Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Restoration 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 02:01, 5 July 2008.

Restoration of the Everglades

 * Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk)

A bit timely—and no, I didn't arrange the announcement of the sale of U.S. Sugar, though I found my timing in writing this series astoundingly coincidental. I must write or call the governor of Florida and express my thanks. This is the next in the series on the Everglades. Here's hoping that people can learn from past mistakes... Thank you for reading it. Article creator, Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see I have two dead links, both of them recent stories in the Miami Herald. Apparently the URLs in recent stories at the Herald get changed over to their archives, which is by login only. I tried to find them in LexisNexis for the page number, but the latest stories are in mid-May. Any suggestions? --Moni3 (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If they are available in newspapers, then just use cite news and don't include a URL. Gary King ( talk ) 02:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I need a page number for that, don't I? --Moni3 (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be ideal. If you can't find the page number, that's fine. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think at the very least, title is required. That's the most important data for finding the article in the first place. Gary King ( talk ) 21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the links, and forgot to report it. Had a total brain fart - The Miami Herald does not number pages in LexisNexis. They only include the section the story was in. I've only done two other FAs with the Miami Herald as sources... --Moni3 (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support with a few questions.
 * Lake Okeechobee, a large and very shallow lake - do you know how shallow? Very is not very helpful. Same for the river.
 * During the wet season when the lake fills, - is it dry during the dry season?
 * Exotic animals imported by the pet trade have escaped or been released and later on Several animal species have been introduced to Everglades waterways, many of them released as exotic pets - is this repetition deliberate? Graham Colm Talk 11:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Measurements for Lake Okeechobee are included, some new wording in the next sentence, and redundancy removed from the Invasive species section. Thank you, Graham. --Moni3 (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Support'. Moni3 has produced another fabulous article. Well-written, well-referenced. All the best, Cam (Chat) 20:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not reviewing, I helped edit, happy so far - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)}}
 * Not reviewing, but I'd like to help out. "...were discovered in waterways in 1986...": maybe a modifier would be helpful, like "these waterways" or "Everglades waterways" or "South Florida waterways". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmains just added 3 commas, and they don't seem to match Moni's style to me, in this article or the other Everglades articles. Most style guides these days allow you to omit the comma after "short" (undefined) introductory phrases, such as "In the 1960s..."  Can anyone see a reason we need those 3 commas? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If the commas will make Hmains happy, they can stay in. If they will cause an oppose, then I guess take them out. --Moni3 (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm pulling in my own agenda here; maybe you guys can help me decide what my agenda ought to be. A lot of people, including Moni (I think) and myself, believe that "edit warring over optional styles" is not a good idea.  If people make changes to one of my articles, I generally just leave them if I can't come up with some clear grammar rule or style guideline that argues against them...it's not important, and I like democratic editing.  FAC ought to be different, though.  If I know Moni's style, and I know that her style is acceptable, and I think that making random changes that don't agree with her style is something I would object to if she were submitting this article to a magazine and I really was her copyeditor...isn't FAC the place to say so?  Isn't this supposed to be our "very best work"? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. By "agenda" I mean, I have a feeling that if someone sticks up for the nom(s) at FAC, someone who isn't voting and didn't write the article, someone who knows the style of the nom(s), WP's style guidelines, the FAC process, and a little about copyediting in general, then a variety of good things will happen. It's a theory I'd like to test.  Apologies to Moni for testing it on her FAC :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I find I have to pick my battles on a collaborative encyclopedia where dramatic struggles over hurt feelings take place daily. Three commas does not, at the time, warrant my objection. I dig in primarily where content accuracy is compromised. Were this a peer reviewed paper to be published where I am the primary author and random folks don't have access to edit it at whim or will, I might forbid the three commas. Like I said, if you think they stick out like a sore thumb and don't reflect the best work of the encyclopedia, by all means I will change the commas. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't match your style, but they're okay. If you're happy, I'm happy. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cap removed, see WT:FAC for issues with Template limits. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Extensive article.  E  E 02:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Sources look good, and links check out, except for the Miami Hearld glitch noted above, which is being worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Support (Disclaimer: I have copyedited this article.) Another fascinating (and now timely) article from Moni3 regarding the Everglades. I knew nothing about the restoration of the Everglades before I read this article - the material was presented clearly and concisely and I believe I understand the major issues at play in the debates. The recent information regarding U. S. Sugar has also been integrated well (no recentism here!). Well done! Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Support Issues resolved. I think the article contains a great many useful facts but it is very incomplete and omits some significant facts and major debate on the issue. Please see this link for an idea of what this article needs to include in order to meet WP:NPOV policy. Big Sugar, as the sugar industry is called in South Florida has been coddled by the US government ever since Castro came to power in Cuba. The Cuban Sugar barons, the Fanjul Family, moved to South Florida in the 60's and created a significant sugar empire with the help of the the US government. It was an effort meant to cripple Cuba's sugar exports and harm their economy. The result was that sugar produced in the Unites States eliminated the crop as one of the main sources of income for the impoverished island of Haiti as well as Cuba. The price of sugar skyrocketed in the US which produced the domino effect of chasing some candy companies out of the US and into Mexico where they were not required to buy US sugar (as all other US consumers were). The sugar barons have a long history of making large payouts to all political parties, they have their own political action committees that raise very large amounts of money (from their own corporations) that are used for political purposes (see this article from Naples News .) The government, according to this article, then pumps 14 billion back to the farmers each year in return. Because of this form of government corruption, any efforts to clean up the Everglades were obstructed for many years. Lawton Chiles broke the deadlock by walking into the courtroom with a vial of polluted everglades water and finally admitted the extent of the problem - effectively ending the long series of court battles over Everglades cleanup. While the current news reports about US Sugar Corp's selling out to the goverment claim that this will help resolve the problem, the fact that the Fanjul Family's many sugar corporations like Okeelanta, Flo-Sun, Inc. and many others remain the largest sugar producer in the Everglades and they have not sold out to the governement remains a significant problem. US agricultural policy that supports Big Sugar like the Fanjul Family, killed the economy of Haiti and results in higher prices for US consumer goods that contain sugar is also the driving force obstructing the restoration of the Everglades according to a significant POV that should have some mention in the article. This New York Times article from 1990 also helps clarify this significant problem. NancyHeise (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Nancy. I'm aware of Big Sugar's role in the restoration process, and there is an article that is related to this one that discusses the surge of power and production of US Sugar, called Draining and development of the Everglades. I tried in this article to give an overview of the problems the Everglades have been facing, and I know the power the Fanjuls have held in the past in local and statewide politics. However, I felt I had to keep this accessible to people who are reading this from other parts of the country, as well as the world, who have no knowledge of the inner-workings of state and local issues. I didn't feel it was appropriate to overwhelm readers with many details of the workings of US Sugar that border on corporate deviance. There are mentions of the strength of the sugar lobbyists in this article, specifically about the battles over phosphorus being pumped into the lower Glades. Governor Chiles' attempts at coming to a resolution about it is also mentioned. Foremost, I wanted the focus of the article to be on the diminished quality of the Everglades, how it has impacted local metropolitan areas, and how state and federal government agencies, and business interests (including Big Sugar) have been unable to agree on the best course of action to be taken. What you are suggesting may be more appropriate for the article on the US Sugar Corporation, which, coincidentally, was created several days ago. --Moni3 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Moni, Thanks. I'm sorry that I could not support your article in its present form. I will reconsider my vote if there is some mention of the significance of US sugar policy in creating the obstacles to Everglades restoration that have existed over the years. You dont need to go into great detail but mention of this fact would make the aritcle complete. Right now, its omission makes the article violate FAC criteria and could be easily remedied by a paragraph or two. Since your article is not too long in its present form you could easily add this information I think. I also ran across this article on the Fanjul's that may also be helpful. . Also, in the archives of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, you will find a whole series of articles they did on the problem of Big Sugar and the Everglades. I can't remember the name of the series but I may have kept one of the articles and may locate for you. NancyHeise (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will consider the addition of stronger information about the power of the sugar coalition in South Florida. I will do some reading of my sources as well as the ones you suggested. I do not, however, think it should be a smear piece on the Fanjuls—that would indeed make it POV. I am no fan at all of the sugar or real estate industries and I'm willing to think perhaps I'm holding back as not to appear POV against them. I would appreciate input from other editors who have read this article, specifically addressing my question about too much detail on the inner workings of political deals between the government and US Sugar. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that a smear piece would violate FAC criteria. The link I gave you to the Fanjuls actually has more nice than not-nice things to say about them but it gives the reader the fact that they are accused of polluting the Everglades. NancyHeise (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Before I wade into this swamp (!), I should do some research. Beyond the links you have provided, Nancy, is there anything else you would suggest I read? And Moni3, what would you suggest I read? I'll start with those sources. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where there are government sources, I try to go straight to them, but Washington Post journalist Michael Grunwald wrote what I think will be the standard on political histories of South Florida, in The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. That's where I'm getting most of my infomation about the political battles between the various state and federal agencies, Big Sugar, and real estate interests. It's chronological, and it's a book, so I don't expect you to read all or any of it during this FAC. My pages are dog-eared and marked up, so I can find it quickly. My question was really - how much of these maneuverings should be included? I found the details about what parts should be restored, how, and why to be daunting. For four years the state sued the federal government, countersuits, back and forth, and I summed it up with A costly legal battle took place from 1988 to 1992 between the State of Florida, the U.S. government, and agricultural interests regarding who was responsible for water quality standards, the maintenance of Everglades National Park and the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. I figured people don't really want to read about each suit, who initiated it, how much was at stake, etc, especially since Chiles stepped in to fix it in the end. Though Big Sugar has had their finger in the political pie of South Florida since the 1960s, the issue that they had a clear stake in was the penny-a-pound tax that went to state ballot in 1996, and I summarized it this way: A controversial penny-a-pound (2 cent/kg) tax on sugar was proposed to fund some of the necessary changes to be made to help decrease phosphorus and make other improvements to water. State voters were asked to support the tax, and environmentalists paid $15 million to encourage the issue. Sugar lobbyists responded with $24 million in advertising to discourage it and succeeded; it became the most expensive ballot issue in state history. I'm just trying to find the balance, of course, about what will illustrate what has been at stake and how far it can go.--Moni3 (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The best place to find all references government or no on the subject would be the South Florida Sun-Sentinel which has followed the story for decades. Government Accounting Office also has information which was summarized in an editorial several years ago by columnist Stephen Goldstein. You will need to go into the Sentinel's archives by doing an advanced search and you will probably have to pay to view the articles. I personally dont think you need any more than a paragraph (at most two) maybe in a section called "Big Sugar" that gives some overview of the controversy and the role played by Big Sugar in defeating many years of efforts to clean up the pollution. Lawton Chile's walk into the courtroom with a vial of water was a very dramatic and unprecedented gesture. Good luck, if I can find more sources, I will let you know. I personally wrote several letters that were published in both Palm Beach Post and Sun-Sentinel columnist sections (Im not a columnist) because I had audited the sugar farms for several years and wrote a summary of the problem which was then used (without my knowledge or permission) by an anti-sugar subsidy group as evidence in testimony before Congress. NancyHeise (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Reset. Added the following in Water quality:''The sugarcane industry, dominated by two companies named U.S. Sugar and Flo-Sun, were responsible for more than half if the crop in the EAA. They were well-represented in state and federal governments by lobbyists who enthusiastically protected their interests. The Audubon Society pointed out that the sugar industry, nicknamed "Big Sugar", donated more money to political parties and candidates than General Motors. The sugar industry attempted to block government-funded studies of polluted water, and when the federal prosecutor in Miami faulted the sugar industry in legal action to protect Everglades National Park, Big Sugar tried to get the lawsuit withdrawn and the prosecutor fired.'' The sugar industry is mentioned again in Sustainable South Florida, again in Implementation, and once more in Future of Restoration, in a telling quote by one of their own lobbyists. I think this implicated the sugar industry as a major playor in this problem. I hesitate to put any more emphasis on the industry lest the article place the majority of blame upon sugar. While I find sugar is not very nice and is quite harmful, I don't consider them to be the major reason why the Everglades is in the sad state it is in. Real estate, and government indifference and incompetence helps to form one big ball of wrong. --Moni3 (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that Big Sugar is not solely responsible for Everglades damage and you have hit on all of the causes in your article nicely, now including Big Sugar as one of the major players. I appreciate your addition and will change my vote to Support. Many thanks for your hard work. NancyHeise (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No extra research needed on my part, I see! Back to working on my Wikimania paper, then! Awadewit (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.