Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glen Canyon Dam/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2016 [1].

Glen Canyon Dam

Nominator(s): Shanno n 21:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking the Colorado River near the head of the Grand Canyon, this dam fired up an environmental movement (as fictionalized in Edward Abbey's cult classic, The Monkey Wrench Gang) and rewrote American perspectives on the value of wild places. Yet millions depend on the water and clean energy Glen Canyon Dam supplies. I've been working on this article since 2011, though the newest version was only published recently. It would make a nice little set with Colorado River and Hoover Dam (both FAs), and did I mention the 50th anniversary of Glen Canyon Dam is on September 22? Shanno n 21:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carbrera

All visual files in this article should receive alts per WP:ALT; I only see the first one having an alt
Should File:Glen Canyon Music Temple.jpg instead say "Near Music Temple in Glen Canyon during the 1870's."?
For the first two bulletpoints in "In popular culture", I see no mention of a year or date to explain its particular placement in the list
In the "See also", may I suggest adding "an" before "activist against the dam"?
No dead links, great work!

A great article with just some minor comments over a run-through. Great work. Carbrera (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the article to address all these, except for the alt text, which already exists for all the images. But for some reason none of them are displaying except for the one in the infobox. Could you help take a look? Thanks! Shanno n 17:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

IMDB is not a reliable source. Lulu is a self-publisher, so reliability of that source is questionable

Replaced these with secondary sources. Shanno n 01:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting is generally quite inconsistent, with a number of formatting errors
'In popular culture' entries should have reliable secondary sourcing

Done. Shanno n 01:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOS editing needed - repeated links, SEAOFBLUE issues, dablinks, etc

Checked for dab links and got rid of a lot of repeated links Shanno n 23:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issues. Categorical statements like "one of the best rainbow trout fisheries in North America" shouldn't be cited solely to promotional websites. Editorializing like "to no surprise" or "ironically" should be avoided

Scanned the article for editorializing/weasel words, and changed this statement to "excellent rainbow trout fishery". Shanno n 01:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Hchc's comments below. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material does not appear to be supported by its cited sources. Consider for example "The base of the dam can also be reached via boat from Lee's Ferry, 16 miles (26 km) downstream. Because of the cold, clear water released from Lake Powell, the stretch of the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lee's Ferry has become one of the best rainbow trout fisheries in North America.[159]" The only part of that I see in the source is "Fishermen enjoy world-class trout fishing upstream to Glen Canyon Dam". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added necessary references, and fixed wording to match sources. Shanno n 01:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still other examples of this type of problem. "About 300,000 people per year travel via boat to Rainbow Bridge in Utah, a large natural arch once very hard to access, but now easily reachable because one of the arms of the reservoir extends near it.[156]" - footnote 156 says "85,000 people from around the world who visit it each year." Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Shanno n 23:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the date formats to be consistent with WP:DATES. However, I cannot address the reference/MOS issues if you don't point them out specifically. As far as I know, all web references use the correct templates, and all books are cited using the same format. In addition, I recently scanned and fixed all the dead links. There is some strong wording in this article because it is a controversial topic, but I've done my best to cover both sides. Thanks, Shanno n 01:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to provide examples of inconsistencies and problems, though we don't want this to turn into a point-by-point peer review and I don't want to give the impression that a single example is the only instance of a particular issue.

On the point of reference formatting, one example of the problems is found by comparing footnotes 97 and 99: why is the LA Times a work in one instance and a publisher in the other?

On the point of MOS, one example of the problems is found in the |country= parameter of the infobox: three links are chained together when a single specific link would be most appropriate. (Also, why are county and state being presented under "country"?). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give the references another thorough look-over. I did many of them back in 2011 so there might be some things I missed. Thanks, Shanno n 02:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the formatting again, did another run through for dead links and a spot check. I'm 99% sure now all issues have been addressed. Shanno n 17:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOS issues and reference inconsistencies persist. The specific MOS problem identified above is still present, as does a reference mismatch very similar to the one identified - NYT is a publisher in FN168 but a work in FN107. A broader revision for MOS and reference formatting is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking again. Any tips on how to properly do this? I'm really sorry I keep missing things. Shanno n 23:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For reference formatting, first you want to make sure you have a handle on general rules - distinction between work and publisher, for example. Then you check that similar references are formatted similarly, and correct any variations according to those rules. That approach will catch 90+% of inconsistencies/errors. As for MOS... unfortunately I don't know of any shortcuts. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this stage I've run through the article, and I'm seeing a number of issues:

"$135 million ($985 million in 2016 dollars)" - this appears to be using the inflation template, which notes that "this template is only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers' rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). This template is incapable of inflating capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich. Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research." - the CPI can't reliably be applied to the cost of the Glen Canyon Dam.
"a colorful series of gorges now flooded by the reservoir" - not sure what "colorful" means in this context
"the Bureau of Reclamation deemed necessary the construction of additional reservoirs" - the phrasing here feels awkward
"However, USBR faced opposition" - "the USBR"?
"was one of the last mega-dams " - what's a mega-dam? If this is a mega-dam, which sounds pretty impressive, is it worth mentioning in the first paragraph?
I'd be a lot happier if the inline quotes were typically attributed to someone; e.g. "Many of these projects had dubious economic justifications and hidden environmental costs, but the government agencies that built them – namely the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – were more interested in maintaining their size and influence: "In the West, it is said, water flows uphill towards money."" - I can't tell from this who said the line in the quote.
Some of the sources don't look reliable for the claims they're supporting; e.g. fn 143 - this is used to support a sequence of statements presented as facts; the source, though, is an advocate group arguing on one side of the issue about the dam. Whether they're right or wrong, this definitely isn't a neutral source.
Similar concerns come out in how statements such as "Below the Glen Canyon Dam, the Colorado River has turned into a "death zone for native fish"" is presented; looking at the citation it is a claim made by an advocate, but presented here as a statement of fact.
"The flow appeared to have scoured clean numerous pockets of encroaching vegetation, carried away rockslides that had become dangerous to boaters, and rearranged sand and gravel bars along the river, and was considered an environmental success." - the Minard article, cited in support of this sentence, doesn't quite align with the text though; it says that "Steve Gloss, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey's Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), who helped author the new flood plan, concedes that the 1996 flood came up short..." and appears critical of the 1996 work.

I haven't gone through the references one by one, but the sample I've looked at are giving me concerns. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, I'm working through the comments now. I'm a bit lost, though, on how to figure out which references aren't supporting the text. (That might sound dumb since I'm the primary author, but some of the research was done years ago.) Short of an exhaustive check of every citation, do you have any advice? Thanks, Shanno n 23:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's any easy answer... Faced with similar problems, I've had to resort to going through citation by citation, checking each one for being a reliable source, and ensuring it supports the claims being made by the current version of the text. That's a painful process, but it would deliver you assurance that (minus the odd inevitable human error) you've got a high-quality baseplate. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: It seems this was nominated prematurely and could benefit from a thorough review of sourcing and prose before making a reappearance. I suggest contacting authors of other similar FAs (NortyNort, interested?) as well for a pre-nomination peer review. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.