Talk:Tellico Dam

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Tennessee Valley Authority civil engineers monitoring hydraulics of a Tellico Dam prototype.

• ... that the Tellico Dam, built by the Tennessee Valley Authority built, was the subject of several controversies, including a Supreme Court case, and selling acquired land for private development? Source: Wheeler, William Bruce; McDonald, Michael J. (1986). TVA and the Tellico Dam, 1936-1979 A Bureaucratic Crisis in Post-Industrial America. Knoxville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee Press. pp. 125–129. ISBN 9780870494925.
  "A watery end: Tellico Dam fueled debate, lawsuits, tears". Knoxville News Sentinel. August 26, 2012.
  "Decision in TVA v. Hill", U.S. Supreme Court, 437 U.S. 153, decided June 15, 1978
  • ALT1: ... that the completion of Tellico Dam by the Tennessee Valley Authority was halted by the Supreme Court in 1978, citing environmental concerns? Source: "Decision in TVA v. Hill", U.S. Supreme Court, 437 U.S. 153, decided June 15, 1978
  • ALT2: ... that the Tellico Dam project resulted in controversy for its acquisition of farmland for real estate development, loss of Native American sites, and damaging an endangered fish species habitat? Source: "Decision in TVA v. Hill", U.S. Supreme Court, 437 U.S. 153, decided June 15, 1978
    Gilmer, Robert A. (2011). "In the shadow of removal: historical memory, Indianness, and the Tellico Dam Project". University of Michigan
    Wheeler, William Bruce; McDonald, Michael J. (1986). "The Little Tennessee Valley and the Process of Modernization". TVA and the Tellico Dam, 1936-1979 A Bureaucratic Crisis in Post-Industrial America. Knoxville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee Press. ISBN 9780870494925.
    Madden, Tom (July 2, 1981). "Private land TVA claimed for lake to be given away to developers". UPI.
  • Reviewed:

5x expanded by AppalachianCentrist (talk). Self-nominated at 20:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC).

Detailed article, fine expansion on plenty of sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I like ALT2 best. It's not clear how the image is related to the hook, and you don't see well what it shows in small size. No qpq needed yet. Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Further review

@AppalachianCentrist:. I have done as much as I can to improve the article, and I suggest you could consider resubmitting for Good Article review. My only remaining suggestion is to consider the "See also" section. Bussell Island could be mentioned in the body of the article, rather than just a listing in "See also". The other entry could potentially be removed, allowing the "See also" section to be deleted. Marshelec (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tellico Dam/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Larataguera (talk · contribs) 10:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

I am reviewing this article and will leave comments in the next few days. Larataguera (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

AppalachianCentrist, I think you've probably done a good job with this article overall, and it seems to be relatively complete (although I haven't researched it in depth to be sure). I have noted concerns about the prose below, which echo concerns from the previous review. My standards for concise prose are fairly high, so you may have better luck from another reviewer on this, but I think the article would be a lot better if it were more concise. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Larataguera (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Failed until prose can be made more concise. Larataguera (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   The article still needs substantial copyediting for concise style. Just in the first paragraphs of the background section we would need the following changes:

• The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was formally established in 1933 as part of programs under the New Deal. The agency was initially tasked with modernizing the region, using experts and electricity to combat human and economic problems->"The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was established in 1933 as part of the New Deal. The agency was tasked with modernizing the region, using experts and electricity to combat economic problems" (remove extra words; which human problems? this would need to be clarified or removed)
• In 1959, TVA chairman Red Wagner approved the restart of project development on the Fort Loudoun Extension, now named the Tellico Project.->"In 1959, the TVA reapproved development of the Fort Loudoun Extension, now called the Tellico Project" (22 words -> 16)
• Timberlake, the TVA's ambitious attempt at creating a city from scratch, aimed at providing a high-quality and self-sufficient city supporting an estimated population of 42,000. "Timberlake was envisioned as a planned community of about 42,000 people." (I’m sure it was ambitious, but would it ever have been self-sufficient? Certainly not. This reads like TVA marketing.)
• The project was promoted as a nationwide demonstration of land use initiatives and economic development for the poor rural area of the Little Tennessee Valley, to transform it into a thriving economic urban center. -> "The project was promoted as a demonstration of economic development for the rural poor, transforming the Little Tennessee Valley into a thriving urban center." (34 words – 24; it was obviously not a nationwide demonstration).
• The Tellico Dam component of the Timberlake initiative was planned to provide a large-size reservoir for water sports for recreation purposes and for freight transport via barge for proposed industrial sites that would get access to the Tennessee River through a canal. -> "The Tellico Dam would provide a large reservoir for recreation and for freight transport to proposed industrial sites with access to the Tennessee River through a canal" (42 words -> 27; same information).
• Despite no plans for generating electricity at the Tellico Dam site, the canal that was part of the project enabled an extra 23 MW of power generation capacity by diverting the flow of the Little Tennessee upstream of Fort Loudoun Dam. -> "The dam would not produce electricity, but the canal would enable an additional 23 MW of power generation at the Fort Loudon Dam by diverting flow from the Little Tennessee River" (41 words -> 31, same information).
• The Timberlake project obtained support with the announcement of major investment from the Boeing Corporation along with Congressional aid. -> The Timberlake project was initially supported with congressional aid and investment from Boeing Corporation. (19 words->14)
• The plans for the City of Timberlake never fully materialized and were discontinued in 1975 following pullout from Boeing, who cited the project as not economically feasible. -> "Boeing determined that the project was not economically feasible and withdrew in 1975; the plans never fully materialized" (27 words -> 18)

Taken individually, none of these changes are super important, but such revisions are necessary throughout the article. I estimate that the length of the article could be reduced by 20%-25% with concise style and without losing any information. I will hold the review for two weeks to see if someone can complete these revisions throughout the article, and if not I will have to fail without further investigation.

1. b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tellico Dam/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonathanischoice (talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm happy to review this over the next few days, I will build up comments below as I go. Please note I'm also reviewing Matiu / Somes Island as well, so I will have my hands full! Cheers — Jon (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added some comments below, and passed some of the critera as satisfactory. I think the article is otherwise in great shape, and I think the remaining issues are relatively minor. I've put the review on hold for a few days so we can address them, and hopefully at the end of that I can reassess and pass the article! Please feel free to comment under each bullet-point below if you need to discuss them (with a *: at the start of the line). Cheers — Jon (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@AppalachianCentrist: we're so close! There's only three really minor things left to do, I think: use of the word "seized" (maybe that's a reasonable use in the US? I don't know), a sentence or two somewhere in the text that summarises the dimensions of the finished dam and reservoir so that their appearance in the infobox can be supported by the text, and optionally collapsing the refs for the three chapters of TVA and the Tellico Dam, 1936-1979 into one reference with either {{sfn}} or {{rp}}. — Jon (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice

Regarding the usage of the word "seizure/seize," several sources in the article refer to TVA's methods of property acquisition as an act of seizure.

- Dam Greed (ref 24) page 262: "Wildlife, and Fisheries says these land deals betray the farmers whose land was seized years ago."

- The Snail Darter and the Dam: How Pork-Barrel Politics Endangered a Little Fish and Killed a River: "and around the Little T valley might need to be persuaded because a substantial majority of the land that would be seized —almost two-thirds of the sixty square miles,"

That should provide a justification into the usage of that terminology.

The inclusion of information regarding the dimensions of the reservoir have been added to the Construction and engineering section. Additionally, information regarding the property for development is added to the section.

I will work on your last requested revision right now.

Thanks, AppalachianCentrist (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair, and supported by the added Knoxville News-Sentinel ref.—Jon (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jonathanischoice,

The TVA and the Tellico Dam, 1936-1979, multi-sourcing has been revised with the "{rp}" template.

Thanks, AppalachianCentrist (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Great news, I'm passing the article now. Super effort, and well done!—Jon (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This is a well-written article with good style and maint-templates, categories and auth-control.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead ok; layout ok; watch words ok; fiction n/a; lists n/a.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are used in a consistent style with correct layout.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources are good. It might be nice to link to Open Library or Internet Archive instances of books sourced, rather than (or in addition to) Google Books, but this is a suggestion only.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I'm satisfied that there's no unreasonable or overreaching use of references or undue synthesis.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The Copyvio report on this article currently returns an alarming score of 93.9% which indicates a fair amount of verbatim copying from sources in ways that are not obvious quotes. Update: it turns out it was some junk SEO website that I think we can safely ignore. It may still be worth looking through the report to either quote-and-cite, summarise, or otherwise eliminate any verbatim patches, but I think they are mostly coincidental (place or organisation names, etc.)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Passing, infobox dimensions now covered in the text.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I think this is satisfied; good use of {{redirect}}, {{main}}, and {{see also}} to delegate to details in related articles.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Satisfied
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I'm satisfied that there is no edit-warring or other controversies in the talk page and edit history.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image tags are sufficient and valid.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good and meaningful use of images throughout.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm passing this now, after a long effort and extensive improvements by User:AppalachianCentrist through three reviews. Well done!

Comments below, by section.

Review comments

Overall I think this is a very good article, just a few things to note so far. Firstly, the good things are the prose, grammar and spelling, use of illustrative images, and good linking throughout.

Lead/introduction

I'm not a Tennessean, but I wonder if seized is too strong or emotive a word for Wikipedia, appearing five times throughout the article. Maybe "acquired" or "forfeited" or some more NPOV wording? I'm happy to be convinced. see discussion, above.—Jon (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC) This is good, but I think the completed in 1979 fact should be nearer the start, in the first sentence or two. Not required for GA, but an easy quick-win would be to use the coordinates from Wikidata to add a map to the infobox, e.g. location = {{infobox mapframe|id=Q7697601|zoom=8}}

Background

Introduce the Tennessee Valley Authority; to anyone outside the US, it may not immediately be clear they are a public electricity utility. The wartime issues link is odd, there's no need to hide it, and it may not be clear to some readers which war; maybe something like "financial constraints imposed by US involvement in World War II" (maintaining the link to the home front article). Introduce Boeing. Is there anything interesting about what Boeing's interest in the project was (and later withdrawal)?

Engineering and construction

Units in feet should provide metric equivalents; ideally, use the {{convert}} template. I see this was done while I was writing comments :) The dam's current physical aspects, its displacement of water, volume, reservoir area, etc. are listed in the infobox, but the infobox is supposed to summarise information in the article; so we need a description in the prose. It should be easy to just re-use the figures and the reference (5).

Environmental impacts, controversies, and legal action
passing an amendment in a seemingly unrelated public works bill - "seemingly" is editorialising, and moreover not needed, assuming it was a rider clause. Suggest something like "adding a rider clause to an unrelated public works bill" Ref 32 (Gilmer, 2011) should use the {{Cite thesis}} template and indicate that it is a PhD dissertation.

References

Three references (currently 14, 16, and 18) are chapters from the same book, TVA and the Tellico Dam, 1936-1979. It's not clear which specific claims are being cited. I advise using either a single reference to the book combined with the {{rp}} template to refer to a specific page or page-range, or add the book (and possibly some of the other sources, books in particular) to a bibliography section, and use the {{sfn}} template; for GA examples of using bibliography + sfn, see the contrabass trombone and cimbasso articles, both of which cite two or three of the same works. If it helps, I've found most of the books on the Internet Archive or Open Library: Cadillac Desert (p. 165 as cited), TVA and the Dispossessed, Footsteps of the Cherokees (1st ed. is on IA, but not the 2nd), Natural Histories, and TVA: Bridge over Troubled Waters — Jon (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Marshelec's comments

Flood control storage

The source: claims that "Tellico’s reservoir also provides 120,000 acre-feet of flood storage above Chattanooga, formerly one of the most flood-prone cities in the nation." (Note: I have had to correct sloppy work on the website that trims acre-feet down to acres in the main text. See the side-bar for the correct units.). Although it is a primary source, the flood control capacity, and the benefits for downstream communities is a relevant factual statement (presuming it is correct). If supported by secondary sources, this should perhaps be included into the lead and the body of the article. (However, I am not aware of whether 120,000 acre-feet of flood storage is substantial or relatively insignificant compared with the prospective flood hazard.) The 120,000 acre-feet is approx 148 million cubic metres, or 0.148 cubic km. Marshelec (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Property acquisition and eminent domain

These sentences are a bit hard to follow:

• When the TVA began to approach property owners in the Lower Tennessee Valley for the development of Tellico Dam, several communities that TVA sought to "modernize" through this project were at the time in touch with most of the modern Appalachian society that TVA had contributed to since the 1930s. Members of the river shed communities least impacted by modernization reacted most positively to TVA's plans, compared with the more modern communities. Historians of the project have suggested that most TVA personnel did not understand the complexity of the communities that they were intruding into with the Tellico project, leading to more heated opposition.

I can't access the book that is the cited source for this content, but I suggest a possible alternative to these sentences that is more concise: "The proposed project affected diverse communities with widely varying levels of awareness of large government initiatives. Historians of the project have suggested that most TVA personnel did not understand the complexity of the communities that were affected by the Tellico project, and that this led to more heated opposition." Marshelec (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The book is available on the Internet Archive, here. — Jon (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Notes

References

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.