Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Petitcodiac River/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:30, 14 November 2010 [1].

Petitcodiac River

[edit]

Petitcodiac River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC), Michael Glass (talk) [reply]

The Petitcodiac River is located in south-east New Brunswick, Canada, and was once home to one of the largest tidal bores in the world (from one to two metres high). The area around it was inhabited solely by the Mi'kmaq people before 1698, when Acadians from Pont Royal, Nova Scotia arrived. The river also went through the Great Upheaval, various industrial booms, and is currently the subject of a controversy regarding the construction of a causeway in 1968 (which is currently in the midst of being removed). This is the second nomination of the article; the first saw a lot of helpful and constructive criticism, which I find has now been addressed. Thanks in advance for reviewing. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
  • The previous FAC was closed only about a month ago. Please summarize what has been improved.
    • With pleasure. One of the greatest concerns during the nomination was the quality of the sources. I did some research and found verifiable and reputable sources to use for the article, which had me expanding the article as a whole. Two issues brought up by Karanacs, namely the lack of information on the original indigenous population and verifiable effects the Battle of Petitcodiac had on the later survival of the Acadians, were addressed. Per concerns brought up by Ruhrfisch, I improved the Resettlement section to shorten the time gap between it and the Causeway Controversy, explained the final thirty years of the gap with a bit on how the river became neglected by the 1930s, expanded the Wildlife section to address the presence of land creatures, and wrote a sentence on how the surrounding population and consequential land development affected the river's state. Finally, I requested a copy-edit from the WP:GOCE, which was completed yesterday. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should put the IPA inside the parentheses for the first sentence. A sound file of the pronunciation would also be nice.
  • Do you really need accessdates for book sources?
    • The accessdates refer to the date I retrieved the Google Books printing online (the book title is a hyperlink to it). If that's not necessary, then I can gladly remove them. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: There was a bit of copy-editing going on in the past few days, but future reviewers can rest assured that the article is now stable and in compliance with 1. (e). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Finetooth: The article is in many ways excellent, but some sections still fall short. Here are three four sets of issues to consider:

Lead
  • Shouldn't the lead include at least a brief mention of geology and wildlife?
  • "In 1968, a controversial rock-and-earth causeway... " - Should causeway be linked on first use?
  • "silt was deposited in the 4.7 km (2.9 mi) of river beneath the causeway in the first three years following construction" - "Beneath" doesn't seem possible. Would "downstream of" be more accurate?
  • All three are Done.
Not yet.
(1) The brief mention of geology and wildlife in the lead was written, I think, before you expanded the geology section. The "over 250 million" claim came from the original weak source, but your more recent stronger sources suggest that some of the rocks exposed on the surface in the watershed are more like 500 million years old. I wouldn't use a specific figure in the lead since the main text section says only Precambrian or early Paleozoic; alternatively, you could help readers out a bit by adding an approximate date (about a half-billion years old) to clarify Precambrian or early Paleozoic in the main text and then re-decide how much to say in the lead.
Oh, shoot. Good eye. Fixed (although I'll probably expand the lead a bit after the expansions mentioned below).
(2) The "beneath" claim also needs to be fixed in the "Causeway controversy" section. I'd just fix it myself, but your note about keeping a separate version of the article in a sandbox worries me a little. If you overwrite the public version with the "stable" sandbox version at some point, it will wipe out possibly helpful edits to the mainspace version. Would you be willing to eliminate the sandbox version and just let us all work on the mainspace version? Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It became a worry for me as well since yesterday's major edits by several people. If an admin would want to delete the sandbox, they can do so. I was just worried that the constant copy-editing would have been a problem for the stability of the nomination. It pretty much made it worse. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to remove the container; just delete the sandbox text. Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
*The material in this section is awfully thin and begins with claims that, while supported by the Petitcodiac Riverkeeper site, look suspicious to me. The opening two sentences of this section say, "The valley which forms the Petitcodiac River was carved during the Mississippian era, over 250 million years ago. Numerous volcanic eruptions during the last glacial period affected the topography, and are believed to have been the source of the wide variety of minerals in Albert County, near the shore of the river." I know virtually nothing about New Brunswick geology, but I would not expect the very brief geology subsection of the Riverkeeper site to be complete or necessarily accurate. The last glacial period ended in the Holocene, about 12,000 years ago, unlike the vastly more ancient Mississippian. What of geological importance happened to New Brunswick between these two periods? Should this section include something about the Acadian orogeny? Can you find a highly reliable source that supports the recent volcano claim? I don't mean to be too hard on you. Much of the article seems excellent to me, but this section needs more detail and more reliable sourcing. To find answers to questions like this, I'd try to track down general geology books about New Brunswick. Beyond that, Googling a bit turns up a ref to this article: "P. Wilson and J. C. White, "Tectonic evolution of the Moncton Basin, New Brunswick, eastern Canada: new evidence from field and sub-surface data. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, December 1, 2006; 54(4): 319–336." I don't know what's in it, but the title makes it sound possibly useful. If you nose around, you'll find more, and some of it may be highly relevant. What is the source of the uranium mentioned in the "Water quality" section? Does other mining or drilling affect the river?
  • The bulletin you cited is not available to me at all, unfortunately. However, my library has three books I eyed out, and I'll be checking those out soon, preferably during the long weekend. I'll try to expand it, but I sort of avoided it altogether due to my limited knowledge of the subject and its terminology. The uranium mining's source was the Riverkeeper's Top 10 pollution sources document, which entails two paragraphs on its effects (clearly sourced in the article prose). The CBC also has a small article on the controversy. No other mining is prevalent near the river. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Oh, I don't mean the source document; I mean the source rock. Where in the watershed are they looking for uranium, and how did it get there and when? You don't have to become a geologist to research and write this section, but the article should include at least a brief overview of the most important geologic aspects of the watershed. It's a bit like writing the human history. You can't reasonably be expected to read everything ever said on the subject or work it all into an encyclopedia article, but you can read enough to assure yourself that you understand the essentials and that your summary covers the main points. You never know what you might find. For example, the CBC article you link to above mentions that "Two councillors noted they've already tried to stop oil and gas exploration in the city's watershed." This makes me wonder where they are finding oil and gas (which rock formations) and where in the watershed. Finetooth (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that makes more sense. And wow, I didn't even notice that sentence during my first reading. I'll check that out. I also know that it's not exactly the hardest subject to understand, but I suppose I may have seen the most complicated aspects of it (namely geological maps). I'll see if I can get a better foot on the material. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The Geology section has been re-written with WP:RS, but as you mention, it would probably be nice to look up older history than what we have right now. I'll work on the other concerns first. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new geology section is much much better than the earlier version. Not only does the Petitcodiac basin have an unusual tidal bore and a disturbing contemporary causeway but really ancient rock formations and a remarkable cave complex. I know you are working hard on this and have much to consider, but I'm assuming that you still plan to find something more about the uranium, the oil, and the gas. Finetooth (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article you gave me has a little bit on precisely the oil and gas. For the uranium, I'll have to grab some of the CBC articles (I have them already at Turtle Creek (New Brunswick)). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, as mentioned below. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 06:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wildlife
  • "The Petitcodiac River watershed is home to various insects and arachnids alien to New Brunswick, such as the black-footed spider, the beech scale, the white-marked tussock moth, and the mountain ash sawfly. Plant species with similar status include the Mother-of-Thyme, the Japanese barberry, the Scotch Broom, the yellow flag, and Canada bluegrass." - What about the native species? What plants live in the river's riparian zones, hold the banks together, and keep the water cool? What do the fish feed on? What animals inhabit the riparian zones?
  • As much as I would love to answer this, I know that there is absolutely no sources for me to rely on other than what was given to me by the Riverkeeper and the Watershed Alliance. No books pop up to me on my library's online catalogue and nothing at all on New Brunswick wildlife online, let alone the Petitcodiac's. The sad reality is that this little river is not well documented or studied in comparison to, say, the Saint John or the Miramichi. Hence why it was so hard to confirm the riparian zones' degradation; never mind which species inhabit(ed) it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced. I don't think it's necessarily easy to track down this stuff, but after quite a lot of Googling, I find this description of the trees in the Petitcodiac River Ecodistrict: "Forests are dominated by Red Spruce in mixture with Balsam Fir, Red Maple, White Birch and Trembling Aspen. Also commonly found are Tamarack, Eastern Hemlock and White Pine. Sites with organic soils are characterized by Black Spruce. Jack Pine is common in fire disturbed areas. Tolerant hardwoods of Sugar Maple, Beech, and Yellow Birch are found on ridge tops. Aspen dominates the lands adjacent to the Petitcodiac River which have been disturbed by a long period of human settlement." The source document, is "Greater Fundy Ecosystem Research Project, Chapter 1". The quoted bit appears on the last page. I reckon somebody reliable will have written about the bird life along the river, but I don't have source for you. Adding details about the trees, shrubs, birds, and animals in the watershed and near the river will give a more complete sense of what the river is. The Googling for trees led me, almost accidentally, to some other finds and thoughts. For example, would it be good to mention that part of the Trans-Canada Traiil runs along the river in Moncton? This leads to other questions. Do people use the river for recreation? Do they swim in it, fish in it, boat on it, ice skate on it? Also, It would be a good idea to include the source and mouth elevations for the river so that readers can tell whether it is fast-moving or sluggish at its source. Its lower end is well-described, but what's it like at the headwaters? It might also be helpful to identify the highest elevation in the watershed and to add a bit more about the topography; is it rolling, flat, ringed by mountains? Finetooth (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Petitcodiac River Ecosystem" is one I had never heard before. I'll get some more research done tonight, to see if I can pull anything up on the subject. The study you sourced seems to have a nice abstract of the ecosystem, and, for example, I found two paragraphs on mining in the region (Chapter 2). This is very useful, and I will use these in the article for sure. (EDIT: reading through, it has an enormous amount of applicable information.) As for Riverfront Park, I did not know about it until that link, strangely (even though I biked through it once). These are great suggestions, and while it would have been nice to have thought about them before this nomination, I'll try to get all of this done before it ends up like the first. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinates and sources
  • I didn't notice this until last evening. The convention for rivers is to list the mouth coordinates as the identifying location. The existing article uses the coordinates of the causeway, and that should be changed to the mouth coordinates. This leads to a question about information sources. What is your source for the many coordinates used in the article? At first I thought that the sources listed in the tables for each item would include coordinates, but they don't seem to, although I did not check them all. A good source for at least some of the coordinates would be the The Atlas of Canada. If you type "Petitcodiac River" into the search engine on the Atlas main page, it returns a page that includes the coordinates: 45 51 58 N 64 34 28 W. These differ slightly from the coordinates you list in the geobox. Since the Anagance mouth is the same as the Petitcodiac source, you can determine the river source coordinates for the Petitcodiac by typing "Anagance River" into the search engine. All of the coordinates should be checked and sourced to an RS. Finetooth (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ruhrfisch. I was a very reluctant opposer last time this was at FAC, and have some comments now. While this looks much better, I agree with everything Finetooth said above, and still have some concerns about the comprehensiveness of the History section, as well multiple minor issues. I will point them out as I read through and will also make some copyedits when I see something minor.

  • Lead I am glad that geology and biology have been added to the lead, but this has created a new problem sentence: Its geological history spans over 250 million years and is home to a diverse population of marine and land species. The subject (geological history) cannot be home to a diverse population of anything living. Also, since this is a river, and is fresh water in at least some of its length, is "marine" really the right adjective (I think of marine as oceanic)? Wouldn't "aquatic" or perhaps "riparian" be better?
    • I hadn't realised it had a different meaning. Aquatic should be fine and more succinct. The "is" in your first comment was probably meant to have had "the river" as the subject. All fixed. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is an "established tributary"? Ten established tributaries join the river in its course toward its mouth in Shepody Bay. I can see "ten major tributaries" but do not know what established means in this sense. I raised this in the previous FAC, but I find it hard to believe there are no more than 10 tributaries for a 129 km long river, although I can believe there are only 10 named tribs or 10 majors tribs.
  • I think the lead should at least mention the 200 plus years of history between the Acadians and the 1968 causeway in some way.
  • This has not been fixed (beneath the causeway??) An estimated 10 million cubic metres (13 million cubic yards) of silt was deposited in the 4.7 km (2.9 mi) of river beneath the causeway in the first three years following construction.
  • As you know, my main concern in the previous FAC was comprehensiveness in the History section. While I recognize the importance of the causeway in the history of the river, I am still concerned that there is essentially no other history mentioned after 1929 besides those events related to the causeway. Reading the Geography section, I can see several things that could be mentioned in the History section. There are three bridges mentioned in Course (Route 106, Route 1, and the Gunningsville Bridge). There are 10 bridges and the cursed casueway listed as crossing the Petitcodiac in the table at the end of the article. The Gunningsville Bridge article gives some nice details about its history, several of which could be incorporated into this article. I assume at least the dates of construction for the other two major bridges could be found as well. Just a Google search gives the date of construction of the covered bridge (1929 - see here for a RS), which could also be mentioned.
    • I didn't think crossings would qualify as history, beside the Trans-Canada. I'll get on it soon; there seems to be much editing going on right now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just from reading the Gunningsville Bridge article, the tidal bore made a lumber ship hit the bridge in the 1920s, which seems pretty closely related to other topics already covered. My guess is that part of why the cursed causeway was built was because the G'ville bridge was so rickety (stop traffice so a bus can cross it?!). I see bridges as fairly intimately connected with the rivers that cross them. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can reason with that rationale. Sidenote: A quick look at the index of my exemplary of Resurgo gives me reliable sources for each of the claims in the article. Good to go, right off the bat. :) EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 05:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the same theme, the Watershed section mentions Moncton's growing population as a concern for the health of the river - again since the history traces small numbers of early settlers, it seems as if it could also briefly mention some of this population growth in the 20th century.
  • The Water quality section lists several things that seem like they should at least be mentioned in the History part. What are the Memramcook and Shepody causeways and when were they built? How about 20th century developments in agriculture and consequent pesticide usage? Surely a sentence or two could be added on uranium exploration in the region?
    • As I told Finetooth, his research pulled a very helpful article which elaborates on mining in general, which is what I was working on before you posted. Agriculture is there as well. The Memramcook and Shepody causeways have nothing to do with the Petitcodiac itself, as the rivers they are located in are distinct from it. The water quality section simply lists the Riverkeeper's Top 10 list, which merges the Petitcodiac and Memramcook watersheds (as I noted in the Watershed section). I can still mention them if you want, but I would find it off-topic and of better use in an appropriate article. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I quoted those causeways because thy are in the article. If they are not even on the Petitcodiac or tribs of it, I am not sure they should be in this article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see. I simply placed them there because it would have been awkward to have nine reasons from a "top ten" publication. But I see where the confusion could lie. I've removed it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 05:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. Added effects of agriculture, uranium, gas, and oil searches in the area. Haven't integrated them into the lead yet as it is 3 am right now. G'night :) EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 06:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Watershed, I think the river and its drainage basin are entirely in the three counties, but this makes it sound like they are not: Most of the watershed is in the Caledonian Highlands, within the Kings, Westmorland, and Albert counties in south-east New Brunswick.[25][27]
    • I have removed the "most" and "Caledonian Highlands" bit, because apparently the Highlands are barely even in the vicinity of the watershed, let alone the river itself. Confusion should exist no longer. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely E. coli should be italicized?

More to come, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the moment, the text reads,
The river measures about 129 km (80 mi) from its source near Petitcodiac to its mouth at Shepody Bay; its source derives from the confluence of the Anagance and North rivers in western Westmorland County. The Anagance River arises from its tributaries, Hayward Brook and Holmes Brook, and drains 81 km2 (31 sq mi) to the right of Petitcodiac River, while the North River drains 264 km2 (102 sq mi) to the left. From the confluence the river...
I believe that this could be more simply expressed like this:
The river measures about 129 km (80 mi) from its beginning near Petitcodiac to its mouth at Shepody Bay; Its sources are the Anagance and North Rivers. The Anagance River arises from its tributaries, Hayward Brook and Holmes Brook, and drains 81 km2 (31 sq mi) from the south-west of Petitcodiac River, while the North River drains 264 km2 (102 sq mi) from the north. The Petitcodiac River arises from their confluence and ...
This wording has the added advantage of mentioning what directions the feeder streams came from. I am bringing this up here because I would like to have other comments on this slight change of wording. Michael Glass (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the original wording. Beginning seems more ambiguous than source when referring to a river (I believe the source of a river has a specific technical meaning and doesn't have the usual connotation). I made a map which should aid the description of this section anyway, if someone would be kind enough to remove the appropriate map(s) and insert the new one, found in the Petitcodiac River category and suggest and tweaks/improvements for it. Also, please find a source for the correct length of the river which is 80 km (50 miles). The same goes for the watershed area which is currently quoted as 2800km2, but is more like 2000km2. The source for 2800km2 shows that it includes the watersheds of the Memramcook river (around 450 km2) and other rivers which flow into Shepody/Chignecto Bay, south(/west) of Petitcodiac river. Cornforth (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume we're talking about this image, correct? I have to say, that is a very good map, but are you sure it's accurate? Also, we would need some some of attribution (in the Commons image description) to the actual map creator to verify that your map is able to be released under a free license. Agreed on the watershed area, but I originally had problems with it because I could not find a population estimate for just the Petitcodiac watershed (they always included the Memramcook's). I've fixed it now, but it's a little sloppy until I find an estimate as I'm using the term "Greater Moncton" to depict the people. As for the river length, you'll have to provide a better source. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, page 978 of Rivers of North America is devoted to the Petitcodiac River. The authors don't give a length, but they list a basin size of 1,360 square kilometers, so even Cornforth's estimate is too large. I would consider Rivers to be highly reliable. I'd be glad to change the number in the geobox if you like and add the full citation. The page lists some other interesting things such as "major fishes", "major aquatic vertebrates", "major riparian plants", and says the river has the "highest natural concentration of suspended sediments in North America". The book was published in 2005 and is probably still correct on most points. Your library might have a copy. If not, I can share info, maybe on the article's talk page so as not to further complicate the discussion here. Finetooth (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, your source clearly says 2,400 square kilometers, and I'm not seeing anything obvious that would account for the huge difference from source to source unless the 2,400 is a typo for 1,400. Meanwhile, I agree with you about Cornforth's map. It does not identify the source of the base map or the source of the information used to construct the map. The Rivers page has a watershed map; it includes the Memramcook in the Petitcodiac basin, and its shape differs considerably from Cornforth's. Finetooth (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As two editors have expressed a preference for using the word source I won't push my preference for that wording. I still think that the following wording would be preferable for describing the streams as coming from the left and right. Here is the present wording:
The river measures about 129 km (80 mi) from its source near Petitcodiac to its mouth at Shepody Bay; its source derives from the confluence of the Anagance and North rivers in western Westmorland County. The Anagance River arises from its tributaries, Hayward Brook and Holmes Brook, and drains 81 km2 (31 sq mi) to the right of Petitcodiac River, while the North River drains 264 km2 (102 sq mi) to the left. From the confluence the river...
The wording that I suggest would replace left and right with descriptions of the direction:
The river measures about 129 km (80 mi) from its source near Petitcodiac to its mouth at Shepody Bay. Its source is at the confluence of the Anagance and North rivers in western Westmorland County. The Anagance River arises from its tributaries, Hayward Brook and Holmes Brook, and drains 81 km2 (31 sq mi) from the south-west of Petitcodiac River, while the North River drains 264 km2 (102 sq mi) from the north. The Petitcodiac River ...
Any further comments? Michael Glass (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


(od) Finetooth: I would love to see what type of information River would have on the wildlife, as I was planning to begin to work on that section tonight ("tonight" as in "September 13 UTC time" tonight...) If you can give key information with the page numbers, I'll handle the rest and integrate it into the prose. That would be excellent help (and I actually feel like I owe you as much).

As for Michael, I wouldn't mind that change. I just didn't want you to change the wording for the "left" and "right" tribs, as that is something we have to be consistent about. I'll probably do that now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that change, Eric. One other thing I have noticed is the following statement in the third paragraph of the article:
An estimated 10 million cubic metres (13 million cubic yards) of silt was deposited in the 4.7 km (2.9 mi) of river downstream from the causeway in the first three years following construction. This gave the river a brownish tint and prompted many residents to call it the "Chocolate River".
A check of the sources failed to back up the assertion that the name "Chocolate River" came from the effects of the causeway. Unless such evidence can be produced, this statement should be changed as it has been changed in the Etymology section. Perhaps the wording in the third paragraph could be changed to something like this:
Sedimentation in the river gave rise to the nickname, "Chocolate River" due to the brown tint.[1] When the Petitcodiac River Causeway was built, an estimated 10 million cubic metres (13 million cubic yards) of silt was deposited in the 4.7 km (2.9 mi) of river downstream from the causeway in the first three years following construction[2].
I hope that helps. Michael Glass (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does, thanks. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 17:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new iildlife source: Western Shepody Bay is an Important Bird Area. There is a map here (need to click and zoom in to see it), which seems to show it extends into the mouth of the Petitcodiac. The IBA information for Shepdy Bay gives some details on bird species and ecology which could probably be added to this article. Since Shepody Bay is already mentioned prominently in the article, I thought this would help. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound funny, but birds are exactly what I needed right now. I had a small source for two species, and it was really a stretch to put in, but this should do very nicely, thanks. Should be done in about 15-20 minutes. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All done. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should've included the source data info for the map. I have now added it. Unfortunately a map is rarely accurate, and I don't believe this one to be entirely so, but I think it is more accurate than the two currently on the page, and clearer than the Petitcodiac Watershed Alliance one. The 2000 km2 drainage area given by the PWA website comes close to the 2014 km2 area calculated for the watershed layer calculated by the GIS software I used. The shape of the watershed in this map is also very similar. I would like to see how the Rivers of North America one differs. I could check the area that is different for inconsistencies with other data sources. I am certain the length of the river from the mouth to the confluence where Petitcodiac begins is 80 km. I have measured it with GIS software and Google Earth. It could be possible that the 129 km value refers to the length of the river all the way up to the end of North River but this should be clarified. Cornforth (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornforth, the main difference between the Rivers of North America map and yours is that the Rivers map labeled "Map of the Petitcodiac River basin" includes the Memramcook river basin and at least part of Shepody Bay. On the question of length, when I try to calculate it using a map scale and ruler and the Rivers map, I get a very rough estimate of no more than 80 kilometers. My estimate is not, however, a reliable source. I wonder if a second reliable source can be found to corroborate the 80 km. Finetooth (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now searching peer-reviewed articles for a good reference for the length of the river. So far I've found one stating the distance from the mouth to Salisbury is 55 km and that the combined length of the river upstream from the causeway, and its 5 main tributaries is 175 km. I found good references for the watershed area though. In "The Damming of the Petitcodiac River: Species, Populations, and Habitats Lost" by Locke et al., Northeastern Naturalist, Vol.10 (2003) it says the watershed drains 1360 km2 upstream of the causeway (explaining the area given in the book). In "Zooplankton communities of a dammed estuary in the Bay of Fundy, Canada" by Aube, Locke and Klassen, Hydrobiologia, 548 (2005) the total drainage area is 2071 km2. Cornforth (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the article now states that abnormal sedimentation led rise to the name Chocolate River. In fact, there is evidence that the river always carried a large amount of sediment, as can be seen by Mi'kmak legends. One stated:

In the beginning, the waters of Pet-koat-kwee-ak were clear and sparkling. But one day Eel swam down from the headwaters, his great body pushing everything before him into the cold of the great bay. Turtle told Glooscap that something had to be done about Eel. So Glooscap instructed Lobster to fight Eel. Lobster drove Eel out into the bay, but so great was the struggle that the once-clear water was disturbed and muddied forever.[3]

This is fairly strong evidence that the river always was muddy, so the name "Chocolate River" could have arisen quite independently of any later pollution. Therefore to claim that the name came from abnormal sedimentation we need direct evidence of the connection, and as I have stated before, none has been produced so far. In fact, some evidence is to the contrary. One website says this:

This drive follows the circuitous path of the Petitcodiac River, nick-named “The Chocolate River” because of its perpetually brown water. The brown water is not due to pollution but rather to the large quantities of mud and sediment carried upriver by the highest, fastest tides in the world.[4]

Now I am not in a position to decide whether this is a reliable source, but it certainly is evidence to the contrary that the brown tint of the water was caused by abnormal sedimentation. Michael Glass (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "abnormal" in relation to other rivers. Sedimentation is a common effect when tidal fluctuations are high, but the Petitcodiac is "special" in this domain. I wasn't sure how to better phrase it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your problem with wording. Unfortunately, using the word 'abnormal' in the context of discussing the causeway will immediately suggest that the causeway was to blame. Here is a way to get round this problem:

  • Remove all mention linking the name "Chocolate River" with the causeway or with abnormal sedimentation.
  • Add a sentence about the brown tint of the water, pointing out that this is alluded to in Mi'kmaq legend and in the nickname," Chocolate River". It would read something like this:
The Petitcodiac River is noted for its brown tinge, which comes from the heavy sediment load that it carries. It is alluded to in Mi'kmaq legend[3] It is also alluded to in the nickname, "Chocolate River."

See what you think of it when I make this change. Michael Glass (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference to the Mi'kmaq legend is more than an allusion (to allude is to make an indirect reference cf. L. ludere, to play) as the link between mud and brown is quite direct, as is that between chocolate and brown. I'd also like to recommend 'derives' instead of 'arises' because derives is a good word for rivers. Cornforth (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the watershed area and maps. I have never added a wiki reference before so I don't know if it's done right. I noticed the population statistic of 126k is given as for the Greater Moncton Area but in the reference it says 126k is the number of residents in both the Petitcodiac and Memramcook watersheds. The actual 126,424 figure refers to the Moncton CMA (which is closer to the Greater Moncton Area mentioned here but I think is actually bigger); two thirds of it covers three quarters the watershed, the remaining third covers surrounding areas incl. the Memramcook watershed area. I don't think a reference for the population living within the watershed will exist so would a calculation using Census dissemination block 2006 data and the watershed outline suffice? Cornforth (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comment: Perhaps some of this discussion might better take place on the article's talk page rather than here. Debating everything here makes for a long, baggy FAC that is difficult to follow and respond to, and it makes a long slog for the editors who have to decide whether consensus has been reached for promotion. Might I suggest moving the debate about the watershed boundaries to the talk page and not replacing one map with another until the boundary question is settled? Would the "chocolate" debate also better be worked out on the talk page and changes related to that debate be held off until consensus is reached? Finetooth (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree very much withe this suggestion. I like the improvements and have some suggestions / comments on wording, but will make them on the talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note; this FAC has been up for more than two weeks, still has comprehensiveness concerns, and has no Supports yet. Also, I don't see yet a spotcheck of sources, for WP:V and WP:COPYVIO. I suggest work adjourn to article talk, and the FAC brought back as soon as Ruhrfisch or Finetooth agree it's ready-- if that is sooner than two weeks, that's fine, since the backlog isn't too bad right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ "The Chocolate River". Petitcodiac Riverkeeper Inc. 2008. Retrieved 6 July 2010.
  2. ^ "Impacts of the Petitcodiac Causeway". web page. Sentinelles Petitcodiac Riverkeeper. 2008. Retrieved 13 November 2010.
  3. ^ "First People - the legends, the chocolate waters of the Petitcodiac River". web page. Retrieved 14 November 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Petitcodiac_River/archive2&oldid=1136096051"