Wikipedia:Peer review/Restoration of the Everglades/archive1

===Restoration of the Everglades===

This peer review discussion has been closed. This is the fourth and last article written as a satellite for the main Everglades article. I've written all four pretty quickly, so I'm looking for assistance in pointing out areas that are unclear or poorly written. Though the articles should be independent, they overlap in some content areas, so I'm not sure what should be expanded in this article that is mentioned in more detail in another. Any assistance is appreciated. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Restoration of the Everglades/archive1.


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Cryptic C62: I'll read through the article and just list things as they appear. Suggested editions are in bold. That's the lead for you. I'll evaluate the entire article in time. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The first sentence should be about what the project is trying to accomplish, not some factoid about its cost.
 * "The degradation of the natural quality of the Everglades became an issue in the United States in the early 1970s after a jetport was proposed to be constructed in the Big Cypress Swamp that studies indicated would have destroyed the ecosystem in South Florida and Everglades National Park." Definitely needs to be broken up somehow.
 * "The first project which conservation groups focused on was the C-38 canal that straightened the Kissimmee River, causing catastrophic damage to animal habitats."
 * The entire C-38 canal paragraph is unclear. Was the canal built by the conservation groups, or by some other unnamed group? Were the sporting groups demanding the river be restored, or that the quality of the canal be restored? How are the pesticides and fertilizers related to the canal?
 * "...the quality of water became a focus." The focus of several organizations? A focal point for discussion? A major issue? Anything but a focus.
 * "and set timed goals for pollutant levels to decrease in the water." Timed goals meaning ... with a stopwatch? There has to be a better way to word this.
 * "Although initially it was criticized strongly by conservation groups for not being strong enough on polluters, this bill, which eventually became the Everglades Forever Act, was passed in 1994."
 * "Since then, agencies have surpassed expectations for water treatment." First off, the paragraph still hasn't mentioned which agencies we're dealing with. Second, "surpassed expectations" could mean they are reducing pollution levels, or that they are polluting more than ever before.
 * "South Florida was unable to maintain or sustain its own growth or existence". It can't sustain its own existence? So it's a black hole...?
 * English teachers will kill you if you use impact as a verb. As a verb, its primary definition is To pack firmly together, or to strike forcefully.
 * Fixed. I think. And the governor's report pretty much made the point the Miami is a black hole... Here's hoping it will get better. English teachers aren't the boss of me! (Clearly....) Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

--
 * "Two hurricanes in the 1920s" Which ones?
 * "...resulting in the restriction of the source of water from the Everglades." ...What?
 * "The remaining 25 percent of the Everglades are protected in Everglades National Park" Does this mean that 75% isn't protected, or that 75% has been destroyed and only 25% is left?
 * "...causing the intrusion of exotic plant species." I don't know anything about botany, but intrusion doesn't sound like the right word to me. It very well may be, but it sounds odd.
 * "Change in landcover between 1900 to 1992" Did the original image come with some sort of analysis? At first glance, it's just a mess of colors, and a vague caption doesn't help the viewer make sense of it.
 * "In the 1960s scrutiny was bearing on the C&SF." Scrutiny from whom?
 * "...who coined the iconic descriptor "River of Grass" for the Everglades" Such a pointless factoid should either be removed or cited. Or both.
 * "Governor Bob Graham announced the formation of the "Save Our Everglades" campaign in 1983, and in 1985 Graham lifted the first shovel of backfill for a portion of the C-38 canal." Any idea why the campaign took 2 years to lift one shovel?
 * "the Everglades would resemble as much as possible" Yuck.
 * "The project was estimated to cost $578 million...the cost is to be divided" Inconsistent tense. While the project may not have been completed yet, these mixed tenses are confusing.
 * "The bloom was discovered to be the cause of fertilizers backpumped from the Everglades Agricultural Area". The bloom was the cause of the backpumping? Or the other way around?
 * "Although laws had decreed in 1979" Decree is a bit archaic, no?
 * "A costly legal battle took place from 1988 to 1992 between the State of Florida, U.S. government, and agricultural interests" Is the State of Florida part of the US Gov't? Or is it a three-way battle between Florida, the Federal Gov't, and the agricultural interests?
 * "Another water quality issue discovered to be potentially damaging to people was mercury in fish in the 1980s." Super unclear. Was mercury discovered in fish in the 1980s? Or was mercury in the fish all along, but it wasn't known to be dangerous until the 1980s?
 * "The panther's diet consisted of small animals of raccoons and alligators." Was this the diet of that particular panther? Or of all Florida panthers? Either way, it is an awkward and somewhat irrelevant transition to the bioaccumulation section.
 * "approximately a 60 percent decrease in fish and a 70 percent decrease in bird feathers, though some levels still remain a health concern for people" First, those two statistics go very oddly together. Why does one describe the entire fish while the other focuses on a specific part of the birds? It feels as though something is being left out. Second, which levels are still a health concern? That's such an ambiguous statement.
 * "but Douglas was so unimpressed with the action it took against polluters that she wrote to Chiles and demanded her named be stricken from it" It seems odd that this statement comes right before the paragraph describing the merits of the bill. It would be more logical to group Douglas's statement with the criticism paragraph.
 * "Critics of the bill attested the deadline for meeting the standards was unnecessarily delayed until 2006" The critics bore witness to the deadline being moved?
 * Just realized I hadn't responded, though I changed most of what is listed. If I didn't change it, I wasn't sure about it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Another water quality issue, potentially damaging to people, was the discovery in the 1980s of mercury in fish." Still not right. This implies that the discovery is potentially harmful, not the mercury.
 * "One animal that has benefited from protection is the alligator." Protection from whom? This is the first time protection is mentioned in the section.
 * "Their territories are considerably smaller than they once were, as are the alligators themselves." This sentence implies that the alligators are now physically smaller than they used to be. This sounds plausible, but it's confusing given that the rest of the paragraph talks about the range of alligators.
 * "There are an estimated 500 to 1,000 crocodiles in southern Florida." I know how much you love random factoids, but this isn't really relevant, especially when stuck on to the end of a paragraph. If you find older numbers to compare with the current estimates, that would be helpful.
 * "since males require approximately 200 square miles" For what? If they don't get their own 200 square miles, they just wither up and die?
 * "Agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were in charge of maintaining the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act yet still approved 99 percent of all permits to build in wetlands and panther territory." I don't know much about the federal government, but it seems odd that the Army Corps of Engineers would have control over building permits. Also, did Grunwald really say 99% of the permits?
 * "However, snowy egrets, roseate spoonbills, and reddish egrets were hunted to the brink of extinction for their colorful feathers that were used in women's hats." When?
 * "unreliable release of water to their historical nesting locations" What does this mean? People are pouring Dasani all over their eggs?


 * Re: 99% of building permits:
 * "And now the long-dormant southwest coast was sprawling into the panther country east of Naples and Fort Myers. Regulators at the Army Corps, the unlikely guardians of the Clean Water Act, approved more than 99 percent of all applications to develop in Florida wetlands. Biologists at Fish and Wildlife, the overseers of the Endangered Species Act, tried to warn that a number of projects would jeopardize the panther's survival—including several subdivisions, a massive rock mine, and Florida Gulf Coast University—but they were always overruled by their bosses. "There was no place for the cats to go," said Andy Eller, a Fish and Wildlife biologist who was fired after he tried to object to several gated communities in the panther habitat. "It was just a development free-for-all." Grunwald, p. 293.


 * Huuunnnnnnhhhh. Must...remain...NPOV....Ooofff!


 * Most everything else fixed, I think. --Moni3 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Many species of plants have been brought in as decorative landscaping, and many animals have been released as pets." Brought in by whom? Or from where?
 * "Melaleucas grow taller in the Everglades (on average, 100 feet (30 m)) than in their native Australia." Do melaleucas grow 100 feet taller? Or do they grow 100 feet tall?
 * "They are resistant to fire and their seeds are more efficiently spread by fire." How is this relevant?
 * "In Big Cypress National Preserve, melaleucas at their most pervasive covered 186 square miles (480 km²)" When were they at their most pervasive?
 * "...and spread by birds and other animals that ate its bright red berries." Again, I know nothing about botany, but how does a berry grow into a bush if it has just been eaten by a bird? Do the birds spit out the pits?
 * "Reptiles find a particular liking to the South Florida ecosystem." I, on the other hand, find a particular disliking to this phrase.
 * "The herbivorous green iguana can grow rapidly in the wild." Does the wild refer to the Everglades? If so, what about the Everglades allows the green iguana to grow rapidly?
 * "the reptile that has earned media attention" If you're going to use a yucky phrase like this, you should explicitly state why the animal has earned media attention.
 * "Exotic birds such as parrots and parakeets are also found in the Everglades. Perhaps the animal that causes the most damage to native wildlife is the domestic feral cat. Cats are located near populated areas, estimated to number 640 per square mile, and urban sprawl into the Everglades has devastating effects on migratory birds and marsh rabbits." This whole paragraph just leaves me totally confused. It's not even a paragraph so much as a jumbled mess of seemingly unrelated statements.


 * Birds spread plants with their poo. As uch as I would like to put that in the article, I had to change "poo" to "droppings". What a disappointment. Everything else fixed. --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah! Another article brought to GA. Never fear, I'll keep reviewing all the way through. A wikipedia article is never finished!
 * "An early plan in 1993..." early with respect to what? The hurricane? Other plans? 1993? Perhaps the month or date should be given for Hurricane Andrew to make it clearer.
 * "to recoup the $480 million lost by the destruction of the base..." If the point of the plan was to revamp the property, that implies that the original Air Force base was never rebuilt. If that's the case, then how was the $480 million lost? Cleanup efforts? Air Force equipment repairs?
 * "A cursory environmental study was deemed insufficient by local conservation groups" Who did the study and why? It's not really clear how these two groups are interacting here.
 * "The air force base is located between Everglades National Park and Biscayne National Park." I nominate this sentence for the Most Poorly Placed Sentence in the Article.
 * "local proponents of the airport lost federal support" The word proponents is a poor choice here, as it implies that random people who happen to like the idea of a new airport are getting federal support. Who exactly do you mean by proponents?
 * The big issue with the Homestead section is that it isn't in chronological order. It goes 1992, 1993, 1990, 2000, 2001, 1994, 2008.
 * Fixed. What does the Poorly Placed Sentence nomination do? Is there an award I could display somewhere with pride, should I be fortuitous enough to win? --Moni3 (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "maintaining roads and handling traffic congestion for half the amount of vehicles" I dearly hope this sentence was worded better in the actual report. Half of the total amount of vehicles? Half of the newly registered vehicles? Why is it even measures in halves to begin with??
 * "(The) frequent water shortages ... create(s) the irony" When you alter a quote for grammar, make sure you're actually using correct grammar. Also, edits to quotes are displayed in [square brackets], not (parentheses), according to WP:MOSQUOTE.
 * "some of the necessary changes to be made to help clean water and make other improvements" First, to clean water can mean a lot of things. There are several ways that water can be dirty, and several ways that it can be purified. I'd check to see if Grunwald is any more specific about it. Second, does make other improvements mean to improve other areas of the Everglades? Or does it mean to improve other aspects of the waterways?
 * According to WP:MOSNUM, it is acceptable to write either 90% or ninety percent. I'll go through the article and change it where applicable.


 * I have been asked in previous Featured Articles Candidates to change all % symbols to the word "percent". I have never seen the opposite request. Though MOSNUM and WP:MOS say both are acceptable, you may know that at FAC I can be asked to change anything. That is why I wrote the article with the word rather than the symbol. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Where a whole number in a percentage is spelled out, the percent sign is not used." I also infer that the opposite is true: When a whole number in a percentage is not spelled out, the percent sign is used. I based my edit on that notion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. If I get the request to change them at FAC, I must cheerfully change them instead of arguing. --Moni3 (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

-- Huzzah! That's the entire article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "A report known as the "Restudy" was submitted to Congress in 1999." Any idea who submitted the report?
 * "harmful timing of water release" I have no idea what this means. Thermal pollution? Surface runoff? Dumping of chemically polluted materials?
 * "Bodies of water including Lake Okeechobee, the Caloosahatchee River, St. Lucie estuary, Lake Worth Lagoon, Biscayne Bay, and the Everglades..." According to the map at Everglades, Lake Okeechobee is part of the Everglades. Why are both the larger body and the smaller body included in this list?
 * "Canals took 1,700,000,000 US gallons of water to the ocean or gulf daily" First, such a large estimated number should either be accompanied by "approximately" or "roughly", or it should take the form of a range of numbers. Second, "the ocean" is acceptable, but "gulf" should be replaced by Gulf of Mexico, assuming that is the gulf in question. The Gulf of Mexico was only mentioned once in the Background section. This statment should reestablish context for users who skim or skip sections.
 * "Create water preserve areas to treat runoff water between Miami-Dade and Palm Beach and the eastern Everglades." Is the runoff water running between (Miami-Dade and Palm Beach) and (the Eastern Everglades)? Or is it running between (Miami-Dade) and (Palm Beach and the Eastern Everglades)? A well-placed comma would be helpful here.
 * "...that would decrease the amount of pollutants to the environment." Do you mean pollutants released into the environment? Or pollutants in the environment?
 * "...specifically the Miami Canal. Reconstruct the Tamiami Trail from a highway to culverts..." Within each section, it makes sense if only the first sentence is a fragment. The Reconstruct segment should either be reconstructed into a real sentence, or given its own section.
 * "...to recharge the Biscayne Aquifer." Recharge? The aquifer is a battery?
 * "...distribution patterns would return to natural states." Distribution of water, or of animals?
 * "in light of the irreversible physical changes that have made to the ecosystem." Looks like a misquote to me. Shouldn't it say ...changes that have been made... ?
 * "The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) was authorized by the Water Development Act of 2000" One bill authorized another? After your verification of so many of the wierd statements in this article, I'm willing to believe that the plan really was authorized by the act. Still, it doesn't make sense at first glance, so perhaps there's some way to clarify the statement.
 * "Fifty-five percent of the land necessary for restoration has been purchased by the State of Florida, totaling 210,167 acres (85,052 ha)." Does 55% total 210,167 acres? Or does the full plan total 210,167 acres?
 * "...spurring the start of six of eight construction projects" I assume, based on this statement, that Acceler8 is so named because of its 8 construction projects. This is never stated clearly, though.
 * "...leaving it in limbo" Not very encyclopedic...


 * I went through to check, but CERP was never called a bill in the article. The Restudy offered a plan to fix the growing problem of environmental degradation.
 * Most everything else checked. Before it goes to FA, I have to add information about two birds species, and it seems I need to include information about the ill timing of water releases. Thank you for reviewing the article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool beans. Give me a holler for your next PR or when you add the bird/water info. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * After going through and linking some of the references, I noticed that note 33 has something funky going on with linking the title. I'm not really sure what to do about it... --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC, and it looks fine. I didn't do a totally indepth look at all the formatting, so I may have missed minor glitches, but the sources themselves look sound.
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 23:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)