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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:25, 21 July 2008 [1].

---

Geography and ecology of the Everglades[edit]

Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk)

This is the fourth and last satellite article created to expand the Everglades article. It has been a mission of the FA Team, and has had peer reviews or copy editing by WillowW, Ruhrfisch, Awadewit, Dank55, Scartol, and much assistance from Casliber. It has spawned an FA of its own, Ficus aurea. I'll do what needs to be done to see it featured. Thank you for reading it. Article creator, Moni3 (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the disclaimer that a lot of the copyediting is mine, and I don't do images or endsections. Moni's work is the same high quality as in the previous FAs in the series. I'll be happy to answer questions about my stuff. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewing only image licensing: Image:Storm at Shark River in Everglades.jpg is from a state website, so unless you have more source information (I can't check because the link is a 404) the license is incorrect. Image:Fire in the Everglades.jpg has no evidence that publication occurred pre-1923. --NE2 11:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To address this, I've left a question at the talk page for Non-free content, which is where I go by default for questions about images. I don't know why. I just do. If you or someone else can answer that question, I'll get on it right away. --Moni3 (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was federal because, according to the catalog record, the photograph is from the "Department of Commerce Collection". Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdness. I just left a comment, and now there's no record on wiki or my computer that I was ever on this page. Freaky. At any rate, despite the resounding silence my question received, I wrote to the State Archives of Florida to ask their permission via a GFDL permissions note, and they provided their own release. I sent it to the OTRS system, and I hope to have a ticket number for both images soon. --Moni3 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a correspondence between the State Archives of Florida and Wikipedia permissions. Since the State of Florida is closed on weekends, I'm going to assume no more will be done until Monday. Sorry. --Moni3 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to wait a day or two, or remove the image while you wait? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it would make your life easier, I will temporarily remove the images. *Sob* That one of the storm over the Shark River is art. The State of Florida Archives gave permission for the images to be used, but their wording and Wikipedia Permissions working needs to match up, I guess. Let me know what you want me to do. --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps ask Elcobbola (talk · contribs) for another opinion; if he has problems with it, you could comment it out until it's resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy makes Moni cry. The images are hidden until full permissions is given for them. --Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki makes Moni cry; other editors want Sandy to cry if she doesn't make Wiki make Moni cry :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments I have a question on the use of the plural 'ecosystems' in the lead, I suppose having a big ecosystem with little ecosystems within it is technically correct, but does sound (to me) a little confusing. I did think of substituting 'components' or something like it for one or both mentions in para 1 and 2 of lead. This isn't a deal-breaker as such, more of a free-train-of-thought speculation and seeing what others feel. More to come. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Cypress Swamp is well-known for its 500-year-old cypresses - there are 4 'cypresses' in a short segment of prose. I bolded this one and am musing whether a word like 'tree' (though that is recently used as well), specimens, individuals, conifers, or something else will go there (scratches head in perplexed manner)

Neither of these are earth-shattering deal breakers so I think this one is over the line. I took the liberty of tweaking a few bits and pieces. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources all look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Disclaimer: I did a sort of hybrid peer review-copyediting thing.) Thanks again to Moni3 for writing this well-organized and clear introduction to an interesting topic. I came to the article an uninformed reader and left it an informed reader. Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• SupportComments. This is an excellently researched and written article - kudos to everyone involved. It made me want to visit the Everglades :)
  • I think the first sentence might read better if it were a little simpler. Perhaps The geography and ecology of the Everglades are complex elements affecting the natural environment throughout the southern region of the U.S. state of Florida.
  • Do you think that Image:Everglades ecoregion.jpg would be a good addition to the article, for those who are unfamiliar with the location of the region? There is a sort of map later in the article but that is only useful (location-wise) to people already familiar with Florida.
  • Should there be a citation for "The gradient change is so slight that the river moves only 0.5 miles (0.80 km) a day."?
  • Is there any information about when the last severe drought-fire period was? Was it more than 550 years ago? Since the article says the trend has stopped, I'm curious to know when it was last seen.
  • Why use "solution hole" instead of the more common "sinkhole"? I've never heard the term solution hole and had to click the link to figure out what it is
  • Consistency in numbers: "three to seven months" followed in same sentence by "4 inches" (I think is the only instance of this type of inconsistency)
  • "are among the more than 100 species of birds that use mangrove trees to raise their young." -- are there 100+ species that use mangrove trees in the Everglades, or anywhere? I think this should probably specify
  • The article does a very good job of describing the natural things that affect the geography and ecology of the Everglades, but barely mentions the effect of man. I know that this information is covered in broad detail in other areas, but it seems reasonable to also summarize it in a short section here.

Karanacs (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • No more cake for you. I tried to make each of these satellite articles separate and unique from the Everglades article, yet still integrate it with the main one. That's why I want to use images in this one that are unique to this article, and ones unique to Everglades. If you think I should toss that vision out the window, let me know.
    • Similarly, the Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades articles explain the effects humans have had on the region. Do you think I should link to those articles within the text of this one?
    • Solution holes aren't as large as sinkholes, but the same processes form them.
    • Will fix the other issues soon, like tonight. --Moni3 (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand wanting to leave the articles separate. Is there another image, perhaps, that might be able to show the location of the Everglades so that it is also clear to the reader that they are in fact surrounded on several sides by water? It's just not clear in the existing image. I can definitely see a case for including a section on human effects on the geography and ecology of the Everglades (linking back to the other two articles). As a reader, I expected to see at least an overview of all the main factors that effect the geography and ecology. Feel free to convince me otherwise :) (And perhaps a small explanation of what a solution hole is in this article might be helpful - "solution holes, smaller version of sinkholes, ..." Karanacs (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wouldn't it be a whole 'nuther fight to recommend against the "convert" template? That template doesn't have an option for spelling out "4 inches". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Alternatively, just put the month numbers as integers. Karanacs (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Map image added. Just for Karanacs. --Moni3 (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Beautiful! (and still unique!). Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • My position (and I may be "unanimous in this", as Mrs. Slocomb used to say) is that to do it the other way round and write out "four", we'd have to put on our asbestos suits and go change MOSNUM first, which currently says: "Measurements, stock prices, and the like, are normally stated in figures, even when the value is a small positive integer: 9 mm, The option price fell to 5 in three hours after the announcement." So I agree on the 4 part. Not sure how I feel about the months; MOSNUM doesn't provide any guidance on what to do when integers are in the neighborhood of spelled-out numbers; should it? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • P.S. The closest it comes is, "Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs)." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • (ec) Dan is a mind reader! I had just typed that out with a note that I am silly. Item struck. Karanacs (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs update: Solution holes is better explained, I hope. Flow rate is cited and changed for accuracy. The last time a severe fire occurred was 940 BCE (in the article now), both Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades940 are linked within the text.

Questions: There are 181 species of birds that use the mangroves. I'm not sure what you wanted me to do. Cite it or clarify 181 species? Also, the first sentence has bothered almost every reviewer I've had, and I've changed it four times. I think I changed it from what you suggested there. See this diff. I honestly don't know what the first sentence should say anymore. --Moni3 (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I crossed off the first sentence thing - if it's already been changed from my suggestion, so be it. Perhaps for the birds sentence you could say are among the more than 100 species of birds that use Everglades mangrove trees to raise their young.. Karanacs (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Moni3 (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Karanacs: I'm unbelievably dim in process sometimes. Were you looking for a paragraph that summarizes the impact that humans have had in the Everglades, that links to the Draining and Restoration articles? Is that the last point that would earn your support? --Moni3 (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ma'am, that is exactly what I was trying to say. Karanacs (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Opening sentence: "The geography and ecology of the Everglades are the areas of study that concentrate on the complex elements affecting the natural environment throughout the southern region of the U.S. state of Florida." Odd to define the topic in terms of an area of study rather than directly as the subject (of that study). One too many links in the chain. Why not "The geography and ecology of the Everglades involve the complex elements affecting the natural environment throughout the southern region of the U.S. state of Florida."?
• "The area recognized as the Everglades was, before drainage, an interwoven mesh of marshes and prairies covering ..." Simpler to read as "Before drainage, the area recognized as the Everglades was an interwoven mesh of marshes and prairies covering ....".
• Remove "within a geographic boundary"?
• "It is such a unique meeting of water, land, and climate that the use of either singular or plural to refer to the Everglades is correct." Rather than expressing it in terms of correct or incorrect, what about "It is such a unique meeting of water, land, and climate that both "Everglade" and "Everglades" are widely used terms."
• Consider a semicolon after "Mexico".
• "constant ... constantly".
• "formative—the Everglades arent' being formed; they're in a state of flux, but not formation. See if you can wind in your words—sustain and transform", without repeating them.
• Consider moving the Grunwald quote down to one of the sections.
• Caption: "recent" is not good—how long do you see this article as lasting? See MOS on vague chronological terms. Give us the month/year.
• Turn this negative into a positive: "A vast marshland could not have been formed without underlying rock formations in southern Florida." --> "The underlying rock formations in southern Florida were critical to the formation of the vast marshland."

As a whole, the article is quite well-written: the lead had more problems than the other samples I took below. But close scrutiny of the whole text by someone new to it is necessary. Tony (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To Karancs: Paragraph added at the bottom. For your perusal.
• To Tony: I hope I addressed all your points to your satisfaction. Except for one: the issue about the singular/plural in the lead may not be clear. Everglades is always written with the "s" at the end. The region can be referred as "the Everglades are" or "the Everglades is". I included this to illustrate that it's so unique that it defies the basic uses of language. Let me know how I can make that clearer. Thanks for reading it and giving your comments. --Moni3 (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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