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 SandyGeorgia 04:07, 19 February 2011 [1].

Grand Coulee Dam[edit]

Grand Coulee Dam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): NortyNort (Holla) 03:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An impressive U.S. engineering feat inspired by the ice age and born out of competition within Washington state, the nation and later, the Soviet Union. Largest power station in the U.S. and one of the largest concrete structures in the world. Article was expanded for some time, peer reviewed and now I believe it meets FA criteria.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2c Some fixits, Inflation issue: Bibliography and Further reading use different styles. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ta. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bibliography and Further reading are good; except "State of, Washington": corporate authors use their names as written in the full title. See References "State of 1947, p. 5" for what happens due to incorrect corporate author citation.
      Fixed, full title used
    • Inflation. The Inflation Calculator is uncited. The Inflation Calculator uses Consumer Price Index which is wildly inappropriate for a national GDP expenditure. Use Measuring Worth, relative share of GDP. (Compare: Inflation Caculator 163M 1932 => 2009: $2536M; MW CPI 2560M; MW rel share GDP 39200M). And cite Measuring Worth. CPI measures bread in a worker consumption basket. Rel Share GDP measures relative cost to the total society to reproduce a massive capital good of national significance. Dams are massive capital goods of national significance.
      Inflation numbers removed. The adjusted numbers in the source were from 1998 and I tried adjusting up to 2009 with the calculator.
    • References:
      • "Hydropower Consult" cite in full
        Now cited in full
      • I've got some concerns about RS/HQRS in web sources; and a lack of full citation. "http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/grandcouleehistory.asp" is part of a larger work "Columbia River History", it has an author and editors, "http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/Acknowledgments.asp". The version cited has a publication date "last updated June 2010". Moreover, it is a non-scholarly Tertiary (an RS/HQRS concern). Could you check websites for: the work cited being part of a larger work; authors; editors; publication dates.
      Craig Sprankle, the Grand Coulee PAO for Reclamation reviewed the source and I don't doubt its reliability. The work also doesn't make any outrageous or disputed claims. I understand the reliability concerns as a tertiary source and am looking for other secondary sources that cover the same point.
Update: I was able to use existing references within the article to remove the NWCouncil. I had to remove a sentence or two but they weren't crucial to the narrative or story.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Pitzer 1994, p. 2—5" ; "Downs 1993, p. 27—28" ; "Downs 1993, p. 59—60" freplace m-dash — with n-dash – ; also pp.
        Fixed
      • ""1935 Rivers and Harbors Act"" was surely initially published and promulgated by someone in 1935 other then CCRH
        Cited to the 74th Congress
      • What makes "http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001336.html" a RS or HQRS?
        Source removed along with sentence that really didn't flow well anyway
      • You need to spell out all corporate publishers, such as USBR in ""Grand Coulee Dam Statistics and Facts" (PDF). USBR. http://www.usbr.gov/pn/grandcoulee/pubs/factsheet.pdf. "
        Spelled out
      • All caps: ""TOURS AT GRAND COULEE DAM"." replace with appropriate case Fifelfoo (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed
I italicized my responses. Thanks for the source review.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs; 1 dead external link- this is doa. --PresN 18:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--NortyNort (Holla) 21:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I italicized my responses, thanks for the review.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the resolved ones, and am leaving the others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the first reference and median power generation values. The dams.org study isn't used to back-up a major claims and their study was extensive and scholarly. I don't doubt its reliability. The authors also had access to Reclamation records, stakeholders and such.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank your for the support and of course the peer review.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I congratulate you, the article is interesting, thorough and flows relatively well. However, it is quite wordy; I would recommend 2 or 3 complete passes to abbreviate. If this cannot be done before the nomination closes, I would recommend to resubmit in the future, as this is close to FA status. In my opinion wikipedia needs more FA's on infrastructure topics. I see several misplaced commas; however I'm not a grammar expert and will defer to the opinions of others.

Example, in the section "Low dam", the sentence, "The dam being constructed was the low dam" could easily be merged with another sentence. One possibility, "On July 16, 1933 a crowd of 3000 watched the driving of the first stake at the site of the low dam." Another specific suggestion, "Between January 1 and early April, 1935 about 1,200 workers constructed the west cofferdam on the river and by the end of 1935, the east cofferdam was complete as well." could be simplified to "By the end of 1935 1,200 workers had completed the west and east cofferdams".

All fixed

Others: "This was sorely disproved", "A dam of that size though would", "Washington's own governor", "Ditchers also hired", "soon afterward renamed"-> "now", "today's" or "predecessor to", Boulder Canyon Project proposal", but the results, in the form of project cost, "The Army Corps explained in the report that electricity sales from the Grand Coulee Dam could pay for construction costs, something Reclamation emphasized. ", "In 1933, the same year Roosevelt established the Public Works Administration, (this is covered below) Washington governor Clarence Martin set up the Columbia Basin Commission to oversee construction of the dam, funds were also released in July that year.[23] Reclamation was selected to oversee construction of the dam.[22]". "The last of the original 18 generators was not operational until 1950 though", "Later expansion" (section heading) "One major obstacle", "As it was, only nine out of the dam's eighteen generators could run year-round while the remaining nine operated for less than six months a year.", "added an additional 314 MW", "transfer at a rate of up to", "record severe flood"

All fixed

Comments about specific sections: Lead:

MWAK spelled-out in lead, Third Power plant de-quoted.

Background:

All fixed, last comment on sentence - reworded.

Construction:

All fixed. ¢ symbol used and wikilinked. The Grand Coulee that was wikilinked was the city of Grand Coulee, Washington. I fixed the wikilink to make it a little more obvious it is different. I know this is confusing, just about everything in that area has a "Coulee" namesake. I haven't checked family surnames though. :)

Overhauls: The way this section is written, it will be outdated and needing a re-write in just a couple of years. I recognize it is impossible to write such a section that will not need to be updated, however, by avoiding things like specific dates of estimated completion for individual phases of the project, the longevity of the article can be improved.

Specific months and some near-future completion times removed.

Power:Do you know the manufacturer of the Turbines? Are they mass produced models or were they custom made for this project? If these details are known, they would be good additions to the article. I know a little bit about hydro-turbines, enough to know that some manufacturers (such as GE and Siemens-Westinghouse) are passionate rivals. I've been to a couple of hydro plants that have multiple makes of turbines in use, and crossing from the GE section to the Westinghouse section is like crossing into a rival gangs turf. =-) Just curious if something like that is present here.

Interestingly, three were manufactured by GE and the other three by Westinghouse. I added the manufacturers into the article. Good point.

Touring the Dam: IMO this isn't a good section header name, how about "Tourism", "Attractions" or "Visitors center"? Just a suggestion. Also "well used theater" per WP:PEACOCK, "new Third Powerhouse" (New is a word that should be avoided in an article, as it make the article prone to becoming outdated sooner)

Fixed

Further Reading: Two of the books do not have ISBN numbers listed. Have you checked to see if they have other identifiers, such as OCLC or DOI numbers assigned? the site worldcat.org may be able to help search for those.

OCLC numbers added

Overall the article is very good, please accept this feedback as suggestions and in the spirit intended. Good Luck! Dave (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, thank you for the thorough review, comments and ideas. They were received well and I agreed with them all. After the fixes, I re-read the article and shortened several sentences other than what you indicated and also removed several needless commas. I italicized specific responses above. I hope this satisfactory and if there is anything else please let me know.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this addresses my major concerns. The caption of the photo "Future dam site, looking south" doesn't quite sound right. I'll play with this a bit, please check and revert if what I've done isn't proper. Dave (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks again.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images File:USA_Washington_location_map.svg lacks context for those unfamiliar with the subnational geography of the USA (such as this), a lot of images have author as unknown where these are corporate works the name of the organisation that created them should be used Fasach Nua (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image authors added where necessary. I changed the location map to USA West; it shows more of the U.S. along with the Columbia and other major rivers. Looks much better as well IMO. Thank you for the image review.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As NortyNort is heading out of town, and as I will be here until Feb 7, have some of the refs, and worked with NortyNort on the Hoover Dam successful FAC, I'll be babysitting this FAC and doing my best to keep it on track. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent work putting this together. As someone who's done a dam FA before, I know how much writing and research this can take.
  • I've given the article a copy edit; please take a look and make sure I haven't changed something wrongly. I'm not as familiar with the subject as you are, so I hope it works with your thoughts.
  • I'm really confused about how the cofferdams functioned. I've got that they blocked half the river at a time, but the whole east and west cofferdams is confusing to me. How does that work when you've already removed a cofferdam to allow the river to flow through half the foundation?
Not quite. The east and west cofferdams permitted the river to flow down the middle as work on the foundations, especially on the west side, proceeded. They then rerouted the river through gaps left in the west foundations and did work in the middle and on the east side. Once the dam was complete enough to make it worthwhile, then those gaps were closed off and water began to fill the lake. They could not entirely reroute the river, and an earthen cofferdam would have been ineffective due to soil porosity. Very different situation than Hoover, where they blocked the river and rerouted through tunnels.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the second paragraph of "Design Changes", I wasn't able to find anything in the sources that backed up the assertion "they knew it was inevitable." Could you point that out to me or reword it? The following sentence also needs some clarification. "Factors" isn't defined: factors in/of what?
I think I've cleared that up.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about the bridges is somewhat awkward; it prompts more questions than it answers. Why were the bridges needed? What is this Grand Coulee Bridge? When was it completed?
For one thing, aggregate for the concrete was from a site on the east side of the river, it had to go to the first concrete mixing plant, which was on the west side of the river because of the fact that the initial concrete construction was on the west side. Additionally, most of the towns where the workers lived were on the east side. Ferries would have been a tremendous hassle, especially during spring high water. I'll add a bit about the aggregate.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "the payroll for the dam was among the largest in the nation" is a bit unclear. Largest in what respect: amount of money, amount of people, or something else?
Payroll is always measured in dollars, to my awareness.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banks is called the supervising engineer and chief construction engineer in consecutive sections. Are these separate positions or different names for the same position?
Different names for the same position. Legally, he was the "chief construction engineer".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there Wiki pages for the counties referenced in the Labor and Supporting Infrastructure section? If so, go ahead and link 'em.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it Engineer's Town or Engineer's City?
Town. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do all these construction cities still exist?
Explained in the paragraph; which was incororated, etc. Shack town is the one I am not sure about but I assume it was torn down.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When talking about the inconsistent Columbia River flow, it the article says the flow was. Does this mean the flow is different today?
Yes, you can't really measure flow in the middle of a lake, for obvious reasons, and also the Columbia's flow is controlled up into Canada today by other works.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a sentence or two that hopefully makes this a little clearer. The low-water and high-water seasons used to be very important, not just for dams but barges, steamboats, salmon, etc. Before all the dams were built the seasonality of the river's flow was about 75:25, summer:winter. Today it is more or less 50:50. I've been trying to find time to help this FAC—been rather busy, but am doing a few small things at least. Pfly (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "Nine of the same 108 MW generators", does this mean all nine were the same, or they were the same as the generators installed in the first two power plants?
Modified.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why were Canadian dams necessary to build the Third Powerplant? I assume it was to create a constant flow for the power plant, but that isn't explicitly stated. If it isn't that, why?
You are quite correct. Regardless of why it wasn't stated, I will add it. I can add from my Diefenbaker article a PD image of Ike and Dief signing the Columbia River Treaty (bread cast upon the waters, I daresay).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, there already seems to be an adequate explanation, that the dam reservoir already reached the border and so work would have to be done in Canada. JKBrooks85, can you doublecheck that this is already addressed?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another aspect is that Grand Coulee Dam's reservoir can not be extended very far into Canada without affecting Trail, British Columbia. But more important, if you want to "flatten" a highly seasonal flow it is easier with dams far upstream and on major tributaries. However, many tributaries above the US-Canada border flow through the US too, like the Flathead—Clark Fork—Pend Oreille River system. Not all flow-controlling dams upriver of Grand Coulee Dam are in Canada. Hungry Horse Dam, for example, is way up a distant tributary, but by releasing water for use by downstream dams, it effectively generates far more hydroelectricity than would otherwise be possible. I'm not sure if this kind of info is in this page, or needs to be. I'll take a closer look when I get the chance. If nothing else, the Columbia River Treaty authorized not just Canadian dams but Libby Dam in Montana. Pfly (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more (sorry for thinking out loud here). It is accurate to say Water storage and regulation projects in Canada were necessary—some upriver dams are in the US, yes, but alone could not have allowed the kind of control desired. But I think Further regulation of the Columbia's flows was necessary to make the new power plant feasible, but the dam's reservoir already extended to the Canadian border doesn't really work, for several reasons. I'll try to figure out how to rewrite this bit. Pfly (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I made some changes on this third powerhouse point. The source already used in the section had plenty of info, so it was easier to do than I was expecting. Sorry for all the words I wrote above! I should have looked at that source first I guess. Pfly (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pfly, good points and thanks for the reword.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence of the third paragraph of the Third Powerplant section begins with a numeral.
Fixed.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the expansion section, the first paragraph mentions a plan to emplace nine 100-MW generators; the construction itself mentions only six 600-MW+ generators. Was this changed during the planning process, or am I missing something?
Appears to have been covered and/or fixed. They were upgraded for the largest available.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the pump-generating plant section, it says "remaining planned pumps". Where is the first reference to how many pumps were planned, and what do these pumps do? Are they intended for irrigation first and power generation second, or something else?
Covered in last sentence of irrigation section prior.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the Overhauls section, you start mentioning G20 and the like without explaining what they are. I assume that's the number of the generator, but in what order are they numbered? Does the number of the generator matter; would you be better suited to simply say "three generators" or the like instead of saying G20, G21 and G22?
Yes, they are generator numbers, I will play with that further.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might consider moving up the Operations section to above the Expansion one. That could answer some of the questions I posed above, but it would require some editing. It's up to you.
  • I suggest more non-breaking spaces between numerals and MW. It's a pain in the butt to do this, but I tend to do it in articles I write because it improves readability.
This is done. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • per-second-wide? What does the "wide" mean?
Beats me, and as it is not in the source, I've deleted this. NortyNort can review this when he gets back and do as he sees fit.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, that was left over from a reference I removed.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue what that is and the conversion:((convert|1605|ft3/s|m3/s|adj=mid|-wide))shouldn't have came out that way. It may be atransclusion error in the convert template which happens quite often.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider creating a stub for "flip bucket"; it's a jargony term, and I have no idea what it is. A Wiki search turned up nothing.
I will have to find my copy of the proceedings for the Hoover Dam Symposium I went to in October in Las Vegas, as I recall there was some discussion of flip buckets, which were added to the dam spillways there after the 1941 tests turned up cavitation damage. Basically, what they do is slow the flow of water through the spillways to prevent damage by such things as cavitation. They were not very successful at Hoover Dam, as shown by the damage after the 1983 floods, and aerators were supplemented.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Environmental and Social consequences, were there any protests about construction of the dam? After it was built, has anyone advocated for its removal?
No sure about the protests and I haven't seen any significant movements for its removal.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that the environmental groups would love to see it removed, but they have easier targets to shoot at. This is a federal dam so there is no license renewal to oppose and if you removed it, then a good portion of Central and Eastern Washington goes back to desert. Good luck! Also it is a rather large hunk of concrete and somewhat difficult to remove.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Environmentalists have been successful with removal of 40 ft or less dams. Grand Coulee would be some struggle, particularly given its benefits.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard complaints about the dam destroying salmon runs upriver, but never a serious proposal for its removal. Actually, I've never heard a non-serious proposal for removal. The largest dams in the Columbia's watershed with serious efforts towards breaching are the four Snake River dams. Some "larger than 40 foot" dams have been successfully protested around here—Elwha Dam notably. Grand Coulee is way beyond. Pfly (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under tourism, are there any available visitor statistics? Is it a popular destination?
Not sure. It isn't a destination like Hoover Dam but I can try to research this soon although I don't think it is critical.
  • Are any maps of the reservoir available? That might help me grasp how those other dams mentioned in the article help out with power generation and irrigation.
I do not know of any personally, but I will look through the Bureau of Reclamation's excellent (and I mean that!) PD photo archive --Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a map. I am uncertain how much that helps, Grand Coulee seems to be a bit unconventional!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This satellite image, Grand Coulee NASA, might be more helpful for understanding the geography of the dam and its two reservoirs (Roosevelt and Banks). Pfly (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think either is good but am leaning towards the current because it shows the extent of the area irrigated.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what I can do. I am only passing familiar with the materials, so I may have to take some time over this. Thank you for taking such a thorough look.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and good luck to you. Much kudos for taking up a nomination that wasn't yours. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Least I could do. NortyNort was a worthy partner on the Hoover Dam article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JKBrooks, thanks for the thorough review and comments. I read over the article with changes and don't have any problems. I am in an internet cafe and am a little hurried but replied to concerns unanswered/unresolved. I hope they are satisfactory.I enjoyed reading Rampart by the way. Thank you Wehwalt for helping out here. I really appreciate it. Thank you Pfly as well!--NortyNort (Holla) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A very interesting read. I've made a few minor copyedits in the article but have not finished looking at the whole thing; in the mean time, here are a few things that I'd rather leave to the main editors. I may have a few more later.

Excellent article! Omnedon (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Omnedon, I don't think the last bit matters, and it is OK as long as you are consistent. I've dealt with your other two concerns. Also, I don't want to make a formatting change like that without the principal editor's consent.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it doesn't matter much as long as they are consistent. Thanks for the comments Omnedeon.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citations fixed.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's probably not too important; I believe it would be standard, but as you say it is at least consistent. Omnedon (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I looked at the guts of the article while babysitting, and made some quiet copyedits while making the substantive changes requested by reviewers. I think this is ready to be the second actually-built dam at FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Wehwalt.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and good comments. The article is much improved. I did add some more about the tourism but I couln't find a number. I have limited internet access now but will keep searching.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and Omnedon for the support.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the reference dates and changed a few dashes. The dating within the "Overhauls" section was discussed above and specific months were removed and the years were prefaced with "planned". The only thing I can think of is to just pull all the dates out and indicate the future. As far as capitalization, I believe you may be referring to terms like "Third Powerplant" which is operated by Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of). Power-technology.com is an energy media site and I haven't come across anything that indicates they are unreliable. I will look over the article more to try and pick out some issues.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I finished cleaning up the citations (which were strange), but no one yet has told us what makes power-technology.com a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and copy-edit.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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