Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everglades National Park


 * 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 16:53, 11 February 2008.

Everglades National Park
Everglades National Park is the third largest national park in the contiguous 48 states, and a whole host of other superlatives included in the lead. And spooky, too. It's also a significant source of controversy in South Florida. I visited ENP in October, saw its lackluster article here, and worked for 2 months to improve it. I based it as much as possible on previous FA national park articles such as Bryce Canyon National Park, Zion National Park, and Yosemite National Park. It has had a peer review, archived here. I will do what is necessary to see it to Featured Article status. I appreciate your comments and assistance. Moni3 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good on a quick glance, but I see style problems - please avoid contractions "doesn't, don't, wasn't" unless in quotations. "most well-known" = "best known"? Copy-editing needed?--Docg 20:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops! Good catch. Got it. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments. I've never been to the Park, and as a non-native, non-outdoorsy Floridian (in my defense, however, I live on the smelly St. Johns River and was once attacked by pelicans omg), I'm not sure how much my opinion really matters while reviewing an article such as this, but I think it's quite good work.  Comprehensive and interesting, to be sure.  I do have a few suggestions on some specific points:
 * The dashes in the references (and perhaps the rest of the article) vary from just a plan dash, an en dash, to an em dash. According to WP:DASH, when referencing page numbers (i.e. pp. 211–19), you're supposed to use an en dash.  To make it easier on yourself, you may want to ask Brighterorange to run his dash bot over the page.
 * This horrifies me, as I went to the endash page, copied it and pasted it in all of the references...--Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In the lead: The water system of all of southern Florida is dependent upon Everglades National Park to recharge the fresh water to the region, as well as to the Biscayne Aquifer. The last bit is vague; if the ENP also recharges the fresh water to the Biscayne Aquifer, then perhaps it should read: ...dependent upon Everglades National Park to recharge the fresh water to both the region and the Biscayne Aquifer.
 * Good idea. I'll change that.--Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tense issue: All the water in the Everglades and coming into the system -- not sure how to fix this, but it reads strangely.
 * It does...how about "All the water in the Everglades and flowing in from Lake Okeechobee and the Kissimmee River comes from local rainfall, taking days to reach the Everglades from the north." --Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is "in" contrasting with "flowing in"; it just doesn't mesh. Would it be factually correct to shorten it to: "All the water flowing into the Everglades from Lake Okeechobee..."?
 * Well, the Everglades has an immense capacity for water storage. Most of the water flows in from rainfall, but a significant amount is stored there. What is stored there gets evaporated and rained on up north and over the rest of Florida, recharging the fresh water storage for the region. Maybe I should say it just like that, except more formally. --Moni3 (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Everglades appeared above sea level between 100,000 and 15,000 years ago. Areas on land that rise above others are called keys, whether surrounded by water or not.[13] These keys were formed on limestone originally developed underwater. Is there a way to change the second sentence so that it doesn't jar with the sudden tense-change? Also, it is not explicitly stated that we're discussing the ENP's keys.
 * The Everglades appeared above sea level between 100,000 and 15,000 years ago. The land was formed on limestone originally developed underwater. As ocean water was captured in polar icecaps, sea levels fell and exposed more land, forming keys: areas of land that rise above others. How's that? --Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better!
 * There are some sentences that read as more theatrical rather than scientific in nature, which may get you into trouble with more picky readers. For example, this: Only a matter of inches in elevation makes the difference between the grass covered river and any above-water land that may appear.  Is this truly necessary?
 * I didn't think it was that theatrical. These are unique formations, hammocks, and only 2-3 inches above everything else. What do you suggest? --Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I read it with David Attenborough's voice in mind; it seems like something he would say. I'm not sure how to change it, exactly, but perhaps it can be tacked onto the next sentence that actually defines the Hammocks?
 * Oh, no! Don't read articles like David Attenborough or Steve Irwin. That's wrong. (Although it might help with biochemistry articles)...but I changed it to "Hammocks are often the only dry land within the park. They rise only several inches above the grass covered river and other land that may appear, and are dominated by...--Moni3 (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This region is similar to the freshwater slough... what region? It's stated in the header, I know, but it's better to have the prose flow from one section to another without having to rely on the header to explain.
 * Will do. --Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you consider turning the "Endangered and threatened animals" section into prose? It looks blocky and unappealing in list format, IMO.
 * I did at one point, but it was the choppiest paragraph I had ever written. I will work on trying to do it again. --Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I worked on this. --Moni3 (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, has the article had a copy-edit by a pair of fresh eyes? There are several punctuation and grammatical errors throughout, but nothing too horrible; still, you may want to consider enlisting someone you trust to go over it. Great work, though! If I get over my fear of smelly, marshy stuff, I may get down there one day. :) María ( habla con migo ) 02:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Running water doesn't smell :) It's actually rather a sweet sensation, like flowers. Only when the water is so low it's in puddles does it start to get rank. I survived an attack by a prairie dog once that wanted to kill me, and I still like the outdoors! (I also grew up near the St. Johns, which made me want to visit other parts of Florida as much as possible.)--Moni3 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Prairie dog? LOL.  It wasn't the dramatic prairie dog, was it? María ( habla  con migo ) 13:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, just one that didn't want to leave my backyard when I lived in Colorado. --Moni3 (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article is mising information on how, when or even if the Miccosukee left the area of the park. Rmhermen (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They haven't left, and in fact, are a part of the decision-making process of the park. Let me see what I can do to add that information. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I included some information at the bottom of "Native people". --Moni3 (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 Oppose . Neutral. BTW, there are about 14 "alsos"; are they all necessary? Tony  (talk)  11:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Needs a copy-edit throughout, and the links ...
 * Why is it significantly overlinked? We do speak English. If an eight-year-old reader doesn't know what "subtropical" or "wilderness" or "breeding ground" mean, let her ENTER THE ITEM INTO THE SEARCH BOX, yes? You dilute the important links by spattering blue everywhere, and it's harder to read and messy in appearance. Please audit throughout.
 * I removed some links, but I felt it was better to keep "subtropical" and "wilderness" linked because they are integral to the designation and importance of the park. Many terms that are left I feel are necessary to explain what is common sense in the US or in South Florida that doesn't translate well for English speakers in different countries. I had some difficulty understanding terms in Exmoor National Park, an FAC, because much of it had to do with regional history and culture. --Moni3 (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs a copy-edit. I see sentences such as "There are over 350 species of birds that live within Everglades National Park, as well as 300 species of fresh and saltwater fish, 40 mammals, and 50 different kinds of reptiles.", which might be "More than 350 species of birds, 300 species of fresh and saltwater fish, 40 mammals, and 50 different kinds of reptiles live in Everglades National Park. Why no "species of" for mammals alone? Hyphen for "slow moving". Metric equivalents. "Humans ... humans ... human" repetition. "actions" --> "activity", perhaps.  Tony   (talk)  13:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed these problems and a few others in the article. I appreciate the time you took to read it and give comments. --Moni3 (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I thought it was great when it came to PR, and it still is. Of course some improvements can be made, but it's definitely among Wikipedia's best. - Taxman Talk 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support — Comprehensive, easily-understood, and NPOV. Definitely among Wikipedia's best in terms of content and length. I'd favor someone from the League of Copy Editors (or another, unaffiliated copy editor) taking a look through it to fix some minor things, but they don't take away from the content within. Great job! JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. has done an excellent job responding to comments.  The article seems very comprehensive and interesting, meets MOS guidelines, and citation issues seem to be resolved. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Has Tony1 been asked to revisit his Oppose? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He has now, but the "work pressure meter" on his page reads at a 9 out of 10. I don't expect him to come by. --Moni3 (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just haven't time to revisit again; I think more than "a few" fixes elsewhere are required, and this is only going to be achieved by someone who's not over-familiar with the text. So the Director might well pass over my oppose, but please get someone to fix the whole thing up. I don't want to see a grammatical error such as "less than 100" (fewer); or "... mangroves are considered adapted more than any other plant to extreme conditions" (clunky); so "fish" is still linked: hello?; amazing treasures."—does that quote start within a WP sentence? You know what to do ... Tony   (talk)  13:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are still strange little glitches. Why is the first source missing a retrieval date when most sources have them?  Why are emdashes used in page ranges in the sources (should be endashes).  Moni, it might help to ask  to have a look at the article and lend a hand to get it over the hump.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I made those changes, and requested Mav to visit the article. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool - I'll take a look between addressing comments about my current FAC for oxygen. --mav (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Absolutely nothing about the geology of this place. All the other FA National Park articles have sections on geology. I may get around to that, but I'm not sure if that can be done within the FAC period. --mav (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be a woefully short section. It's all limestone. Other FA national parks have geology sections because they are geologic features. The lead of ENP states that it was created to protect an ecosystem instead and it's unique for that reason. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Over 3 miles of limestone, representing many different formations aged as old as Cretaceous. But only the most recent couple hundred feet of that, from 3 different formations, is actually exposed in the area. There are also a few different discontinuities, indicating past periods of uplift that should be discussed. Not to mention the Biscayne Aquifer, which, while mentioned, isn't described. Geology of National Parks, by Harris, has a full 3 pages just on the geologic history of this place. It has another 7 or so pages on the geography and ecology in a geologic context. I'll go ahead and read that to see what I can come up with. Oh, and the longest term threat to the glades isn't even mentioned; sea level rise caused by global warming. Please take care of that and I'll see what I can do about the geology. --mav (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I added more material about geology, and restructured the first section to give it more prominence. However, I still feel as if the ecology of the park is much more significant than the geology. Giving the geology equal weight would not do the article or the park justice. I hope what I included will suffice for you. I also added a section about rising sea levels toward the bottom of the article. --Moni3 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great job! - Support --mav (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is close, but why do I hit upon bad samples immediately I go to the article: " the grass covered river and other land that may appear,"—hyphenate the double adjective; I'm perplexed about the land that may appear; what land? "There are thousands of these tree islands in the park boundaries." What, in the boundaries themselves (how thick are they? A metre? "These tree islands ... these islands"—is such a sharp back-reference as "these" required, twice? Please disregard my oppose, but I expect it to be fixed up more thoroughly than the "few" fixes the nominator says she's done. Get someone else to look at it? (Locate a copy-editor from searching the edit histories of similar FAs.) Tony   (talk)  08:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Oppose, for the same reason that Tony did earlier, and that he touched on again above. The content seems fine to me, but the writing needs some TLC by an uninvolved editor. I've often been critical of the "professional" standard of writing required for FA, but this does fall short of what I'd consider to be acceptable. I don't think the required copyedit would be a massive job, but it's a job that needs to be done before I'd feel comfortable supporting this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just one example, from the lead: "There are 36 federally threatened or protected species that exist within park boundaries ...". I would strongly suggest that the US government ceases threatening all species immediately. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough copy editing work has been done on this article over the last day or so to persuade me to strike my oppose and to support it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Status check? There are significant opposes, and this FAC is running well overtime, but I'm not seeing any feedback, and article edits only from Malleus.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The status for both FACs is that I'm on vacation in California, spending some time with the subject of my first featured article. I apologize for not responding, but the articles were nominated well over a month ago and I never dreamed they would take this long. I can't log on for any significant amount of time at the hotels I'm staying in, and I have none of my sources with me, but I'll be home tomorrow night and I hope to spend some time working on them then. --Moni3 (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. After all of the work done here at FAC, this article has risen to the FA level.  Very nice work.  Coemgenus 13:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Attending only to content: the section on hammocks desperately needs an aerial photo to illustrate.  The everglades are the world exemplar of these.  The discussion of the environmental impacts of water diversion from the everglades is utterly inadequate.  Primary impacts are (1) loss of volume of fresh water intake, which is leading to encroachment of salt water, and (2) intake of massive quantities of fertilizer from agriculture.  The conservation ecology literature on these two impacts is enormous, and this article does not mention any of it.  The article history section should also mention the infamous cross-Florida canal (or whatever it was called), a boondoggle that might have exterminated the everglades and Miami with it, had it been completed.  --Una Smith (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I absolutely agree with you that these very serious issues should be detailed, I don't think this is the article in which to do it. The poor small Everglades article (on my list to do in the future) is the place to do it. I have to determine what should apply to the park as opposed to the Everglades as a whole, and that line is sometimes blurred. Your proposal should warrant its own article - Environmental destruction of the Everglades. The Everglades article itself should contain much greater detail about all the ecosystems, and the ecological history of all of South Florida. The canal you're referring to is C-38 in the Kissimmee River, much farther north than ENP. Although it impacted ENP, C-38 was much more destructive to the counties surrounding it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I grant that much of my comments relate to Everglades, not to the park. But that highlights another problem:  much content of this article (which is about the park) more properly belongs in Everglades.  Look at the lead:  do all the special designations apply specifically to the park, not to the whole everglades? --Una Smith (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The first two paragraphs in the lead are about the park, and they're cited. The last paragraph describes the Everglades, a portion of which the park protects. I modeled this article on the previous FAs of Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, and Yosemite National Park, all that address the parks and the geological formations within and beyond them. Are you suggesting for this article to reach featured status the material regarding Everglades as a whole should be deleted? Wouldn't that be extremely confusing for readers?
 * The issues of diversion and quality of water are addressed throughout the ENP article, as they pertain to the vitality of the park. I don't know what to say here. --Moni3 (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As Moni3 has already said, the problem here is that Everglades is a mess. This article contains much content relevant to the ecosystem as a whole, which is much larger the park.  Much of that content belongs in Everglades, not in this article, FA or no FA. --Una Smith (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the Everglades article were as massive and well-referenced as it deserves to be, the issue here is if th ENP article stands alone. The ENP article isn't meant to be a substitute for a well-written Everglades article, but a comprehensive look at why the park exists, what it protects, what it offers, and the issues it faces. ENP issues are more confined to the 3 counties the park is in, where Everglades issues are spread across 16 counties, and will have more detail about the mismanagement of Lake Okeechobee, the Kissimmee River, and towns that exist because of draining that aren't near ENP, like Belle Glade and Clewiston. I'm serious about rewriting the Everglades article. I've already spent over $200 on books preparing for it. Because ENP is a smaller article, it has helped me with the structure and background of what needs to be covered. But there is no way ENP can be of high quality without a description of what its near 2 million acres protects and why it's necessary to protect it. I don't understand your continued oppose to the ENP article. --Moni3 (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have the same problem with Grand Canyon and Grand Canyon National Park; the park protects just a part of the canyon so there would be a lot of duplication between the two. I think I have decided to concentrate on Grand Canyon and redirect Grand Canyon National Park to that article. That parts of the canyon are protected would be included in the larger article. Would the same thing work here? Park articles work much better when most if not all of the major feature of the park is protected by it (such as Death Valley National Park or Yosemite National Park). --mav (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think in the near future, when I begin working on the Everglades article I may actually end up moving some information around, but I consciously limited the amount of information about Everglades to the three counties the park is in, except for unavoidable connections to larger issues. The information in the ENP is not enough to describe the Everglades, its history, or the problems facing it. My main concern here is, is the ENP article good enough to be featured? --Moni3 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Another Status Update

Una Smith invited to return here. --Moni3 (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mav asked to return here. --Moni3 (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuarum asked to return here. --Moni3 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm going to give the article a thorough copyedit later today, in the hopes of assuaging the concerns expressed above. Hopefully I can stick my foot in the closing door of the FAC for this important article about my homeland. =) Just in case the facilitator was thinking of closing the FAC in the next 12 hours, heh. – Scartol  •  Tok  13:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've finished my copyedit. I've also made some suggestions on the article's talk page. Hope this helps relieve the concerns of previous reviewers! – Scartol  •  Tok  15:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Scartol and Maralia. I'll go take a look at the talk page now. --Moni3 (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment, agree on the need for copyediting, but that's being taken care of, so other things I noticed. Is the entire Coastal lowlands section sourced only by that one source? Could an additional source be found to back up that paragraph? The opening of the "Activities" statement seems to have an unsourced statement at the end, making it hard to tell if the rest of the paragraph is sourced from just the one source or only that sentence. In the ELs, there are two links with the exact same name?  Are the duplicates, or different? Are both necessary? Collectonian (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed that EL since I used it as a source anyway, and added another reference to the Coastal lowlands paragraph. The first Activities paragraph I wrote using the map of ENP given by the National Park Service. So the source cited at the end of the paragraph is for the entire paragraph. Is there another way you want that cited? --Moni3 (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've standardized formatting on most citations, and applied endashes on page ranges. I did not yet clean up the citations that have no reference url; since I can't 'see' those sources, I'm reluctant to modify those citations before I'm sure I understand what the source are. Can you find a better source for footnote 4a/b (currently Uhler, John, National Park Information Page)? I'm off to dinner, but I'll try to get some copyediting in tonight. Maralia (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the site has a DIY look to it due to some substandard HTML and aesthetics, I have no reason to believe the information isn't reliable. It's sponsored by Hillclimb Media, that also sponsors Trails.com and other outdoors information sites. If you want me to find alternate sources for the information cited by this reference, I can try to do that. I appreciate your assistance! --Moni3 (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support This is very good, and there are just a few minor issues in the prose. Juliancolton Talk 23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.