Everglades has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Everglades is the main article in the Everglades series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am requesting a geographical map on this page to show WHERE the Everglades is. Axezz 12/04-2005 00:03 CET
Also, it would be nice to have a number on the percentage of Florida covered in the everglades before and after colonization. Also, headline text is repeated twice at the bottom of the page and some links are broken, or don't appear as links yet. -Da Newb 3/06-2007 12:20
Oh, and I realized that the WWF's page on the Everglades [1] has stats that could give percentages of altered/converted area. There's no truly objective way to delineated an ecoregion or to say how much human-caused change equals "no longer the Everglades", but using the WWF's numbers here's what I worked out: Total size of the Everglades ecoregion (pre-colonization) = 7800 sq mi. Of that, 1093 sq mi were converted to farmland south of Lake Okeechokee, and 936 sq mi to urban (or urban-related) in the east. Of the whole 7800 sq mi the WWF says only 2% (156 sq mi) remains "truly intact", and 30% (2340 sq mi) are "altered but restorable". See that WWF page for details on all this. Pfly 18:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Everglades. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 129.10.104.142 17:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (suitable for nonsense)
There have been recent expansions to the park's tourist facilities to bring in more money to Florida's economy such as a massive extension to the visiting center, many outposts along the bridges that span the Everglades that teach people about the many birds and other wildlife native to the Everglades as well as a small petting zoo for tards.
edited this comment out last night,posted as retards, and somone had changed it back to just tards. Proceeding to edit out this comment again.
Someone tried to post "The Florida Everglades-2006.jpg" in the middle of the introduction. I removed it, as when I corrected the code thingeh, the image was too big. Does anyone actually want to use this, or was this just the work of some guy that's never going to come back? >_> Count DeSheep 20:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Stoneman Douglas published "The Everglades" in late November and the park was dedicated in early December, so it seems unlikely to me that the former had a singularly galvanizing effect and caused the creation of the park, as claimed in the entry. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.19.124.95 (
talk)
16:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following from the top of the article:
It may be worth adding a note on how the Everglades were named to the History section. I may just take a stab at it. -- Donald Albury 00:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
During the superfun Featured Article Candidate process for Everglades National Park, I promised in writing to expand this article, and I'm readying myself for this, what I foresee, will be a massive rewrite with additional articles. Individual articles will probably be needed for Geology of the Everglades, Ecosystems of the Everglades, Human History of the Everglades, and Development and Conservation of the Everglades (if not an article devoted to Restoration of the Everglades apart from the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan). Dalbury assisted me with some of the history of the park article. I've purchased over $200 worth of books and I'm considering buying more for this...Yarrr.
However, I think the layout of the article should probably appear as:
I'm going to need assistance with visuals as well. Anyone handy with a drawing program for making maps?
Thoughts or comments? Last issue: There is no manual of style address for singular or plural references to Everglades. It is proper to say "The Everglades are" as well as "The Everglades is". But we're probably going to need to be consistent. I prefer the plural myself. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I was simply pointing out a very interesting angle that seemed to be missing: the Everglades didn't exist during the glacial period: they came into being only 5000 years ago. Here's a map of the estimated Florida coastline during the recent glacial maximum: with sea level estimated 100m lower, the area was high and dry. I googled "glacial Florida" and brought up samples of Gleason and Stone, "Age, origin and landscape evolution of the Everglades peatland: environmental changes leading to the formation of the Everglades", in Steven M. Davis, John C. Ogden, eds. Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration (pp 156ff), which support my amateurish understanding. Try it yourself. Very interesting.-- Wetman ( talk) 08:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a sign in Gatorland saying that the headwaters of the Everglades is in Gatorland up near Orlando. A look at the maps in this article show that it might be possible. If you think this might be true. I will post the photo. Americasroof ( talk) 11:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
everglades is a wet place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.106.34 ( talk) 16:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you think it would make the article a little more accessible to shorten the lead? For example, the first sentence is now "The Florida Everglades are a subtropical marshland located in the southern portion of the U.S. state of Florida, specifically in parts of Monroe, Collier, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Broward counties."
How about, for example, "The Florida Everglades is a vast system of fresh water marshes located in the southern portion of Florida? You can go into more explanation and detail in the body of the article. – Mattisse ( Talk) 17:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not put most of the information from the CERP section into the CERP main article? -- Jagz ( talk) 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I am no image expert, but I have tried to give the images a once-over:
The only reason I mention the commons moves is because I once had an FAC reviewer demand that I move everything in the PD to commons and, after all, it is a nice thing to do! Awadewit ( talk) 00:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The sign warning visitors not to eat more than one bass per week appears to have been vandalized. (The actual sign, not the image) Someone appears to have scratched out the B in bass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.16.222 ( talk) 15:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
"Sloughs are about 3 feet (0.91 m) deeper than sawgrass marshes, and may stay flooded for at least 11 months out of the year if not multiple years in a row.[41]" Do we really need to describe what a slough is? RC-0722 361.0/ 1 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Should we have an intro paragraph for the Ecosystems section? RC-0722 361.0/ 1 04:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7472577.stm - rst20xx ( talk) 18:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Everglades/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am beginning the review. Due to the length of the article, I will probably post my comments in stages. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
First stage
This is an unusual article to find at GAN. It has been researched, prepared and written to a standard that suggests that its ultimate goal is FAC. One choice for the GA reviewer is to swiftly pass it and recommend it goes to FAC; however, the nominating editor obviously felt the need for an extra layer of review before taking such a step. I have decided to to review it beyond the GA criteria (though its promotion will be determined by those criteria), as a potential FA candidate, in the hope that this course will be the most helpful to the nominating editor.
There are two general issues before the detail:-
1. Length: At 10,300+ words the readable prose is beyond the 6,000-10,000 range quoted in WP:LENGTH as the maximum before reader fatigue sets in. At 95kb it is nearly at the point where WP:Length says an article should "almost certainly be divided". Have the editors thought about dividing? The obvious step would be to separate the "history" section, which itself is around 4,000-4,500 words long. There really does seem to me to be two articles here, and I would recommend giving some serious consideration to the question of dividing.
2. Accessiblity: The article is well-written and for the most part eminently readable. There are instances, however, where the technical descriptions and language used may alienate or confuse the general reader. I have to say that at times I wasn't clear in my mind what I was reading about. One advantage of a split would be that it would provide room for explanations of some of the more complex terms. I will try, in the detailed review, to indicate words, phrases or sections where I found comprehension difficulties.
Review details
This is the first section of the review. More will follow. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is the next instalment. Since there is concurrent peer review, some of my points may be raised and dealt with there. Where that happens, please strike my point out on this list.
Part three to follow. Brianboulton ( talk) 12:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Episode 3:-
I'm taking a short break here. I shall return. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the final section of my review
Having worked through the entire article, I am more convinced than ever that it needs to be split. It is too long. It is scholarly and very comprehensive, a formidable piece of work, in fact. But it’s not a light read, and it gets harder to concentrate in the latter stages as reader fatigue sets in. My strong recommendation is to take out the history sections and create a companion article.
As I said at the start, I would review with FA in mind, but would determine the GA outcome on GA criteria. As it stands, notwithstanding my views as to its size, it seems to me clearly of GA standard, and I don’t see any point in messing about with contrived hurdles. That will enable you to get on with the serious business of preparing it (?them) for FAC. Before I do the actual promoting I would like to know your views on the splitting option; you may have compelling reasons for not doing this, and I’d like to hear them.
Brianboulton ( talk) 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I read most of the comments and haven't yet had a chance to get started on a thorough editing session. As you were the GA reviewer for Restoration of the Everglades, and there are {{main| article links throughout the Everglades article, I'm sure you noted that this article has 5 splits: Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Geography and ecology of the Everglades, Draining and development of the Everglades, Restoration of the Everglades, and Everglades National Park. The history has actually been split off into three main articles.
If your recommendation is to brutally cut the majority of detail from this one...I can try (without weeping like a child). I do, however, need to make it very clear that abuse and neglect has been very much a part of the history of the Everglades, and has adversely affected the nearby urban areas. It will take me a day or so to cut and edit. I'll let you know when I think I'm done with that... Thank you for the review. -- Moni3 ( talk) 14:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There are notes that refer to Grunwald and others to Whitney, but they are not listed in the bibliography section. Halgin ( talk) 21:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the last of the Everglades articles and I was wondering how it was going. What do we need to do to get it to FAC? Awadewit ( talk) 15:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Moni, I see you're moving some image links to just above the relevant headings instead of just after. As argued recently at WT:MOS, I will fight to the death to have images that appear to be entirely contained in one section be considered a part of that section rather than the section above; however, WP:ACCESS currently says that the image link has to follow the heading, because screen readers aren't currently smart enough to read the heading before the image, and the devs in their wisdom store such an image in the database record of the preceding section or subsection. Not sure what to say, except that I'm slack and I haven't fought this battle with the devs yet, but I should. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I missed it somewhere in that rather large article, but I failed to see a section on the animal life in the Everglades. In the ecology section, there are a dozen or so specific species links for plants, and only vague references to sea turtles, reptiles, turtles, crustaceans, etc with no specific species mentioned. most people can figure out what kind of alligators live there, but animals such as the snail kite (and others i can't think of at the moment) probably deserve a mentiona and a wiki link. Just something to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 ( talk) 15:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks like references 12 and 13 need additional "p"s. Could someone confirm this and fix it, as I'm not sure if there's some weird rule regarding it. Mm40 ( talk) 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I added "map designers" since probably most people don't know definition of "cartographers".
I've removed the sentence about an asteroid impact:
Seems a geologist proposed this at a GSA meeting in 1985, it was picked up by Science news, then nothing until the proposer co-authors a book in 2007 and ties it in to the Chesapeake Bay impact. Don't see anything else relevant in google scholar 1st 5 pages of cites. I also note that Gene Shoemaker didn't think much of the idea at the GSA meeting. An interesting idea and "headline grabbing" hypothesis, but seems nothing came of it. So ... seems perhaps a bit of undue weight. Vsmith ( talk) 21:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... changed this aquifer lies beneath thousands of feet of impenetrable sedimentary rock to this aquifer lies beneath thousands of feet of impermeable sedimentary rock and it was promptly reverted with the summary: undo; this refers to well-digging more than liquid percolation. Now it seems unlikely anyone is going to dig a well thousands of feet deep, and well drilling equipment does not find sedimentary rock impenetrable, so I would assume impermeable was preferred as a cap to an artesian aquifer. Don't have access to the book ref'd but doesn't seem likely. Please explain what I may be missing here. Vsmith ( talk) 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking over the article, and imagine that I will several questions about it (though only two at the moment). Each is signed by me to compartmentalize discussion. Awickert ( talk) 05:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The current Wikipedia edit begins: "The Everglades are...", but Everglades has traditionally been a singular place name.
The latest edition of Garner's Modern American Usage says use of Everglades as a plural is "ill-advised".
Encyclopedia Britannica uses Everglades as a singular.
U.S. Government documents found online also refer to the Everglades as a singular.
The plural use is understandable and common in speech and online writing, but is still a mistake.
I think that any open-minded researcher who spent some time at the library would see that the singular use is correct.
This is an important article and it should not be spreading a misuse, however popular.
24.19.164.125 ( talk) 10:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
You've listed one author who prefers "are" without admitting that the vast majority of reputable sources use "is". Even Lodge, who you chose to quote, prefers "is". This needs to be examined by others who care about quality and good editing in Wikipedia.
24.19.164.125 (
talk)
23:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
'Are' is a styilistic choice forgiveable by Marjory Stoneman Douglas, but not in an encyclopedia. 24.19.164.125 ( talk) 02:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
An interesting map addition, would be a "Geologic/Geographic Map", showing the width of the Florida peninsula, and its width with continental shelf drop-offs, when the ocean levels dropped to 200 meters lower?... or is it 400 FT, about 133 m... anyway the width of the peninsula changes by 50 to 75 percent, I believe, thus the species related, and watershed of the Everglades would change during that time period.... Mmcannis ( talk) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I'd like to add some text about a series of U.S. National Research Council reports that review the progress of CERP. I think this could be added at the end of the current text on CERP, within the Restoration section (section 8.4).
I'd appreciate any feedback. Best wishes, Earlgrey101 ( talk) 14:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
References
Should this article be renamed the everglades
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Everglades. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The map under is confusing.-- Ezzex ( talk) 14:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Everglades. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I think there is a water problem for everglades can you help clarify it and can you use the info in your artical — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicspy ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Everglades. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Okeechobee means “big water” in the Seminole or Creek Language (perhaps the writer means “Pay-hay-okee”). Rahiim03 ( talk) 18:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sut6777 ( article contribs).
Everglades has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Everglades is the main article in the Everglades series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am requesting a geographical map on this page to show WHERE the Everglades is. Axezz 12/04-2005 00:03 CET
Also, it would be nice to have a number on the percentage of Florida covered in the everglades before and after colonization. Also, headline text is repeated twice at the bottom of the page and some links are broken, or don't appear as links yet. -Da Newb 3/06-2007 12:20
Oh, and I realized that the WWF's page on the Everglades [1] has stats that could give percentages of altered/converted area. There's no truly objective way to delineated an ecoregion or to say how much human-caused change equals "no longer the Everglades", but using the WWF's numbers here's what I worked out: Total size of the Everglades ecoregion (pre-colonization) = 7800 sq mi. Of that, 1093 sq mi were converted to farmland south of Lake Okeechokee, and 936 sq mi to urban (or urban-related) in the east. Of the whole 7800 sq mi the WWF says only 2% (156 sq mi) remains "truly intact", and 30% (2340 sq mi) are "altered but restorable". See that WWF page for details on all this. Pfly 18:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Everglades. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 129.10.104.142 17:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (suitable for nonsense)
There have been recent expansions to the park's tourist facilities to bring in more money to Florida's economy such as a massive extension to the visiting center, many outposts along the bridges that span the Everglades that teach people about the many birds and other wildlife native to the Everglades as well as a small petting zoo for tards.
edited this comment out last night,posted as retards, and somone had changed it back to just tards. Proceeding to edit out this comment again.
Someone tried to post "The Florida Everglades-2006.jpg" in the middle of the introduction. I removed it, as when I corrected the code thingeh, the image was too big. Does anyone actually want to use this, or was this just the work of some guy that's never going to come back? >_> Count DeSheep 20:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Stoneman Douglas published "The Everglades" in late November and the park was dedicated in early December, so it seems unlikely to me that the former had a singularly galvanizing effect and caused the creation of the park, as claimed in the entry. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
70.19.124.95 (
talk)
16:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following from the top of the article:
It may be worth adding a note on how the Everglades were named to the History section. I may just take a stab at it. -- Donald Albury 00:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
During the superfun Featured Article Candidate process for Everglades National Park, I promised in writing to expand this article, and I'm readying myself for this, what I foresee, will be a massive rewrite with additional articles. Individual articles will probably be needed for Geology of the Everglades, Ecosystems of the Everglades, Human History of the Everglades, and Development and Conservation of the Everglades (if not an article devoted to Restoration of the Everglades apart from the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan). Dalbury assisted me with some of the history of the park article. I've purchased over $200 worth of books and I'm considering buying more for this...Yarrr.
However, I think the layout of the article should probably appear as:
I'm going to need assistance with visuals as well. Anyone handy with a drawing program for making maps?
Thoughts or comments? Last issue: There is no manual of style address for singular or plural references to Everglades. It is proper to say "The Everglades are" as well as "The Everglades is". But we're probably going to need to be consistent. I prefer the plural myself. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I was simply pointing out a very interesting angle that seemed to be missing: the Everglades didn't exist during the glacial period: they came into being only 5000 years ago. Here's a map of the estimated Florida coastline during the recent glacial maximum: with sea level estimated 100m lower, the area was high and dry. I googled "glacial Florida" and brought up samples of Gleason and Stone, "Age, origin and landscape evolution of the Everglades peatland: environmental changes leading to the formation of the Everglades", in Steven M. Davis, John C. Ogden, eds. Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration (pp 156ff), which support my amateurish understanding. Try it yourself. Very interesting.-- Wetman ( talk) 08:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a sign in Gatorland saying that the headwaters of the Everglades is in Gatorland up near Orlando. A look at the maps in this article show that it might be possible. If you think this might be true. I will post the photo. Americasroof ( talk) 11:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
everglades is a wet place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.106.34 ( talk) 16:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you think it would make the article a little more accessible to shorten the lead? For example, the first sentence is now "The Florida Everglades are a subtropical marshland located in the southern portion of the U.S. state of Florida, specifically in parts of Monroe, Collier, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Broward counties."
How about, for example, "The Florida Everglades is a vast system of fresh water marshes located in the southern portion of Florida? You can go into more explanation and detail in the body of the article. – Mattisse ( Talk) 17:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not put most of the information from the CERP section into the CERP main article? -- Jagz ( talk) 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I am no image expert, but I have tried to give the images a once-over:
The only reason I mention the commons moves is because I once had an FAC reviewer demand that I move everything in the PD to commons and, after all, it is a nice thing to do! Awadewit ( talk) 00:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The sign warning visitors not to eat more than one bass per week appears to have been vandalized. (The actual sign, not the image) Someone appears to have scratched out the B in bass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.16.222 ( talk) 15:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
"Sloughs are about 3 feet (0.91 m) deeper than sawgrass marshes, and may stay flooded for at least 11 months out of the year if not multiple years in a row.[41]" Do we really need to describe what a slough is? RC-0722 361.0/ 1 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Should we have an intro paragraph for the Ecosystems section? RC-0722 361.0/ 1 04:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7472577.stm - rst20xx ( talk) 18:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Everglades/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am beginning the review. Due to the length of the article, I will probably post my comments in stages. Brianboulton ( talk) 16:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
First stage
This is an unusual article to find at GAN. It has been researched, prepared and written to a standard that suggests that its ultimate goal is FAC. One choice for the GA reviewer is to swiftly pass it and recommend it goes to FAC; however, the nominating editor obviously felt the need for an extra layer of review before taking such a step. I have decided to to review it beyond the GA criteria (though its promotion will be determined by those criteria), as a potential FA candidate, in the hope that this course will be the most helpful to the nominating editor.
There are two general issues before the detail:-
1. Length: At 10,300+ words the readable prose is beyond the 6,000-10,000 range quoted in WP:LENGTH as the maximum before reader fatigue sets in. At 95kb it is nearly at the point where WP:Length says an article should "almost certainly be divided". Have the editors thought about dividing? The obvious step would be to separate the "history" section, which itself is around 4,000-4,500 words long. There really does seem to me to be two articles here, and I would recommend giving some serious consideration to the question of dividing.
2. Accessiblity: The article is well-written and for the most part eminently readable. There are instances, however, where the technical descriptions and language used may alienate or confuse the general reader. I have to say that at times I wasn't clear in my mind what I was reading about. One advantage of a split would be that it would provide room for explanations of some of the more complex terms. I will try, in the detailed review, to indicate words, phrases or sections where I found comprehension difficulties.
Review details
This is the first section of the review. More will follow. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is the next instalment. Since there is concurrent peer review, some of my points may be raised and dealt with there. Where that happens, please strike my point out on this list.
Part three to follow. Brianboulton ( talk) 12:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Episode 3:-
I'm taking a short break here. I shall return. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the final section of my review
Having worked through the entire article, I am more convinced than ever that it needs to be split. It is too long. It is scholarly and very comprehensive, a formidable piece of work, in fact. But it’s not a light read, and it gets harder to concentrate in the latter stages as reader fatigue sets in. My strong recommendation is to take out the history sections and create a companion article.
As I said at the start, I would review with FA in mind, but would determine the GA outcome on GA criteria. As it stands, notwithstanding my views as to its size, it seems to me clearly of GA standard, and I don’t see any point in messing about with contrived hurdles. That will enable you to get on with the serious business of preparing it (?them) for FAC. Before I do the actual promoting I would like to know your views on the splitting option; you may have compelling reasons for not doing this, and I’d like to hear them.
Brianboulton ( talk) 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I read most of the comments and haven't yet had a chance to get started on a thorough editing session. As you were the GA reviewer for Restoration of the Everglades, and there are {{main| article links throughout the Everglades article, I'm sure you noted that this article has 5 splits: Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Geography and ecology of the Everglades, Draining and development of the Everglades, Restoration of the Everglades, and Everglades National Park. The history has actually been split off into three main articles.
If your recommendation is to brutally cut the majority of detail from this one...I can try (without weeping like a child). I do, however, need to make it very clear that abuse and neglect has been very much a part of the history of the Everglades, and has adversely affected the nearby urban areas. It will take me a day or so to cut and edit. I'll let you know when I think I'm done with that... Thank you for the review. -- Moni3 ( talk) 14:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
There are notes that refer to Grunwald and others to Whitney, but they are not listed in the bibliography section. Halgin ( talk) 21:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the last of the Everglades articles and I was wondering how it was going. What do we need to do to get it to FAC? Awadewit ( talk) 15:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Moni, I see you're moving some image links to just above the relevant headings instead of just after. As argued recently at WT:MOS, I will fight to the death to have images that appear to be entirely contained in one section be considered a part of that section rather than the section above; however, WP:ACCESS currently says that the image link has to follow the heading, because screen readers aren't currently smart enough to read the heading before the image, and the devs in their wisdom store such an image in the database record of the preceding section or subsection. Not sure what to say, except that I'm slack and I haven't fought this battle with the devs yet, but I should. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I missed it somewhere in that rather large article, but I failed to see a section on the animal life in the Everglades. In the ecology section, there are a dozen or so specific species links for plants, and only vague references to sea turtles, reptiles, turtles, crustaceans, etc with no specific species mentioned. most people can figure out what kind of alligators live there, but animals such as the snail kite (and others i can't think of at the moment) probably deserve a mentiona and a wiki link. Just something to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 ( talk) 15:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks like references 12 and 13 need additional "p"s. Could someone confirm this and fix it, as I'm not sure if there's some weird rule regarding it. Mm40 ( talk) 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I added "map designers" since probably most people don't know definition of "cartographers".
I've removed the sentence about an asteroid impact:
Seems a geologist proposed this at a GSA meeting in 1985, it was picked up by Science news, then nothing until the proposer co-authors a book in 2007 and ties it in to the Chesapeake Bay impact. Don't see anything else relevant in google scholar 1st 5 pages of cites. I also note that Gene Shoemaker didn't think much of the idea at the GSA meeting. An interesting idea and "headline grabbing" hypothesis, but seems nothing came of it. So ... seems perhaps a bit of undue weight. Vsmith ( talk) 21:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... changed this aquifer lies beneath thousands of feet of impenetrable sedimentary rock to this aquifer lies beneath thousands of feet of impermeable sedimentary rock and it was promptly reverted with the summary: undo; this refers to well-digging more than liquid percolation. Now it seems unlikely anyone is going to dig a well thousands of feet deep, and well drilling equipment does not find sedimentary rock impenetrable, so I would assume impermeable was preferred as a cap to an artesian aquifer. Don't have access to the book ref'd but doesn't seem likely. Please explain what I may be missing here. Vsmith ( talk) 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been looking over the article, and imagine that I will several questions about it (though only two at the moment). Each is signed by me to compartmentalize discussion. Awickert ( talk) 05:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The current Wikipedia edit begins: "The Everglades are...", but Everglades has traditionally been a singular place name.
The latest edition of Garner's Modern American Usage says use of Everglades as a plural is "ill-advised".
Encyclopedia Britannica uses Everglades as a singular.
U.S. Government documents found online also refer to the Everglades as a singular.
The plural use is understandable and common in speech and online writing, but is still a mistake.
I think that any open-minded researcher who spent some time at the library would see that the singular use is correct.
This is an important article and it should not be spreading a misuse, however popular.
24.19.164.125 ( talk) 10:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
You've listed one author who prefers "are" without admitting that the vast majority of reputable sources use "is". Even Lodge, who you chose to quote, prefers "is". This needs to be examined by others who care about quality and good editing in Wikipedia.
24.19.164.125 (
talk)
23:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
'Are' is a styilistic choice forgiveable by Marjory Stoneman Douglas, but not in an encyclopedia. 24.19.164.125 ( talk) 02:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
An interesting map addition, would be a "Geologic/Geographic Map", showing the width of the Florida peninsula, and its width with continental shelf drop-offs, when the ocean levels dropped to 200 meters lower?... or is it 400 FT, about 133 m... anyway the width of the peninsula changes by 50 to 75 percent, I believe, thus the species related, and watershed of the Everglades would change during that time period.... Mmcannis ( talk) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I'd like to add some text about a series of U.S. National Research Council reports that review the progress of CERP. I think this could be added at the end of the current text on CERP, within the Restoration section (section 8.4).
I'd appreciate any feedback. Best wishes, Earlgrey101 ( talk) 14:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
References
Should this article be renamed the everglades
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Everglades. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
The map under is confusing.-- Ezzex ( talk) 14:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Everglades. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I think there is a water problem for everglades can you help clarify it and can you use the info in your artical — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicspy ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Everglades. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Okeechobee means “big water” in the Seminole or Creek Language (perhaps the writer means “Pay-hay-okee”). Rahiim03 ( talk) 18:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sut6777 ( article contribs).