Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rampart Dam


 * 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 Raul654 10:55, 9 March 2009.

Rampart Dam

 * Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk)

Hello again! To those of you who've reviewed some of the past FACs I've submitted, this is not another in a continuing series of college football bowl game articles. Instead, I chose to pick a different topic in order to broaden my horizons and tackle an FAC outside of my normal comfort range. This article, Rampart Dam, is about a proposed hydroelectric dam across the Yukon River in Alaska. What makes it impressive is that had it been built, it would have created a lake the size of Lake Erie. That's pretty darn big. In any event, I feel the article is well-cited, has free-use images that appropriately illustrate the topic, has adequate prose, and covers all aspects of the topic. Most of the citations are book sources, due to the age of the subject, but that can't be avoided. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns above and beyond this article, don't hesitate to drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be happy to respond as soon as possible. Thanks for your interest, and I await your comments. JKBrooks85 (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper (current ref 16 (Special...) is lacking italics..)
 * Current ref 27, is lacking a publisher
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed and standardized citations. A few had their publishers covered by Web links. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Boondoggle needs disambiguation. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I've also combined several citations as you did in your example. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref comments -- Errors found in refs using WP:REFTOOLS
 * Coates, p. 153 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * Brewer, p. 2 | Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
 * p3 | Multiple references are given the same name. [In addition, this should also be properly named.] -- TRU  CO   21:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a handy tool! I think I've fixed the problems you pointed out. I wasn't quite sure about what you wanted for that third item, but I think I got the gist of what you were talking about. If you could check it to make sure I didn't misconstrue what you said, that'd be great. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You got it. Yep it really is, it finds those hidden problems reviewers often miss. (Reference formatting found up to speed.)-- TRU  CO   01:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Support. All of the issues I brought up have been fixed. Good work! Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Comments (leaning towards support) Just a few minor things:
 * I think the first paragraph of the lead might need to provide some type of dating - I thought this was more modern until I got to the last paragraph where it mentioned the 1960s.
 * Done. I also split that first sentence in half because it was kinda long to start with.


 * Need a citation after every quote even if it means subsequent sentences have same cite- see ecological objections
 * I think there was just the one ... if I'm missing another, please let me know.


 * All magazine titles in the article need to be italicized within the article. I fixed some, but I see others (start with Ecological objection section)
 * I think I got 'em, but let me know if you see any more.


 * First paragraph of Financial objections section likely needs some citation
 * Added.

Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Any idea why "In 1973, the Corps of Engineers revised the report to state that the project no longer could be justified under any circumstances."
 * Rewrote that section, because it was a bit confusing. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support and I also wish the dam was built. We have a huge energy crisis right now and a little extra hydro-power would definitely help. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support switched from Slight oppose. All my concerns have been addressed.
 * "Engineers considered Rampart Canyon,[14] named for the nearby village of Rampart, to be a prime site for a hydroelectric ..." Wouldn't it make more sense to put the "named for.." clause up in the Site paragraph when the Canyon is first named?
 * Fixed. Absolutely. It's a good idea to move that up so we're not talking about Rampart Canyon before a reader knows why it's named Rampart Canyon.


 * "To fill the task of examining the economic feasibility of the dam, the Corps of Engineers created..." that first bit is awkward to me. How about "In order to examine the ..."
 * Fixed.


 * Source for "Meanwhile, the Corps of Engineers continued engineering studies."?
 * I don't think one is needed because of the next sentence, which details the releasing of the preliminary engineering study. The source with that latter sentence implies that engineering work had been ongoing. If you think it's critical, I can duplicate the citation on that sentence.
 * I'm a "cite everything" type of person, since someone somewhere won't know the info. Safer, I've found. But it's not enough to hold up my support. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway you can reword "Because the construction season (the period when average temperatures are above the freezing mark) at the site is only five months, the Corps of Engineers projected that several decades would be needed to build the dam and associated structures." to eliminate the long parenthetical?
 * Moved the information to a footnote. Think it works better that way?


 * The final design section. I'm not quite happy with the verb tenses used here. I THINK you should be using something other than what you are, but strongly suggest you check with someone better versed in grammar than I. All I can tell you is that it reads awkwardly to me. An example "The power facilities would consist of twenty-two 266,000 kilowatt units and two 10,000 kilowatt service units." I would have written "The power facilities would have consisted of twenty-two 266,000 kilowatt units and two 10,000 kilowatt service units." which just makes more sense to me when writing about something that was planned but never built.
 * I think you're right, with the exception of maybe one or two sentences where the prose talks about what was estimated at the time. ... An example of that: "it was estimated that three years would be needed to dig river diversion tunnels" ... since we're talking about them looking forward from the past, it's still "would be". In the other tenses, we're looking back at them as a potential, so it's "would have taken". I think.
 * You've also given me a chance to eliminate some of the passive voice in this section, the sort of "it was predicted" that sets some folks' teeth on edge.
 * I'm very much a "seat of my pants" writer. I read so much I just sorta know what sounds good and what doesn't. So when I hit things like this I can't quote grammar rules, all I can say is "it's off". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Was any part of the study concerned with the effect of earthquakes on the structure? You mention earthquakes in the geology section...
 * You know, that very subject has driven me absolutely nuts. I imagined that there'd be oodles of papers addressing that issue, particularly since one of the biggest recent quakes in Alaska was centered on Rampart in 1964 -- right in the middle of the planning! But no, the only things that I've managed to find are obscure references in the geological studies about fractured rock indicating an active geology. If I run across something, I'll be sure to add it. I know some sort of reference to this just has to exist, but I haven't managed to find it, and it's driving me crazy.


 * "Support for the dam project came from a variety of sources, but all supporters tended to use three primary arguments in favor of its construction: the electricity generated by the project would be cheap and plentiful, industries would be attracted to Alaska by the cheap electricity, and the dam's construction would have minimal impact on the environment and human populations." Probably need cites for this.
 * Added. I also removed the "all" since that seems to be a little too bold and reeking of independent research.


 * Is it really necessary to link "salmon" in "electrical argument"?
 * You tell me. It's the first usage of the word in the article, and since the article talks about a variety of wildlife, it might be nice to tell someone who's never left a city what a salmon is.
 * Unlike my citation policy, I'm not a big linker, so it's really up to you. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Need a cite for "The refuge status eliminated any possibility of flooding the Yukon Flats, a process that would have been inevitable with the construction of the dam."
 * Cited the FWS's mission statement for the refuge program.


 * Need a cite for "It was feared that construction of the dam would block navigation routes and violate the treaty."
 * Added.
 * Neat article, will be happy to support when the above are taken care of. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it. It's not a patch on the latest edition of your continuing "As the Bishops Turn" saga, though. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * wait for the next one past the next one (Next one up isn't a bishop... (builds the suspense) but the one after is a bishop that tangled with Thomas Becket...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Slight image concerns as follows: The above should be easily resolved. Jappalang (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Rampart Dam site.jpg &mdash; what is the base map for this? In other words, what map (if any) were the roads and rivers mostly traced from?
 * File:Rampart Dam drainage.jpg &mdash; please point the "Source" to the page the image appears rather than directly to the image.
 * The first map is derived from the map in the "Planning" section, and the second map has been corrected as well. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.