Talk:Everglades/GA1

GA 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

• Lead
  • As with the whole article, the lead is long – 600+ words, 5 paragraphs – longer I supect than the "too long" example given in WP:Lead. Could some of the detail in the lead be absorbed into briefer summaries?
  • There is an awkward double-mention of Lake Okeechobee in 2nd/3rd lines. The link is on the 2nd mention
  • Sentence beginning "The Kissimmee River…" is far too long. My suggestion: stop (US=period) after "fresh water lake". Then new sentence: "Water leaving the lake…" up to a stop after "(160 km) long". Then final sentence: "This flows southward…" etc. Three sentences from one.
  • Comma required after "drought" in last line, 1st para.
  • "prairies of sawgrass in water that flows…" Shouldn’t "flows" be "flow" (related to prairies plural)?
  • To some readers, terms like "slough" and "ecosystem" will be unfamiliar and may need explaining (difficult, I know, when I’ve said the lead is too long). Ecosystem could be linked, however.
  • The sentence beginning: "In 1947, Congress…" is too long and deals with two different things. Break sentence at "control devices".
  • Why, and in what sense, did conservation of the Everglades become an "international issue?"
  • Is it "divisive" (tending to divide) or "divided" (already separate) interests?

• Etymology
  • I often get accused, with good reason, of using elitist language in my articles. I wonder if the term "etymology" is widely understood? Perhaps a less elegant heading, such as "Derivation of term", might be preferable. Think about this.
  • "A British surveyor named John Gerard…etc" could be "British surveyor John…"
  • Commas needed after the name, and after 1773
  • A comma is also needed in the second sentence of this para, to determine meaning. Should the comma be after "grassy place", or after "forest"? The meaning depends on the placement.
  • Marjory Stoneham Douglas doesn’t need linking on 2nd mention
  • Surely, "that 'River' was turned to 'Ever'…"
  • "…although it was spelled as two words…" – you don’t then need to spell the two words!
  • (last line) "although it appeared…"

• Geology
  • I tend to link the first mention in text of scientific disciplines, even better-known ones such as geology. This is just a suggestion.
  • "What Florida is today was part of…" is a little clumsy. "What is now Florida was part of…"?
  • Gondwana shouldn’t be described as an "African" supercontinent, since it included South America, Australasia and Antarctica.
  • Sorry, I’m trying to get my head round the sentence: "About 300 million years ago, North America collided with Africa, connecting Florida with North America". Did they actually "collide" (crash together with violent impact), or did they "merge"?
  • "Continental rifting"? Don’t know this term, I think it needs explaining.
  • With regard to Pangea, rather than relying on a link to a somewhat technical article, couldn’t a footnote explain in a sentence the Pangea formation?
  • "When Florida was initially part of Africa…" - "initially" is redundant (later) Suggest: "When Florida was joined to Africa"

• Limestone and aquifers
  • "found in sea water" phrase probably unnecessary
  • Repetition of "limestone formations" at end first/start second sentences reads awkwardly
  • The "however" in last sentence of first para looks misplaced. Try it at beginning of sentence
  • May I suggest you don’t use the Ft abbreviation for "Fort" (and especially not Ft.)? It looks wrong, and the abbreviation means something quite different in Brit-Eng.
  • No comma needed after "epoch"
  • The sentence beginning "Bordering the Tamiami…" is much too long, and with two parenthetical clauses, too convoluted. Divide into at least two, possibly 3 sentences.
  • In what sense is "properties" used, in "properties of the Everglades"? Does this mean real estate, or general componentss, or what?

• Hydrology
  • I wonder about the organisation of this section. It seems to begin rather suddenly. The natural beginning to the section seems to me to be the sentence beginning "The consistent Everglades flooding…", with the stuff about peat and calcium coming after. This is just my impression, however.
  • It’s easy to miss the point in front of 5, and so misread this as 5 miles per day. It would be better as "half a mile a day", and probably more in accord with MoS.
  • "approximated" is an ugly word, and I’m not sure it exists as a verb. "Estimated" would be neater.
  • General – I did find this section quite hard to follow, with its unfamiliar terms. I am getting a little concerned with the question of accessibility for the ordinary reader.

• Climate
  • I understand a 5-month summer wet season, when 75% of rain falls. The other 25% falls in a 7-month dry season. But you only mention November to March, which isn’t seven months. So my image of the year’s rainfall spread is confused.
  • "Convection thunderstorm" is not a familiar term to the layperson
  • I am puzzled by this sentence: "Strong winds from these storms serve to disperse plants and animals and offer natural opportunities for the renewal of mangrove forests, coral reefs and other ecosystems". It isn’t clear to me where these renewal opportunities are coming from - strong winds? dispersal of plants and animals? I just can’t visualise a process here.

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.

• Formative processes (preamble)
  • I see old Marje gets linked again
  • "Borders between ecosystems are subtle and imperceptible". This, and the two sentences following, reads like (educated) opinion. They must be cited.

• Water
  • This subsection is under-referenced. It contains several statements but only one citation
  • Why was the rainwater "slightly acidic"?

• Rock
  • Since you have clearly explained what a hydroperiod is, I don’t see a need for a redlink – unless you intend to call your next article "hydroperiod".
  • "Ooids" is another term you continue to link, long after its first mention.
  • Second para: is all the info in this para found on p. 38 of Lodge’s book? If not, there are other citations to be made.

• Fire
  • The sentence about destroying root systems looks in need of citation
  • Is "muck" the scientific term for what you’re talking about here?

• Sawgrass marshes and sloughs
  • First sentence – this point made in similar words a couple of subsections ago –( I called it "opinion".) Unnecessary to repeat it here
  • I don’t think it necessary, either, to repeat the full measurements of the shallow river (spoils the flow of the text).
  • "11 months of the year" should be "out of the year", with a comma after "year"

• Tropical hardwood hammock
  • Grammar point: "The height of the trees are limited…" – should be "is limited"

• Pineland
  • "understory shrubs" – unexplained term
  • "as of 1990…..of pine forests remain…" 1990 is 18 years ago, so it must be "remained". Are there no more up to date data to quote?
  • Can "transition" be a verb? Doesn’t sound good.

• Cypress
  • "The name refers to its size…" Better to say "area"
  • Last sentence looks in need of a citation

• Mangrove and coastal prairie
  • This sentence has lost its way, somewhat: "Where fresh water meets salt water is a transitional zone where mangrove trees grow, and are specially adapted to both kinds of water, called brackish." Perhaps try: "Mangrove trees grow in the transitional zone where fresh and salt water meet, since these trees are specially adapted to brackish water".
  • Last part of 2nd para needs citation. The penultimate sentence could also be simplified, to: "Red mangoes also have far-reaching roots, trapping sediments that can build on to…" etc

• Florida Bay
  • "There are approximately a hundred keys in Florida Bay…". You must explain the term "key". Also, why "a hundred", not 100?

Part three to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Episode 3:-

• Calusa
  • Entire first paragraph is without citation
  • "seventeen" should be numeric
  • "Finding little use for the soft limestone, most of their tools were made of bone or teeth.." Not a grammatical construction – try "As they found little use…" etc
  • There’s a lot of uncited facts between refs [76] and [77]
  • "and asked the Spanish to be removed to Cuba where almost 200 died of illness". This isn’t right – there are two quite separate facts which happened at different times:(i) they asked the Spanish to remove them to Cuba, (ii) while they were in Cuba, 200 died of illness (or disease?). So I suggest: "…asked the Spanish to remove them to Cuba. Here, 200 of them subsequently died of illness".
  • "again" in final sentence is unnecessary.

• Tequesta
  • Once again there seems to be under-referencing, before [81]. Perhaps these facts are referenced in the main article, but they need to be here as well
  • "Menendez maintained a friendly relationship with them and took the chief’s nephew to Havana to be educated, and the chief’s brother to Spain". Needs tidying, along the lines: "Menendez maintained friendly relations with them, sending the chief’s nephew to Havana to be educated, and taking the chief’s brother to Spain".

• Seminole
  • First three statements all want citing
  • Comma wanted after "agriculture"
  • "They made a living hunting and trading…" – needs a "by" before trading
  • The phrase "probably from the Calusa" needs commas either side of it
  • Despite the link, I think that Jackson ought to be identified in the text ("future US president")
  • My general feeling about this subsection is that, at times (e.g. in the last sentence), it drifts away from the Everglades. I think that words could be saved here, by tightening the focus.

• Drainage
  • Piffling point – but is it "Secretary of Treasury" or "Secretary of the Treasury"?
  • It would be good to have a modern value equivalent of $500,000. According to Measuringworth.com the present worth of $500,000 in 1842 is just over $13 million.
  • To help with the chronology, would it be possible, within this section (or the previous one), to say when Florida became a state?

• Hamilton Disston
  • Comma required after (IIF)
  • Either a comma after first Disston mention, or insert "who was"
  • As a matter of interest, $1m in 1881 = £20m now.

• Henry Flagler
  • "Became enchanted" is a phrase that has to be cited
  • What does "incorporate the town" mean, in this context?

• Empire of the Everglades
  • Should specify the Florida gubanatorial race
  • "He called the future of South Florida the Empire of the Everglades, and compared its potential to Holland and Egypt". Must be cited
  • Missing word: "Soon after his election (he) fulfilled…"
  • Numerous copyedit problems in the second para. Jennings should be specified as predecessor as governor. Clarify it was Broward who was elected to the Senate in 1910. Semicolon, not comma after "warranted them". "Instead" is redundant in last line, and 1912 is misplaced, since it refers to the change of plan, not to reaching Key West.
  • Just a thought: is this subsection appropriately titled?

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

• Population and economic surge
  • "Advertisements promised that within eight weeks…"
  • Comma after "find the peat"
  • Excessive detail in 2nd para, especially in relation to feathers and millinery
  • The "and" after "population boom" would be better as a "with", with a comma after boom

• Flood control
  • "Control of…… was (not were) delegated"
  • "legal limits of the lake" – depth limits, presumably?
  • Comma after "was also constructed", and also after "deep"
  • 2nd para: the last sentence would read better: "The populations of the small towns surrounding the lake tripled after World War II"
  • "Scientists…did not take into account that the organic composition…"
  • (Last line) The comma after "places" should be moved to after "stilts"

• Everglades National Park
  • Ms Douglas has been mentioned (and linked) 3 times prior to this, yet you are introducing her as though for the first time. In the lead she was described as an "environmental activist".

• Flood control project
  • Comma redeployment: transfer the comma after "bordered each WCA" to after "dryer times"
  • Does in the information in the last few sentences, beginning "During the 1950s and 1960s…" really belong in this subsection, about a flood control project?

• Everglades agricultural area
  • On a technicality, "sod" is not grown, since the term refers both to the grass and the earth that binds it together as turf. It is the grass that is grown. It looks very odd to see "sod" treated as a crop alongside beans, celery etc.
  • Comma redeployment: transfer the comma after "two sides" to after "in and out"

• Jetport proposition
  • The first part of the section s unreferenced.
  • It’s Marjorie again: did she really give "hundreds" of speeches?

• Invasive speeches
  • I can’t make any sense of the following sentence: "The seeds of the tree were sprinkled from airplanes using salt and pepper shakers, because they take water in greater amounts than other trees". It seems to have been inserted into the paragraph from somewhere else.
  • Consistency: Brazilian pepper or Brazilian Pepper?

• Comprehensive Everglades restoration plan
  • I am not sure about "the quality of South Florida". You need to specify what quality. Is it the quality of water in South Florida, or something more general? You must be clear.
  • "the report noted was ironic for the 53 inches.." Suggest "was ironic, given the 53 inches…"
  • "harm to the system" is too vague a phrase. "The system" isn’t precise enough. Is it the South Florida ecosystem?
  • Para 3 first line, "however" is redundant. And "this, not "the" proposal
  • Comma after "has been purchased by the State of Florida"
  • The "and" after "budget surplus" should be a "but"

• Future of the Everglades
  • This short subsection gives a rather downbeat ending to the article, and the low-key information doesn’t do any justice to the rather grandiose subsection title. I would scrap the title, which promises more than it delivers, and graft these two short paras to the end of the preceding section.

• Reference formats.
  • I notice that you are not combining references, despite many opportunities to do so. For example, [13] and [19] are to the same page of Lodge, as are [27] and [29]. There are many other examples. You can combine further using short page ranges – refs [153] to [156] could all be combined in Lodge, pp. 241–44. I reckon you could reduce the length of this reflist by at least 25%.

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)

On splitting

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)

I don't want you to do anything brutally. I understand fully your reluctance to cut something that you have put your heart and soul into, and this is a quality article. As an alternative to splitting, I think that with some judicious editing and selection of material, you could probably reduce your text by 10 to 15 per cent - that's 1000 to 1,500 words - while keeping the existing structure, but in my view increasing the article's readability. Even that might be painful, but if you don't take some kind of step in this direction I think you will be risking trouble over the length issue at FAC. That's my view, but what do other people say? Ask around before you take any final step. I'll be happy to support any decision you take with regard to the future of the article. I am dealing with the GA promotion, since this is not an issue. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I put the history section into a sandbox and I'll play around with cutting 50% and 10% in two different versions. I asked SandyGeorgia about article size a while ago when I thought this article was going to be huge. With large concepts like Roman Catholic Church and Action potential, it's usually a valid reason for the size. However I am concerned about readability. I'm willing to cut, but I have to play around with these versions. --Moni3 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If we can make it more readable, then I don't think the length will be a problem. One way to accomplish that is to move a few bits of the more technical words and concepts into the 4 articles that Moni just got through FAC...in fact, those articles already have some of this material in them. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)