User talk:Ericleb01/sandbox

Etymology of "Chocolate River." Is the name due to the building of the causeway?
This section says that the name "Chocolate River" came from the sedimentation that occurred after the building of the causeway. However, this is not really attested to in the links provided. Because of the sedimentation the river has been muddy from time immemorial. Hence, it is mentioned in Indian legends. See. Is there any direct evidence that the name, "Chocolate River" came after the building of the causeway?Michael Glass (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I had never thought of that. I had always thought that the name came after the causeway, but the sedimentation there was always bad, and – if you look back in the history before the first peer review was requested – I had read and included those legends in the article. But after re-reading the references I placed, I think that would be a valid theory. I'd have to re-write the lead to reflect this, though, and perhaps do a little bit of research to grab some sources for what I wish to say. Thanks for the notice. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  20:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If you could find direct evidence that the term Chocolate River came after the building of the causeway this would justify the statement. If no such direct evidence is available then the statement would have to be changed. Michael Glass (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Position of Memramcook
On checking the position of Memramcook I was concerned to find that it is not on the Petitcodiac at all but on the Memramcook River. Certainly the municipality boundary appears to follow the eastern shore of the Petitcodiac, but the township itself is on Memramcook River. See. Unless you have local knowledge that would contradict this, the text would have to be changed. Michael Glass (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to specify what needs to be changed, because the township and municipality isn't mentioned in the current version of the article. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  20:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now changed the text in the sandbox. Please check. Michael Glass (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Virtually untouched > relatively undisturbed
"Virtually untouched" strikes me as both exaggerated and unidiomatic. It also doesn't appear to be used by the sources. Therefore I changed it. If you're not happy, please revise it or change it back. Michael Glass (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving text to the main article
I have moved the etymology section to the main article and would like to move text from the geography section, too. Eric, If you have any comments or concerns, please let me know. Michael Glass (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate all of this help. I've added you as a co-nominator for the article nomination, if you don't mind. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  02:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'll handle the rest of the changes. I'm pretty content with the way this version looks. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  02:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks.Michael Glass (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Repositioning the mastodon
The section on wildlife may not be the best location for an animal that has been dead for 37,000 years. Perhaps Geology would be better. Michael Glass (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this represent the wildlife of 37,000 years ago? That was my original reasoning for it. Geology would be more fit for the actual composition and evolution of the ground around the river. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  03:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's good now
I think we should stop copy-editing altogether. You've corrected the most pertinent things, but now most of the changes are just simplifying the prose. Variety is needed in the prose for it to pass the "professional standard" criterion. Also, the changes always seem to have some sort of punctuation or spacing error / typo, which is something I just don't want to re-check and deal with after every change; especially not with the huge suggestions being thrown by reviewers at the FAC nomination already. It would just be best if we leave it at that, and if a reviewer raises some sort of issue, we'll fix it. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  03:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if there are any typos or, spacing or punctuation errors in the text. I took from the sandbox. As you had not noted any errors there I thought you accepted the text as is.


 * Here are a few problems I noted with the text that you restored to the article:


 * The description of the river begins with a measurement from mouth to source and then switches to a description from source to mouth. This is at best sloppy and could be quite confusing to the reader. Fixing it is not a matter of dumbing down the prose.
 * This isn't a big deal, as both locations are clearly marked as mouth and source, but I've fixed it anyway.
 * Describing the tributaries as coming from right to left depends on facing downstream; describing the direction that the tributary comes from is stable and more informative.
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to describe, but "right" and "left" tributaries are established terms to describe from which shore of the river the tributaries merge with.
 * The Petitcodiac River does not go straight through the township of that name, it meanders. The present wording is misleading.
 * Fixed. I guess it can be misleading.
 * River Glade is a community; the present text does not make this clear.
 * Again, not a pertinent aspect of the course description, as River Glade holds only a few hundred people, but reworded anyway.
 * The Memramcook River joins the Petitcodiac near the mouth. The present text does not make this clear.
 * "The Petitcodiac River is joined by the adjacent Memramcook River". It's pretty crystal clear.
 * Northeast Channel does not run north-south, as the present text would read. That is why "proceeds south" is wrong.
 * Changed to south-east.
 * Writing simply is an art; it's a mistake to regard simple prose as inferior to more complex writing. In fact the guides to good writing state the opposite, advising us, for instance, to prefer the active voice to the passive. Think of it this way: every unnecessary complication in the prose makes it less accessible to readers. Therefore every legitimate way to write clearly should be embraced.Michael Glass (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopaedia article, though, and not art. It serves to output pertinent information for scholars and people with a willingness to learn something. No Featured Article needs to be perfect, but must at least be high-grade. I don't think changing "right" to "east" will change that. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  18:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, your example of preferring right and left means that pertinent information is not described. Take the course of the river. The present text reads:
 * The Anagance River arises from its tributaries, Hayward Brook and Holmes Brook, and drains 81 km2 to the right of Petitcodiac River, while the North River drains 264 km2 to the left.

Meanwhile, the sandbox version reads:
 * The Anagance River arises from its tributaries, Hayward Brook and Holmes Brook, and drains 81 km2 from the south-west of Petitcodiac River, while the North River drains 264 km2 from the north.

With just a few more words the sandbox version gives a lot more information about the sources of the river. I am sure that scholars and people with a willingness to learn something would appreciate the extra information. Why not then put it in the text? Michael Glass (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

How simple changes can improve the article.
Eric, one of your complaints about my prose is that it dumbs down the prose. In fact, writing clearly and simply requires care, thought and attention to detail. Here is one example of how clear, simple prose can get across more information than other wording. At the moment, the section on the course of the river begins this way:


 * The river measures about 129 km (80 mi) from its source near Petitcodiac to its mouth at Shepody Bay;

The sandbox version now gives the location of Petitcodiac and Shepody Bay:


 * The Petitcodiac River measures about 129 km (80 mi) from Petitcodiac in western Westmorland County to Shepody Bay at the head of the Bay of Fundy.

This lets the reader know where the river is located. It also frees up a later clause. The next clauses read like this in the sandbox:


 * Its sources are the Anagance and North Rivers. The Anagance River arises from its tributaries, Hayward Brook and Holmes Brook, and drains 81 km2 (31 sq mi) from the south-west of Petitcodiac River, while the North River drains 264 km2 (102 sq mi) from the north. The Petitcodiac River begins at the confluence of these two rivers and meanders through Petitcodiac.

This is simple and direct prose. Note how two sentences describe the sources while the third sentence goes on to describe the beginning of the Petitcodiac River. Because a previous sentence has dealt with the location in Westmoreland County this information does not act as a distraction. Now look at the present version in the article:


 * the source is the confluence of the Anagance and North rivers in western Westmorland County. The Anagance River arises from its tributaries, Hayward Brook and Holmes Brook, and drains 81 km2 (31 sq mi) to the right of Petitcodiac River, while the North River drains 264 km2 (102 sq mi) to the left. From the confluence, the river meanders through Petitcodiac

Almost the same wording, but not so clearly put. We go from the source to Westmorland County and back to one of the sources, then to another of the sources, then back to the confluence. Because of this chopping and changing the prose is harder to read, and we don't find out where the Anagance and North Rivers came from. In all, the sandbox version gives more information than the article does, and takes little more space.

This is only one example of how the present wording could be improved by incorporating the structure and wording from the sandbox version. Michael Glass (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Confused prose.
The present text reads:
 * The Petitcodiac River is joined by the adjacent Memramcook River, which has a watershed area of 412 km2 when combined with the Lower Memramcook River.

This is confused and confusing. Does the watershed of the two rivers combined add up to 412 square kilometres? Hardly likely, for the text goes on to tell us that the Petitcodiac River watershet is 2,831 square km! Far better to substitute the Sandbox version which reads:
 * The Memramcook River, which has a watershed area of 412 km2 joins the Petitcodiac River near its mouth.

Simpler, shorter, more accurate, and more importantly, it makes sense. However, I do concede that the citations would look better at the end of the sentence. Michael Glass (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)