Talk:Beaver drop/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Well I scratched my head over whether this was actually notable, especially as this basically reflects a single-event news splash about the rediscovered video in 2015. The alternative would be a small section (or paragraph) at Beaver, where conservation and relocation are basically unmentioned.

Parachuting beavers proved to be more cost-effective and it decreased the beaver mortality rates more than other alternative methods of relocation. [10] - suggest "Parachuting proved to be more cost-effective, and it had a lower mortality rate than other methods of relocation.", and close up before the ref.
Done Lightburst (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we take Nadeau's comment at face value, parachuting ended by 1965. Do we know why, if the approach was cheaper and killed fewer beavers, why they switched from flying back to driving at that time?
I am not sure but will look for any RS that answers the ?. Lightburst (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is and article that claims, Liebenthal says he’s not sure why the project didn’t continue past 1948. "But my assumption is that they accomplished what they wanted to accomplish in the area and there was no need to continue." Lightburst (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, with the Liebenthal attribution it's certainly usable, and state public radio is a RS. I guess the unstated/unstateable subtext is that there have been no mass rehomings since, and the odd one that is still done is by road.
added Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Why are we not including a fair-use image of one of the beavers being parachuted in? It's clearly relevant. The images are PD as they were published without a copyright notice. I can fix you up with a selection if you're unsure of the tech or NFUR approach.

Thanks for that. It is a good idea and I would appreciate that effort. Lightburst (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do.... here you are, feel free to use as you like.

Packing a beaver into a drop box
Beaver drop box parachuting to land
Beaver drop box sprung open on landing

Great images. I added relevant images. The one of the chute does not show much so I skipped it for now. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have Heter's diagram of a drop box as PD; the same rationale may well apply to the Fish and Game department's video images. Anyway, the diagram is clearly relevant and properly licensed.

Sources

At the moment, the article's claim to Notability rests principally on refs [1] National Geographic and [9] Idaho Fish and Game (since the "Background" does not contribute to the subject as such, and "Legacy" is mainly about the news splash; though [2] Popular Mechanics is also a contemporary account. The case for keeping the article (rather than merging to Beaver) would be clearer if [2] were cited also in the main 'Parachuting' section.

Could be worth citing The Guardian on this.

Added the Guardian in the Legacy section Lightburst (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.

East Idaho News may also be worth looking at.
This source had a good quote that fit in Legacy. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good, that's greatly improved the section.
Check it out. Beaver Drop Beer Lightburst (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a shame we can't include their logo but I don't think it'd pass the image police. But by all means add that archive link in a footnote.

Ranchers' Friend and Farmers' Foe: Reshaping Nature with Beaver Reintroduction in California (Fountain, Steven M. “Ranchers’ Friend and Farmers’ Foe: Reshaping Nature with Beaver Reintroduction in California.” Environmental History 19, no. 2 (2014): 239–69. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24690558.) provides a detailed discussion of the reintroduction issues in a Californian context, and mentions the Idaho approach at the end ("Idaho perhaps offered the most extreme cases of translocation, where game managers pushed "beaver drop boxes" attached to war-surplus parachutes out of airplanes over remote and rugged terrain.[60]"); its ref [60] stated "Joseph P. Linduska, ed., "State by State," in Restoring America's Wildlife, 367; "Final Report: Beaver Management of the State of Oregon Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, 1940 Season Project No. 1-D-l," "Miscellaneous Files, 1934-1955," DNRR, F3735:543; "Preliminary Project Statement, Idaho Project 1-D," n. d., DNRR, F3735:543; Elmo W. Heter, "Transplanting Beavers by Airplane and Parachute," Journal of Wildlife Management 14 (1950): 143-47. Heter reported only one fatality out of seventy-six animals dropped in 1948." I don't think there's much new here but it is a solid "Reliable Source" so worth citing.

Summary

The article seems to have a coherent and reliably-cited story, and to be suitably illustrated. I still think it would be helpful to cite Fountain et al (the last item above).
I added a sentence about the California program and their comment about the Idaho program from the Fountain source. Lightburst (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.