Jump to content

Talk:Pensacola Dam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePensacola Dam has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 18, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 6, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Pensacola Dam on the Grand River in Oklahoma is referred to as the longest multiple-arch dam in the world, with 51 arches?

Erroneous Coordinates

[edit]

The box (sidebar) gives coordinates in two different places. The one starting degrees=95 is correct, the one giving degrees=98 is wrong (re-check on Google map before correcting) A.Kracher (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thanks for pointing that out. The degree longitude for the NHRP infobox was mistakenly 98 and the actual dam infobox template was 95.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pensacola Dam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you for nominating this article. I enjoyed it. No invalid disamb. or external links[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Disamb. links and external links check out.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    "The dam was almost built in 1914 by British capitalists but plans were halted due to World War I. In 1920, Holdermen refused an offer given by Chicago businessmen and in 1929, the Wall Street Crash ended the hopes of Canadian engineers and investors building the dam.[3]" - Sentence is run-on and a bit misleading. I assume that you are discussing the financing of construction with Holderman retaining a leadership role in the project, but the phrasing is unclear.
    "In DC, they argued for the dam" - unclear who "they" were.
    I tried to address these too two, basically what I get from the sources, in particular the NRHP, is that state and federal officials helped him out more so after the Great Depression began.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Footnote 1 has problems. The "Full PDF" link goes to a jpg file showing a picture of the dam rather than the entire document. The main link generates a 404 error. Please fix. How does fn 1 differ from fn 3?
    Removed, the full PDF is used in a subsequent reference.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fn 15 also has problems. You seem to want to cite to 33 C.F.R. § 208.25, which is available from a number of public domain sources. Yet, the text of the footnote is to "Griffes (2007). Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. ProStar Publications. pp. 129-130. ISBN 1577858352. http://books.google.com/books?id=A5_Ncbx6xlEC&pg=PA129&dq=Pensacola+Dam&hl=en&ei=UY2OTYGrNIiecbSx3ZYK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Pensacola%20Dam&f=false." You can cite to the official online source at the National Archives or to law.cornell.edu. I would explicitly cite to "33 C.F.R. § 208.25" and then give curtesey cites.
    Fn 9 should include an explicit reference to a page for each instance, if all three instances are not intended to refer to page 28.
    Page numbers added respectively.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fn 10 lists the author twice -- is this intended?
    Fixed.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    "The dam's power plant, with four original hydroelectric generators, began commercial operation in 1941.[9]" - can't find on page 28 of 2004 Annual Report
    It is on page 59 which states commercial operation in 1941. The NRHP PRF (page 15) states that units 5 and 6 were added in the 1950s, so it is given that 1-4 were operational in 1941.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Power Plant Upgrades" may be too close a paraphrase of page 28 of the 2004 Annual Report. Please review and reconsider wording.
    I assume you meant the last sentence, I reworded it differently.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    C. No original research:
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Page 5 of the 2004 annual report discusses the Homeland Security aspect of operating the dam and lake. Presumably major hydro dams are potential terrorism targets, and the article can briefly describe the steps that GRDA took after 9/11 to protect and patrol the dam. I know that they closed the road across the top of the Hoover Dam. Was any consideration given to closing Oklahoma State Highway 28? How far upstream or downstream are the next highway crossings of the Grand River? State whether the highway is 2 lanes or is it wider?
    Added info on highway and bridge. I haven't seen anything about the restriction of vehicles over the dam aside from weight.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding 9/11, they added a lake patrol along with a review and a some other measures. Haven't found anything out of the ordinary and notable enough to be in the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that you add a section about the regulation of the dam by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The dam has been designated as Project 1494 and FERC last issued a license on 4/24/1992. The license expires on 03/31/22. See http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/licenses.xls The earlier FERC/FPC licenses under the Federal Power Act can be incorporated into the history. You might want to review the orders issuing the licenses to see if there are relevant conditions regarding environmental protection, recreational opportunities or seismic remediation, etc.
    Added along with a subsection on the controversy that regulation in general has caused.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you include the observation building in the description. It is covered by the fn 3 source.
    I gather that the public tours feature the observation building. The public availability of the observation building and tours might be added to the article.
    Tourism added. Trying to find out more about the observation building before adding it to a specific section. I think it will go in the design section. I think the observation may be more for engineers rather than tourists.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find much on the observation building; just what it looks like and that it is near the substation. I added a mention of it in the design section.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No edit wars.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent comments

[edit]

I have added a bit of wikifying, but the article now meets the criteria. Thank you for your hard work and congratulations. Racepacket (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'r welcome, it is much improved now. Thanks again.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pensacola Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pensacola Dam. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pensacola_Dam&oldid=1209697061"