentence which begins "Reminiscent of the 1969 plan…" isn’t quite right. I think it means "As with the 1969 plan……a cursory environmental study was carried out. This was deemed insufficient…" etc. I’m not insisting you change if you don’t think my version an improvement.
 * Chronology requires: "Groups had previously been alarmed by a 1990 design…"

I'm forgetting to sign these comments. Remaining sections soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Last 3 sections


 * Sustainable South Florida
 * "advances with the decreases" is a clumsy-sounding phrase. I think the opening of the section would be better reading "Despite the successes of the Everglades Forever Act, and the decreases in mercury levels,…"
 * "Urban areas were living beyond their physical means". Surely, it is urban populations, rather than areas, that do this. And wouldn’t it be better to specify that they were "consuming increasingly unsustainable levels of natural resources"?
 * "…mainly roads and handling traffic congestion for half the amount of vehicles would cost $26.3 billion". Why not give the figure for the full amount of anticipated vehicles?
 * Final para: It seems to me that it was a political battleground that became briefly a bipartisan cause but has recently become a battleground again. If this is so, perhaps this para should reflect this.


 * Central and S Florida Project Restudy
 * First line: Is this the Water Resources Development Act?
 * Does "improve water deliveries" refer to quality, quantity or both? Should be made clear.
 * What is sheetflow?
 * Link aquifer


 * Implementation
 * Fifty-five better in figures
 * "Regardless" is not the right word for the start of para 2. Though over-used, "despite" is still better in this context.
 * Second sentence para 2: Suggest "Political maneuvering continues to impeded CERP; sugar lobbyists…."etc
 * What does the final phrase mean: "…of which Everglades restoration was considered to be eliminated"? I can’t work it out.

This was a good learning experience for me - something I knew nothing about, now I know something. Although my review list looks long, you will see that most are pretty trivial points - rewordings, clarifications, request for links etc. I see no major impediments to promotion, but I'll look at it again after your responses to these. Good wishes Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm shipping you an extra raccoon I had laying around the house. Use gloves.


 * Otherwise, thank you for the review. I changed most everything mentioned. The bolded titled of CERP projects are verbatim from the summary, though their explanations are paraphrased. When you asked for "improve water deliveries" to be explained, the summary does not go into more detail than what is presented, but both quantity- because water is flushed into the Caloosahatchee River very quickly, and timing-because water inundates places in the dry season that should remain dry, are to be a focus. Fifty-five is at the beginning of a sentence. Should I rewrite the sentence so it can read as 55?


 * I very much appreciate your comments and review. --Moni3 (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Reading through the changes I made, I did not address one of your points: Florida panthers are the most critically endangered since less than 100 live in the wild. However, in loss of numbers, wading birds qualify as the most affected. They number in the hundreds of thousands, but far less than the millions in the late 19th century. If that delineation is unclear, I can try to fix that. --Moni3 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think on my later reading I picked up this point, and I wasn't going to pursue it further. And Fifty-five is fine, too. You have dealt with almost all my other points, the only outstanding ones being:-


 * The lower case r in the top line still bugs me!
 * In the lead, you've changed "removed" to "restored", but it still doesn't feel right. On reflection, I think the word needed is that good old Wikipedia favourite "reverted". Do you agree?
 * Still no explanation of the term "backfilled". Sorry, but I (and millions like me) don't know the word - can you help?
 * I asked, out of curiosity really, why you felt it necessary to put in hectare conversions. I can only assume that they're a big thing in USA?
 * As I said before, the impression I get from reading your article is that the bipartisanship of the late 1990s may not be holding now, in 2008. If this is so I think it worth saying.
 * Very last phrase: "to be eliminated" or "likely to be eliminated"?

Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right. Sorry. I don't know about the lower case r. For it to be upper case, it would have to refer to a proper noun, like Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. But CERP has its own article, and this one covers more than that. I think it needs to stay lower case.
 * Ruhrfisch suggested acre be converted to hectare. I thought acres were acres in standard and metrics. I'll change them.
 * The bipartisanship of the 90s existed for a fleeting moment in time for the purpose of election year spin. I can't really put that in the article unless it's cited.
 * The last phrase says that the programs are considered to be eliminated. Is that not similar enough to your intention?
 * Let me know. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll say no more on the lower case r. On hectares, as I recall from school, a hectare is 10,000 square metres, about 2.5 acres. My only point was whether a conversion was necessary - if Ruhrfisch thinks so, fine. On bipartisanship, I'm sure you could say: "Restoration of the Evergalades, however, briefly became a bipartisan issue..." - which seems to meet the facts.
 * If the last phrase means that the programs are considered eliminated, i.e. no more state funding, isn't that rather a major issue to be tagged on to the end - perhaps I'm misreading? I've decided that backfilling is probably what we Brits would call "filling in". I'll await your final comments on the above and then get on with the promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I added "briefly" to the bipartisan cooperation. I've read the last sentence several times, and maybe this is a Brit-Am English difference. The cuts have not been made yet, but they are "on the table" as one of the main projects to be cut. Do I need to make that clearer? --Moni3 (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be a language thing here. Would this serve both language styles: "Everglades restoration was under consideration as one of the main state-funded projects to be cut." That removes all ambiguity for me, but the final decision is yours. Brianboulton (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed the last sentence. Thanks for the time you put into reviewing the article. I know it's long and involved. I appreciate your efforts. --Moni3 (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)