Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Draining and development of the Everglades


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:49, 24 June 2008.

Draining and development of the Everglades
Though I wrote this third in order, this is the second article here at FAC that is a satellite for the Everglades article. I can't really say I had a lot of fun writing this one since the topic illustrates an apparently unstoppable avalanche of human folly, but I am confident in its content. I consider it an engaging history that has obvious current consequences, evidenced by the Restoration of the Everglades article that will be nominated here in due time. Thank you for reading it. Article creator, Moni3 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Current ref #54 is dead. The rest of the links work according to the link checker tool. Also, I did quite a bit of copyediting to some sections of the article, so you might want to get some fresh eyes to take another look at the prose. Good work, overall. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I de-linked that citation. When you went through the prose, did you notice any recurring issue or problem I should look for? --Moni3 (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No real major or recurring problems, but just make sure commas are used in the right places, and numbers under 10 are spelled out, unless in a unit of measurement (not saying those problems still exist, but just what I fixed in a couple copyedits). Overall, though, the prose is excellent, especially for such a long article! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't you need a sentence introducing what/where the Everglades is? indopug (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course not! (Actually, I can't determine if that's extraneous or not...) But I added it in the lead anyways. Thanks =) --Moni3 (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look fine, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, isn't that what I said already? :-) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm good with each reviewer telling me my sources are ok, along with anything else they determine to be ok. --Moni3 (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Oppose, for now.


 * In the "Drainage" section there are several long quotes (4+ lines) that should be in quotes block quotes per MOS:QUOTE (corrected to what I meant to say.) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Sprague quote is 5 lines in my browser. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If Florida "quickly" formed a committee after legislation in 1850, why would the Civil War and Reconstruction (10–20 years later) have anything to do with it?
 * "…Broward sold real estate developer Richard J. Bolles a million dollars worth of land in the Everglades…" change so that it's clear on first reading that Broward sold land (not Bolles)
 * "… Miami News-Record (which became The Miami Herald)…" Trivial information not relevant to this article. If it is relevant, just put a piped link (if it is correct; it is uncited and not clear from The Miami Herald article that it is.)
 * Who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1910? The antecedent is not clear.
 * Is any reason given in sources for the burning of the pamphlets by Fort Lauderdale residents?
 * In "Herbert Hoover Dike" I've got text "sandwiching" between two images. (Using "upright" for the flood image on the right might remedy this.) More sandwiching in section "Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project"
 * The second sandwiching can be remedied by moving Image:Florida Topo map with canals and designated Everglades areas.jpg up one paragraph. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Prose needs some work before I can support. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "…jumped from 3,000–9,000 after World War II." Did the population go from 3,000 to 9,000, or did several towns increase by amounts ranging from 3,000 to 9,000?
 * "…when the city brought in an expert to explain why, he discovered that the water in the Everglades was the area's groundwater—here, it appeared on the surface." What is this trying to say?
 * Hello, Bellhalla and thank you for the comprehensive review.


 * In the 2nd paragraph in the lead, per Indopug's suggestion above, is: The Everglades are a part of a massive watershed that begins in around Orlando and drains into Lake Okeechobee, a vast and shallow lake. As the lake exceeds its capacity in the wet season, the water forms a flat and very wide river, approximately 100 miles (160 km) long, and 60 miles (97 km) wide. As the land from Lake Okeechobee slopes gradually to Florida Bay, water flows at a rate of half a mile a day. Prior to human action in the Everglades, the system comprised a third of the lower Florida peninsula. I hope this explains what the Everglades are.
 * My apologies. I began my review by looking at a version I had opened before that was added. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The USD was included per the suggestion of another editor, but I have removed it.
 * Per the MoS section on blockquotes, they are not enclosed in quotation marks.
 * I failed to proofread my objection. I meant to say that there were several 4+ line quotes that should be block quotes. I have revised my comment above. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the information about The Miami Herald is trivial. The Miami Herald has long been an influential publication, and got an early start opposing drainage projects - one of the few voices in Miami that expressed such an opinion. What are you asking me to cite about the transition?
 * If you think it's relevant to the article that's fine by me. However, there's nothing in The Miami Herald WP article or the Herald ' s own website (upon which the WP article is apparently based) about operating under the Miami News-Record name (which certainly does not preclude that fact). One point of potential confusion comes from the WP article which gives the Miami News (not sure if it's the same entity or not) as the Herald ' s longest competitor. Given that the previous name is not obvious or general knowledge, that fact should be cited. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fort Lauderdale looks rather odd. I think it's never printed this way, but I changed it.
 * I'm unfamiliar with the upright tag on images, so I have to play with that a little bit. I'll work on it, though. Done.
 * In the 1970s, the Everglades were declared a World Heritage Site, a Wetland of International Importance, and an International Biosphere Reserve. I can add that to the final sentence, or take it out completely.
 * If you think it's relevant to the current article, then by all means add it for comprehensiveness. I guess what I'm trying to say it that there's essentially nothing said about any sort of international action or reaction throughout the whole article until this sentence. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've addressed your specific concerns, I hope, to your satisfaction. I am unable to address "prose needs some work", but I will do my best. --Moni3 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "prose needs some work" was a general summation of what I had found. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Belhalla, I left one portrait image without an upright tag: Image:Florida Topo map with canals and designated Everglades areas.jpg. I saw that you added the tag to it, but I feel that this one needs to stay at its original size. The detail is too small to make any sense of, and the image is integral to understanding how the Everglades were divided, and consequently, how those divisions adversely affected the environment and diminished quality of life for South Florida residents. I hope you don't anticipate an oppose based on that. --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the rationale behind not adding the tag to that image. Not having the tag will not prevent a support from me one once the other issues are addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My replies interspersed above. (Please feel free to do the same to respond.) — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. I was under the impression that The Miami Herald's rival was The Miami Metropolis. The source I'm using states what's in the article. I placed a call into the Herald to solve this mystery. --Moni3 (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I will concede there's probably another source somewhere that says something different, I think this is a good one: After ten years of struggling as an attorney (my father) took an old flatbed press as a bad debt, put it on the railroad, came to Miami and started the first morning paper called the News Record. That was 1906...After father incurred the enmity of the governor (by opposing drainage), the newspaper almost went into bankruptcy. But then Frank Shutts came along and rescued it. Shutts had set up a leading law firm in Miami and then got interested in the newspaper. He put some money into it and became the publisher, and he an my father reorganized it as the Miami Herald in 1910. - Marjory Stoneman Douglas in Voice of the River, pp. 98-99. --Moni3 (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That sound like a good source to me. How about saying it was a "forerunner of The Miami Herald"? — Bellhalla (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * DONE. --Moni3 (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments (by Dank55) Although I'm supposed to have worked on this article for the FA-Team, fortunately for the editors, I was slack and didn't, so I get to review it :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dank55 (talk • contribs) 20:39, June 19, 2008
 * Websters and AMHER don't like "toward the later part of the 19th century". Websters doesn't list "later" as an adjective at all, meaning they don't think it's common enough to mention, and AMHER says that "later" means "after a previous event", not "in the second half", and "toward a time after a previous event" is not the meaning you're going for here.  I changed to "latter".
 * done Mm40 (talk | contribs) 01:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I get 9K hits for "lack of an understanding" and 3M hits for "lack of understanding". I'll go with "lack of understanding", if that's okay.
 * Dashes don't work when they get in the way of a required comma;
 * fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm40 (talk • contribs) 01:14, June 20, 2008


 * I would be happier with "following a proposal to construct a massive jetport" than "following the proposed construction of a massive jetport", but I didn't change it.
 * Changed Mm40 (talk | contribs) 01:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the comment above that "which became The Miami Herald" is too trivial to include; it's a very important newspaper, both regionally and especially in an article about the Everglades.
 * "Americans began their relationship with the Everglades" [slightly funky] -> "American involvement in the Everglades began"
 * Non-funkified Mm40 (talk | contribs) 01:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Funky, indeed. There's no need to justify what you're doing. Go ahead and make the grammatical changes you see necessary. I'm watching. If you compromise accuracy, or change the meaning of what I intended the sentence to say, I'll let you know. I appreciate your efforts, Dank55. --Moni3 (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Moni, that makes it easier. If it's okay, I will continue to give detailed edit summaries; for one thing, I'm on Editor Review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dank55 (talk • contribs) 02:05, June 20, 2008
 * I don't know what it means to "die ... from constantly being wet". Pneumonia?
 * Gangrene from fungal infections, cracked skin, feet, etc. --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would improve the encyclopedia to say what they died from, but not if it's hard to find out. If all you know is that they died from being wet, then that's fine with me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been expanded, I hope to your satisfaction. --Moni3 (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of "died in his tracks", but it's a judgment call. (I'd prefer "in the field", "on the trail", or wherever it was he died.)
 * He died in the mud where he stood. Suggestions? --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "the Kissimmee valley, which is the source of all the evil". Just like today... [for those who haven't had the pleasure of spending most of their holiday waiting in lines with 1000 screaming kids...screaming because it's 100 F/38 C and 100% humidity...I'm referring to Walt Disney World].
 * I'd prefer "frenzy of speculation" to "near frenzy of speculation", but I didn't make the change
 * This sentence is a little hard to read and I'm not sure what it's saying: "His most fundamental mistake, however, was that he calculated the average bimonthly rainfall for July and August, and thus what the canals should be constructed to hold, was 4 in of water a day, despite..." Would this work?  "His most fundamental mistake, however, was designing the canals for a maximum rainfall of 4 in of water a day, based on flawed data for July and August rainfall, despite..."
 * Done My comment. --Moni3 (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Whereas advertisements promised within eight weeks of arrival a farmer could be making a living, for many it took at least two months to clear the land." What was it a farmer was supposed to be doing after 8 weeks, selling crops he had grown in that time?  If so, I'd prefer something like, "Advertisements promised land that was ready to farm, but for many..."
 * Compromised a little on this one. My comment. --Moni3 (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you really be "swarmed with...skinks"? Skinks are cute little lizards, about 3 inches long, that eat spiders, insects and worms.  They can swarm all they like as far as I'm concerned.  It seems a little non-parallel to group them with mosquitoes (deadly at the time), snakes (Florida has several poisonous varieties) and alligators.
 * (Done, although you can re-insert if you're skinkophobic.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dank55 (talk • contribs) 03:39, June 20, 2008
 * I think I'll put this one back in. I think skinks are kinda cute too, but I know grown women who will turn into complete 3-year-olds upon the sight of an anole, gecko, or lizard. I suppose if you're not used to them, they can freak you out. And there are a couple poisonous skinks. My brother's cat ate one, and she survived it, but it gave her some nerve damage. She careens around the house drunkenly and croaks instead of meows. --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend breaking the paragraph that begins "Wading birds were a particular target" into 2 paragraphs, although I'm not sure how you might want to split it up. You write "Plume harvesting became a dangerous business", but it was the warden that got shot.
 * Done. Though the paragraph is about Guy Bradley, hunters often took shots at each other. I can add that in. (Sign your comments lest you incur the wrath of SandyGeorgia. Be afraid.) --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously. Dank55, please sign your entries.  Mm40, please thread your comments and don't alter someone else's entries.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments


 * Am I allowed to crop a USGS public domain photo? --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) information resides in the public domain and may be used without restriction... Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King ( talk ) 04:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * DONE. --Moni3 (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Support When I started reading this article, I took of a bit of a gulp, I mean "draining and development"? How interesting could that be? However, Moni3 has made this article both interesting and informative. I really do feel as if I understand the general history of the what has happened to the Everglades (and really, I'm shocked!). I kept stopping and insisting my roommate listen to parts of the article. I copyedited a bit while I was reading and more has been done, so I think any little infelicities have been cleaned up. Most importantly, this is an engaging and interesting article. The article seems comprehensive and well-researched to me (but I am no expert in this area) and the images are well-chosen and to the best of my knowledge are fully licensed. Thanks for this wonderful series! Awadewit (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Awadewit. I thought it imprudent to name the article "Complete land rape of South Florida", but I suppose that would be more effective at drawing in readers. Though if you and others think that would be better, I can move it... Just let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You should definitely rename it - with several footnotes in the title to reassure readers it is sourced! :) Awadewit (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Might not be NPOV, but it would certainly be accurate… — Bellhalla (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support looks good. I could only find some tiny quibbles below: Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * before Florida was a state - just sorta sticks there. is this important? better now, funny how one simple word just smoothes things nicely.


 * prolonging the war further. - should there be an 'any' before the 'further', in fact, do we need the 'further' at all?


 * (When the U.S. military was not victorious), the final blame for the stalemate lay not in military preparation, supplies, leadership, or superior tactics by the Seminoles, but in Florida's impenetrable terrain. - could actually delete the bit in parentheses and place 'military' before 'stalemate'. Do you think meaning is preserved?
 * I changed was to became, but I think Florida should be mentioned in the first sentence for those who are not aware of where the Everglades are located. Living in Florida, it seems that everyone knows where they are, but I thought it best to be safe.
 * Further dropped.
 * Sentences about military stalemate changed. Thank you, Casliber. --Moni3 (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I had some minor issues that I fixed, (see article history), or raised on the the article's discussion page. My support is based on criterion 1, as most of what I read was new and fascinating. Graham Colm Talk 16:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I'm sure I could find a few nit-picky things to complain about, but nothing major and restrictive. Excellent prose flow, good content, nice images, and I can't imagine it's not comprehensive with all the information. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, a splendid article. (Yes, there are nits, but I'm picking some of them, and anyway they're mere nits.) Morenoodles (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.