Talk:Jordan River (Utah)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleJordan River (Utah) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 22, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 27, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
May 4, 2010Good article nomineeListed
May 21, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 6, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jordan River (Utah)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 20:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am beginning the review. The article looks good but the references should not have underscores in them. Xtzou (Talk) 20:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a well written and interesting article. I did some copy editing for little errors through out the article, and you are free to revert any mistakes I may have introduced. I have only a few comments.

  • Per WP:LEAD, I think the lead could be beefed up to include summary statements of the sections of the article.
    • I'm bad at leads. I'm at a loss... I've got statements from all the sections. Is there any section in particular that you feel is lacking? Bgwhite (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference titles should not contain underscores. I removed a great many of them, but some remain and should be removed.
    • Thank You about the underscores. I was going off a template that included the underscores. Now I know....even worse is that I have a couple of other articles I've been working on that will take a couple of days to remove. You shouldn't have removed all the underscores... I should have done it, but thank you for doing it. I'll do the rest. Bgwhite (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mormons are mentioned in two different places under History. These should be combined together.
    • I'm not getting this. There is one paragraph under History that mentions Mormons and another paragraph under River Modifications. Is that what you want combined? If so, I disagree because in the River Modification I mention how the Mormons started to divert creeks the second day they are in the valley. Just wanting to make known that river modifications started early. Bgwhite (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply
      • "When the Mormon settlers arrived in 1847, the area around the Salt Lake Valley bordered on the grounds of several tribes." (I added the date to give it context).
      • (3 paras later in the same section) "On July 27, 1847, a party led by Brigham Young crossed the Jordan River and bathed in the Great Salt Lake." Xtzou (Talk) 11:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In History it says "The first crop to be planted in the Salt Lake Valley was field of potatoes" but previously Indian farmers were mentioned. They must have planted crops.
    • Same as above question... I have that they planted crops and diverted water... It's in there for diverting water. Should the wording be changed or the sentence removed? Bgwhite (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply
      • You need to give it context. Under a heading is not enough. If you make a statement like "The first crop to be planted in the Salt Lake Valley was field of potatoes." you need to say, after the Mormons arrived, or after the river was whatever. Give it context rather than making a blanket statement. The reader should not have to do all the work. Xtzou (Talk) 11:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Reworded the first two sentences. Bgwhite (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1885 compromise said that if the lake level was above compromise, the Jordan River must not be impeded." I don't understand the wording here.
  • Perhaps I missed it, but I did not clearly see where the water of the river goes to. Who gets most of it?
    • Oi. I've been on the fence on if I should add a water budget... guess you pushed me off. I added a paragraph in the watershed section. I'm not sure about the paragraph... bunch of numbers and obscure measurements. Bgwhite (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several sites that are apparently on the super fund list, but how much of a percentage of the river is this? Only three or four circumscribed sites, or large swaths?
    • I added that the Kennecott site covers 9% of the watershed. Added how many feet Sharon Steel ran along to the river. I'm not sure how much the uranium site sat next to the river and creeks. Murray site was not next to the river. So, two sites in Midvale sat next to 4%, do I add that? Bgwhite (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply
      • No, you don't have to add them. Giving percentages of each site gives the reader an idea. I was left confused over how extensive these super fund sites were. Xtzou (Talk) 11:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Reworded first sentence in last paragraph. Bgwhite (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note about the references. If you intend to go further with this article, the reference format needs to be standardized, and be sure to enter the author, date etc. when available. I added the author to a couple of references. Also, there is some kind of rule against mixing reference formats. e.g. {{cite web}} etc. should not be used with {{citation}}. Also I think only {{citation}} is supposed to be used with {{Harvnb}}.
    • Done. Ran it through the citation bot. Bgwhite (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should note that I moved a few references to the end of a sentence. Unless there is a compelling need, like a quotation, it is best not to break up the flow of a sentence with references in the middle.
  • Speaking of "flow", there is some repetitious use of languages such as "flow" and "the river". I changed some of this. If you intend to go further, you should be sure and get a copy edit directed and the use of language in the article. FAC, for example, is extremely picky about the use of languages, as well as referencing quality and format (among other things).

I will put the article on hold while you take care of these few things.

Xtzou (Talk) 21:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks good. Some may complain of WP:Overlinking. You might consider whether all the wikilinks are necessary. Certainly, if you ever went to FAC that would be an issue. Others, a good article. Xtzou (Talk) 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality: Clear and concise writing
    B. MoS compliance: Complies with the basic MoS
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources: Sources are reliable
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects: Broad in scope
    B. Focused: } Remains focused on topic
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 16:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

I'm going to begin my peer review of this article. Changes that are construed as copyediting and other quick fixes I'll just do in the article (with edit summaries, of course). Major changes to content or formatting I'll post here where they can be discussed. Sounds good? Now I'm going to learn about a river in Utah! Jhfortier (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Good. Thank you for your help. I really appreciate this. Bgwhite (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HUGE apologies for how long this review is taking; it's been a busy few days. I'll do everything I can to finish up the review tonight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhfortier (talk • contribs) 18:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. Life takes precedent over Wikipedia every time. Bgwhite (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Course[edit]

Point that needs clarifying: does the Turner dam divert water both ways (East and West)? Or do pumping stations beside the Turner dam move the water to the west? I've done copyediting on that section, but have not managed to fact-check that in detail yet.
The Turner dam diverts water both ways. The pumping station only moves water to the west. There's a photo in the article of the Turner dam, but it doesn't show one of the "gates"... It shows the gate for the canal going west (it later separates into two canals) and the gate for the Jordan River. The gate for the canal going east is hidden behind the Jordan River gate. Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've integrated additional citations into the body of the text; I realize they're all present at the end, and that technically it is correct, if you cite one source for a great deal of information, to put that single citation at the end. However, Wikipedia seems to prefer more frequent citations, and it prevents overzealous editors from performing a drive-by tagging of "missing" citations. Feel free to remove, if you prefer how it looks with a single citation at the end.
I see and will add the citations. Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, just saw you already put them in. Bgwhite (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall comments: this section is very informative, and has a lot of great information. To improve the flow of the prose, I might suggest removing some (not all!) of the distance markers between the tributaries and the mouth of the river. It might be easier to read if you note a few of the major/most important distances, but leave off others. Jhfortier (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can leave one off, but all the rest are the major tributaries and canals. Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great; your judgement is almost definitely best here, as I have no experience in article related to geography; normally I dabble more in the sciences, or TV, or the odd biography. That said, I'm more than happy to help with copyediting, wording and that sort of thing! Jhfortier (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are perfect. I really, really need help with copyediting. I'm lousy at it. It's a huge bonus that you have absolutely no familiarity with the subject as it gets an ousiders point of view. Your original comment was very good because it made me see that I had a minor canal with a distance... It shouldn't have been there in the first place. Bgwhite (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watershed[edit]

Excellent section with a lot of information. An FA review (or a peer review by someone with more FA experience) might suggest that you trim down some of the numbers to make it more of a summary style. In any case, overall this part was really well done, and I didn't change much beside some working on the prose a bit. Well done Jhfortier (talk) 05:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Hah! First mention of a Canadian! Sorry, I digress...

I've deleted that paragraph. The FA review would want it delete too.... What a depressing day to find out Provo, Utah and the Provo River are named after a hooligan. :) Bgwhite (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is really informative, and a really nice contrast against the number-heavy sections which describe the "mechanics" of the river's route and flow. I think this section summarized a long history quite succintly, with great information on the Native American and European history of the area. The sentence about the drainage of the Jordan River in the holy lands, and its similarity to the Jordan River in Utah might need some clarification. I made a change, but it should probably be double-checked in case my re-wording made it incorrect. I've finished up to "river modifications" so please feel free to review my changes. Jhfortier (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: in the section of "River modifications" it makes notes of ditches. It says "other ditches included"... I'm not sure if the ditches still exist, but if they do, perhaps it should be changed to "include"?
Other notes about River Mods section: When discussing the canals, the sentence "all told, five large canals were completed". I think this sentence could use a qualifier: were they all built before a certain year, or is that up to modern day? Just an idea.
"The river was dredged from Utah Lake to below the old dam and a second dam was built in 1890." This sentence is also a bit unclear, and perhaps "dredged" is a bit too technical of a word?
Same goes for "In the 1950s, due to flood control measures, large sections of the river were straightened in Salt Lake County." The verb 'straightened' is used (I think) a bit uncommonly here and may need clarification; did they actually dig channels to straighten out the river? (If so, that's pretty incredible). A quick explanation for this sentence and the "dredged" one would really help improve the clarity.
Overall, great work on this section. The summary style was well-employed here, and I felt that I had just enough pertinent information (settlers, dams, floods) without going into too much detail. Jhfortier (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I added corrections to your above four points. Could you check them out to see if they are ok Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really good!! The section on straightening the river and increasing the slope is very very interesting, I think it really enhances the article! Jhfortier (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology[edit]

Great section. I made a few prose changes to break up repeated sentence structure, but overall this part was great; to-the-point, detailed enough, and interesting. Nicely done. Jhfortier (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pollution[edit]

Ok, finished this section as well. Similar to the rest of the article, I changed a bit of prose to avoid repeated phrasing, but again, the summary style is well utilized here. Excellent, please see final comments below. Jhfortier (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan River Parkway[edit]

Skipped over a couple of sections to finish this bit off (I'll go back to the others tomorrow, hopefully). This section is short but important; great information on how the river is being used today. Some minor changes only, as this section was really well done. Jhfortier (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments[edit]

Overall, this article was really well done! I think it covers the topic well, and has just enough detail (and excellent use of wikilinks) to introduce the reader to a number of new topics, which is what good Wikis do! I would suggest, before going to FA review, perhaps soliciting another quick once-over by someone with a bit more experience in FAs, particularly ones on similar topics, simply because I don't have any experience bringing anything to FA. Overall, really well done Bgwhite, I hope you get this to FA! If you need another peer review done, please don't ever hesitate to ask! Jhfortier (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left-overs from FAC[edit]

Looks like everything else has been fixed except discharge data, watershed map, and geology (though I see that you've started on that). That is not to say that nobody will spot something else, but a graph of errors and missing things in the article would be a curve that is slowly approaching zero. I like the city-location map you've added to the Watershed section. I'm cloning your link to the map-in-progress to here to make it easy to find without going back and forth. Finetooth (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new map is much more sharp and clear than the earlier one. Streams are blue, canals green, watershed white, and "not watershed" tan. Watersheds usually end in a taper leading to the mouth; this one doesn't, which makes it highly unusual. I'm assuming that the two canals running into the Great Salt Lake account for this. I also notice that the watershed, as depicted, does not extend to the source. I don't see how that is possible. That leads to the question of where the watershed boundaries came from? How do you know where they are? In every case (except one) of the streams I've tried to make maps for, I've been able to find watershed maps, either on-line or in books, that I could use as reference maps. You are using software, I think, that interprets a set of base data to create a map. Does that base data in this case include the watershed boundaries? Finetooth (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a reference map from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. The watershed includes all of the upstream tributaries draining into Utah Lake, and the taper toward the mouth is apparent even though it does not funnel down as much as most watersheds. Most interesting. Your watershed map, however you create it, should show a watershed of the same complex shape as this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got the source for the watershed boundary map from the State of Utah GIS Portal. Here is the definition used by the Jordan River Watershed Council [1]. The Department of Environmental Quality has it mislabeled. They should have said the Utah Lake Watershed with the Jordan River being a "subwatershed" of Utah Lake's Bgwhite (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Jordan River description from the Utah Division of Natural Resources. Bgwhite (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hers is one from the USDA Bgwhite (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. This poses quite a logical problem. Usually "subwatershed" refers to a tributary watershed rather than the main stem, which drains all the tributaries. Even so, I guess you could discuss the main stem below the lake as a subwatershed. In that case, I think the beginning of the Watershed section needs to be revised slightly to say something like "The Jordan River watershed is a subwatershed of a closed basin that includes Utah Lake and all of its tributaries as well as the Great Salt Lake. The subwatershed occupies a roughly rectangular area of about 805 square miles (2,080 km2) within Salt Lake County." I say this partly because this subwatershed isn't closed; it flows into the Great Salt Lake, its outlet.
The other logical problem involves the definition of the sub-basin by the Division of Natural Resources (DNR): "The Jordan River Basin includes all streams tributary to the Jordan River from the Salt Lake County line on the south all the way to its terminus on the north at the Great Salt Lake." The problem is that the DNR is using a political boundary (the county line) to define part of a watershed instead of the usual physical ridgeline or confluence that separates one watershed or subwatershed from the next. If you accept this definition of the subwatershed, that puts the upper river outside of its own watershed. The logic of this almost forces you to say, when you describe the course and the length, that the river begins at the county line. On the face of it, this does not make sense. Do you see a neat way out of this? Finetooth (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Egads, you aren't supposed to make me think.... I "think" I've found the way out. Looks like we have been using the wrong terminology. In the U.S. (Canada?) we should be using River Basin instead of Watershed. Here is where the terminology being defined. The terminology web page references the USGS paper Hydrologic Unit maps. Here is a pdf copy of the USGS paper. The Jordan River is on page 53. Going off from your paragraph from above, "The Jordan Subbasin is a roughly rectangular area of about 791 square miles within Salt Lake County. The subbasin is part of the larger 3,830 square mile Jordan River Basin that also includes the subbasins of Utah Lake, the Provo and the Spanish Fork." The USGS paper has a slightly different number for the size of the subbasin. I'll put the USGS number into the article instead of the current one.
Looking at other info, Here is USGS maps for the basins. You can type in the id number given in the USGS paper and get this. I'm going to look at that web page more later today as it looks like alot of info I hadn't seen before. Bgwhite (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put up some new language in the watershed section and update the map in the infobox. What do you thing? Bgwhite (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>The watershed map is a great improvement over the earlier watershed map. The colors are simple and easy to understand; the text is clear. Since you're bending the usual watershed-map conventions by using a handy part of the watershed rather than the whole watershed, it wouldn't hurt to make this as clear as possible at the beginning of the Watershed section. The existing section begins, "The watershed or the Jordan Subbasin is located entirely within Salt Lake and Davis counties in a roughly rectangular area of 791 square miles (2,050 km2). The Jordan Subbasin is part of the larger 3,830-square-mile (9,900 km2) Jordan River Basin that also includes the Utah Lake, Provo and Spanish Fork Subbasins." Would this be slightly better: "The Jordan Subbasin, as defined by the Utah Division of Natural Resources, is located entirely within Salt Lake and Davis counties in a roughly rectangular area of 791 square miles (2,050 km2). The subbasin is part of the larger 3,830-square-mile (9,900 km2) Jordan River Basin that includes the upper Jordan River, Utah Lake, Provo and Spanish Fork subbasins"? I'm still looking for a way to include that upper Jordan section between the lake and the county line, which I think is not part of any of the subbasins you mention. Other reviewers and readers may find this puzzling if it's not explained.

I know in Utah County on the western side of the Jordan River there is the Saratoga Canal that runs south from the Jordan Narrows to a stream bed. The stream enters into Utah Lake. The canal varies from 1,000 feet to just over a mile west of the River. On the eastern side of the river from the narrows to 1/3 of the way to Utah Lake there are "cliffs" next to the river. On top of the cliffs, the water runs east into Dry Creek and not into the River. Dry Creek enters Utah Lake about 2,500 feet from the Jordan River. There are some ditches that run between dry creek and the Jordan River, but I do not know the source of the ditches. I think one reason why the watershed maps don't show anything in Utah County is because there isn't much land that drains into the river. Bgwhite (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I didn't realize that water actually flows out of the river and back into the lake. That's a fairly amazing complication made possible, I'm assuming, by pumps. Would it be possible to find a source for your explanation and to add it as a note? Or perhaps the best place to explain this is in the "River modifications" section. The idea that part of the river flows in a circle is rather wondrous, I think, and would have made a good DYK hook. I remember wondering, when I read the sentence "In 1875, the first large canal, the South Jordan Canal, was completed and it brought water to the area above the bluffs of the Jordan River for the first time", how the water got from the river to the top of the bluffs, but I forgot to ask. It would seem to be going uphill, but it must have been pumped, yes? I ran into complications like this on the Columbia Slough, an urban stream that has pumps and dikes, that once connected to the Columbia River on its upper end but no longer does, and sometimes flows backwards (upstream) as far as the lowermost dike. Even after the article became FA, questions from readers led me to do more research and add explanatory notes. Finetooth (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a pump house in the Narrows that pumps water to Kennecott and to two canals (it's in one of the photos on the page). All the other canals in the Salt Lake Valley use gravity. The Narrows is a "steep" section for the river. They use a couple of dams to divert the water into canals. The river goes down hill in the "steep" section while the canals stay at the higher level. "Steep" is relative as the Utah and Salt Lake Valley's are an old lake bed that are pretty level.
The pump house sends water to the Welby-Jacob Canal. It's the furthest west canal in the Salt Lake Valley. The city of Saratoga Springs (in Utah Valley) also mentions the Welby-Jacob Canal running through its boundaries. Looking at google earth, both of these canals seem to start at the same point above the pump house on Camp Williams' land. What I called earlier the "Saratoga Canal" is actually the Welby Jacob Canal. The Saratoga Canal starts nearby (same pump?). The lat/lon where the the canals start is 40.43973 -111.92199. You can see most of the water going west into the Salt Lake Valley with a ditch going east then south into Utah Valley. I think I'll be putting in a call tomorrow to find out about the canal as nothing pops up on the web or the documents I have. Bgwhite (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the other map that you've added to the Watershed section. It would be good if Old Satch had added more about the source to the image license page, but it looks like a GIS map. In the lower left-hand corner of that map is text that says, "Double-click to enter text". That should be removed. If you don't have any way to do that, I think I can. Just let me know.

I've been in map hell today creating doing two new maps. One is an update of the watershed map. The other is a replacement of Satch's map. Both are of the same view and have the rivers and canals. One is like the current watershed map while the other shows elevation and cities like Satch's. They are done except for writing the labels for cities and the creeks. Will finish tomorrow. Bgwhite (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with map hell. The first watershed map I attempted was so difficult that I was not sure I could ever do it. I made many mistakes and produced many ugly versions before making one that I dared to show in public. (I, too, have erased map versions or parts accidentally and have had to start over.) The maps got a bit easier with practice, but none has been truly easy. I tend to work on them in installments to avoid getting too many doses of frustration in one day. I feel certain that your maps are going to be fine. I'm thinking that maybe I should learn something more about GIS. I've been using public-domain Census maps and modifying them mostly with Paint.NET, and I don't know from personal experience how this compares to working with GIS data. Finetooth (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I did not invent anything about map-making. I learned about the Census maps and Paint.NET from User:Ruhrfisch, who may be the true godfather of rivers and who has made many wonderful maps. Finetooth (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the fault illustration represents only two dimensions, it might be interpreted as two horizontal blocks sliding horizontally. I don't know if you can create or find in the Commons something like this (in "Faulting"). Just a thought.

I think the sentence "Calculating the Jordan River's discharge can be difficult with outflows to various canals and inflows from creeks, sewage treatment plants and other sources" is unnecessary and could be deleted entirely from the Discharge section. You could just start with the second sentence, "The United States Geological Survey maintains a stream gauge... ". Finetooth (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments[edit]

This is in response to a request from User:Bgwhite for further comments. Enough time had passed that I was able to read this with fresh eyes. The maps are certainly better, and so are the additions about geology. However, I still see things that puzzle me. I made quite a few minor proofing changes; please revert if you find any of them disagreeable. Here are my suggestions and questions:

Lead

  • The lead is skimpy and does not mention fish or wildlife. Also, the pollution paragraph is a one-sentence orphan. You could solve both problems by adding a couple of sentences about fish and wildlife and re-arranging the material slightly. I'd also suggest adding more about the nature of the Jordan Subbasin and more about the history. If you can imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead and will learn nothing about the river except what's stated in the lead, you can see what's needed.
Updated the lead. However I'm bad at summarizing.

Course

  • The convention for course descriptions is to describe things in terms of left or right rather than east or west. Although it's OK to mention that left is west and right is east in this river's case, it would be best to stick to the convention for most instances instead of using east or west for most instances.
We had this discussion once before when the page was nominated as an FA. I originally had no right or left and you had me add "right or easterly" and "left or westerly". I'd like to stick to west/east as the river runs due north and everything is east/west in Utah (helps to have north/south running mountain ranges everywhere).
I vaguely remember. East-west works for this river, but you may get asked about it again by other editors. Finetooth (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discharge

  • The Manual of Style suggests using "percent" rather than the symbol, %, in simple cases likes the ones in this article. I'd suggest changing all of the % symbols to "percent" in this section and the rest of the article.
Done

Watershed

  • "As the region experienced increasingly warmer and drier climate over time, Lake Bonneville's water levels receded, leaving behind the Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake behind as remnants." - Both "behinds" could be deleted. "Remnants" is sufficient.
Done
  • This section gives the basin size as 791 square miles, but the geobox gives it as 805 square miles. Which is correct?
Done. Body's numbers were change to reflect USGS data. Changed infobox to be the same.
  • "Approximately 237,000 acres (960 km2) (46% of land area) of the Jordan River Watershed... " - Should this say Jordan Subbasin instead of Jordan River Watershed for clarity?
Done. Changed a few more.
  • I think it would help to add the average max and min temps in summer and winter (maybe July and January, whatever represents the most extreme) for Salt Lake City and Alta.
Done. Grrr, going to need to change the numbers next year. Weather service uses 30 year rolling averages with next year starting a new 30 year period.

History

  • Citation 39 appears in the text after the word "and". Should it go somewhere else?
Done
  • "Bingham Canyon is a porphyry copper deposit where magma containing copper, molybdenum, gold and other minerals slowly moves its way to the surface and cools into rock." - Because this sentence uses present tense, it leaves the impression that the magma is still rising to the surface. Is that the case? If not, when did the magma rise?
Changed. Still looking for date when the magma rose.
  • "By 1890, underground copper mining had started, and in 1907, Kennecott Copper Mine's started open pit mining." - Doesn't make sense as written. Should "Kennecott Copper Mine's" be "Kennecott Copper Mine"? Or "Kennecott Copper's mine"?
Changed

River modifications

  • "The first dam in the Jordan Narrows was constructed in 1872 and raised in 1880... " - I'm not sure what "raised" means in this context. I'm guessing from the material about the compromise level that this dam can be opened and shut or raised and lowered somehow like the locks of a canal. Could you add something to this section to make the workings of the dam more clear? What is the mechanism at the dam(s) that makes it possible to stop damming the water if the lake gets too high and the pumps can't keep up?
Added sentence on dams stating, "Both dams have been rebuilt in subsequent years and operate as diversion points for canals rather than impounding water by the use of sluice gates and head gates." The word "damming" is wrong word for a sentence and replaced with, "pumps could be turned off so that water could be held for storage in Utah Lake.
  • " in Midvale and Murray as part of local smelter operations" - Wikilink smelter?
Changed
  • As a result of the flooding, the Utah Lake compromise level was amended to 4,489 feet (1,368 m), which resulted in the Jordan River channel being above the level of Utah Lake until the Jordan Narrows." - I'm having a hard time envisioning how these engineering structures work. If the river channel is higher than the lake, what keeps water from the river from flowing into the lake instead of away from it? If the compromise level is changed, that affects the lake level, I think, but how could it affect the river channel elevation? Can you make this more clear?
Removed. I shouldn't have put that in there in the first place as dredging over the years has lowered the original river bed.

Pollution

  • "Cleanup of the property is complete, although the Jordan River Riparian Project still underway." - When was the cleanup finished? Should this read "is still underway in 2010"?
Changed to "underway in 2010". EPA makes no mention when the cleanup was finished.

Uranium mill tailings site

  • "contained a uranium mill" - Wikilink uranium on first use?
Changed

References

  • Multiple pages should be abbreviated pp.
I'm not finding any. There are pages that are numbered as "2-34" and does not represent a page range.
Gothcha! I've run into that problem myself. The last time it happened, I used citations like "Jones, section 1, p. 1", but your reference system is different, and I don't have a quick solution. Finetooth (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are probably OK as is except that other editors may keep mistaking them for mistakes. Finetooth (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
I know I went through and added en dashes waaaay before. Do you have a good way of spotting where an en dash wasn't used?
I just see them, though I'm sure I don't always see them all. Citation 12 needs an en dash; that's probably the only one. I was reading the hyphenated pages as multiples requiring a pp. Finetooth (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I recently added a script to my monobook that finds and fixes most en dash and em dash problems. However, it is subject to false positives, and has to be closely supervised. Finetooth (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to do a rewrite of the lead if you like, but I don't want to tread on your toes. The other thing I just remembered is the question of a lead photo. Shannon mentioned this at the FAC, and I agree. I briefly added the 1908 dam photo but noticed the copyright line on the face of the image; it appears that the image comes from the Utah State Historical Society rather than the USGS. A note on the license page at the Commons says that the original came from a USGS document published in 1901, but the photo is dated 1908, so that does not seem possible. In any case, unless the "free" nature of the image can be made verifiable by reviewers looking at the license page, the image can't be used by Wikipedia. That means that some other image should go into the geobox. Maybe something licensed as cc-by-sa 2.0 generic is available on Flickr, and there are other possibilities; I'll look around and let you know if I can find anything suitable. Finetooth (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite anything you feel that needs it including the lead. Someone of your stature would not be treading on my toes at all. Sorry, didn't see this before I wrote on your talk page. I will crop out the copyright tag and stick it in the infobox. Utah Historical Society likes to put copyright tags on everything even if they don't own the copyright or the photo is in public domain. I complained once to them about an image being in the public domain and having their copyright tag on the photo. Their solution was to remove the photo from the web, so I won't complain anymore. I've tried to find other old photos of the river the Historical Society has the are definitely in the public domain, but have been unable to find any. Bgwhite (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although I may notice something wrong with my prose when I look at it again tomorrow. Revise as you see fit. The new image in the geobox looks very good, and I forget if I ever mentioned how much I like the Jordan-Jordan comparison image. I must knock off for the evening. Visitors have come knocking at my door. Finetooth (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map problem[edit]

Just an opinion, since the Jordan River also carries runoff from Utah Lake shouldn't it be sensible to include the watershed of Utah Lake in the map, rivers like the Provo, Spanish Fork, etc.? Just showing the Jordan valley as the watershed is kind of confusing, especially when you've got the watershed lines tapering at the connections to both lakes, as if the river emptied into both… Since the runoff from the Utah Lake basin would eventually end up in the Jordan river, anyway, if it weren't evaporated or used for irrigation, etc… Shannontalk contribs 03:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth and I have discussed this (discussion starts on this page just under "Left-overs from FAC"), but I'm not sure if we are 100% sure on what to do. Right now the map shows the Jordan Subbasin as defined by the USGS. The majority of sites also have the map area as the watershed of the Jordan River. The article talks about the Jordan Subbasin and not the entire river basin, plus the subbasin map better shows the canals and creeks flowing into the Jordan River. This weekend I did make a map of the entire Utah Lake basin. It's located on the Utah Lake page or in the Jordan River (Utah) category on wikicommons if you wanted to take a look. (I'm working on the Utah Lake page but the map was easier on my brain to do at the moment). Maybe an option would be to put both maps on the page? Bgwhite (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more map parameters to the geobox and inserted the second watershed map to show one way it could be done. I think three maps makes the geobox too long, but I'm not sure. Maybe the locator map showing Utah County could go elsewhere in the article, and the two watershed maps could stay in the geobox. What do you think? Finetooth (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the locator map could just slide over to the left near the bottom of the course section. Finetooth (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I kind of tend to prefer defining a river’s watershed as any land whose runoff eventually ends up in the river, not as defined by the federal government for cataloging purposes. I ran into a similar problem with an IP on the Owens River article a while ago, and he kept insisting that the Owens River watershed consisited of two watersheds not one. I poked around for a while and eventually User:Kmusser told me that “HUC” was just a term used by USGS to organize hydrological regions not necessarily actual river basins. I don’t think it would be good to base the watershed around human defining and modification rather than the natural flow of things – I mean, the river has been flowing there for, like, 8,000 years, since Lake Bonneville dried up, and people only started taking water out of the lake something like 100, 200 years ago? I would go with a more detailed map of the entire basin, but resolution high enough so that the different creeks’ names could all be shown... Shannontalk contribs 18:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, chiming in quickly. I like the two maps on the page now (subbasin and basin). They are nice and clean, and quickly indicate how the subbasin portion is related to the rest of the total watershed. True, a more detailed map, ideally with relief topography shown, would be nice, since the area's mountains and valleys are so important and defining. Looking at topo maps it is obvious that the lower subbasin is a region unto itself. Wrt: USGS HUCs, I generally agree that they are not ideal for defining watersheds. But in this case, due to the topography of the area, the subbasin HUC seems to correspond with the lower Jordan's watershed quite well. I just looked for any streams not part of the Jordan within the subbasin on topo maps and couldn't see any. It appears that the HUC is defined as the crest of the surrounding mountains (Wasatch, Traverse, and Oquirrh), which also seem to be the county line and the drainage divide. Shannon, are you saying the lowermost portion, with all the canals, may not be part of the river's "natural" basin? I'm not sure what you are getting at. Canals shouldn't be shown on the map? Canals have changed the natural basin? Your Owens River comment makes me think about the Lost Rivers of Idaho and how they are part of the Snake River's watershed only via underground aquifers--"closed subbasins" or something. Anyway, this page is looking better and better! I knew almost nothing about this river, excepting its interesting similarity to the Dead Sea's Jordan River (fresh water lake to salt, "promised land", etc). Pfly (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Pfly, how dare you edit the talk page while I'm editing it :)
Three maps does make the geobox too long. Hmmmm, my preference would to keep the subbasin map and Utah map in the geobox with the entire watershed map further down. The article does state the Jordan Subbasin is part of the larger Jordan River Basin, so putting the basin map where it mentions the basin would make better sense. I just redid the article with the maps in different spots. This is the version Pfly saw. I now like the map showing the cities in the Course section better as that's the section that talks alot about the cities. How does it look?
The subbasin maps does show the natural flow of things for the river from Utah Lake on. There are no streams that enter the Jordan River in Utah County. I'd prefer two maps over one high detailed map as most people just look at the maps from the article page. With a high detailed map, they would have to click on the map and then click on the map again inside commons to be able to read everything. Also, as the article talks mostly about the subbasin, having two maps would show the different basins better. Bgwhite (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new map arrangement looks good to me. I have another minor layout quibble to bring up. For a long time now, I've been telling people to avoid placing images directly beneath a third-level subhead. This issue used to come up frequently at FAC, but I've heard little about it recently, and I can't find anything in the Manual of Style about it. Even so, to avoid trouble it might be good to move the images directly under "River modifications", "Macroinvertebrates and fish", and "EPA Superfund sites" either to the right or down, whichever works better. If you do this, you'll probably want to move some of the other images from right to left to maintain a pleasing layout. Finetooth (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images have been re-arranged. Do they look ok? Bgwhite (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>Yes, that looks fine to me. I am running out of quibbles. I agree with Pfly that the page is looking better and better. Is the article ready for a return to FAC? Finetooth (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hallelujah... I thought you were Legolas, the elf from Lord of the Rings. Legolas keeps shooting arrow after arrow but his quiver is still full. I swear you had an endless supply of quibbles in your quiver. :)
Nominate for FAC on Tuesday or so. Will give some time in case Shannon1 has quibbles. Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more like Sam Gamgee than Legolas. Your plan sounds good. You may know this already, but it's OK to inform any editor who has expressed interest in the article that it has gone to FAC when it goes. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I have just one more quibble – I think this could be compared to the Pend Oreille River, a river which is only 130 miles long but has an enormous extra basin above it, or the Neva River, even more so... I kind of understand now why the article describes the river valley not the whole basin. If you wanted to compress the two maps into one I would suggest having a map of the whole basin, with a magnification of the “Subbasin” in one corner (inspired by some of User:Kmusser’s maps except it’s the other way around). Otherwise I think the 2 map arrangement is fine. I posted my quibble before I ever saw the complete basin map, so I guess that is good. Shannontalk contribs 22:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not planning to put the complete basin map in the article, so your quibble was excellent. I'd rather not do a two maps in one because of a) I'm not sure how b) My wife hears enough swearing when I do maps, she would hear even more while I'm trying to learn how to do two maps in one. Bgwhite (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A full basin map makes sense to me, and would be nice to see, but isn't necessary and making a good map is hard, long work. I found a couple such maps online (government, but not federal, so not public domain): [2] and [3]. The second one, although graphically less than pleasant, shows tributary names and overall watershed boundary clearly, which is nice. Maybe if someday someone makes a map these would be useful sources (I'd offer to do it, but I barely have time to write these comments now). The comparison to the Pend Oreille River is interesting, Shannon. It does seem like a similar situation: Jordan-Utah Lake-(lake's tributaries) vs. Pend Oreille-Lake Pend Oreille-Clark Fork. In both cases it seems that the watershed above the lakes (Utah & Pend Oreille) is larger than below. In the Pend Oreille case, it's unclear whether the page on the Pend Oreille River should focus on just the portion below the lake or the whole drainage basin. We touched on it briefly a while back but didn't figure it out, right? It's weird partially because the Clark Fork is actually much longer and drains more area than the Pend Oreille. There's also some historical complications that prevented the whole from ended up called Clark Fork (I think). Anyway, I there's one key difference with the Jordan River that I can see. The Pend Oreille has no tributary that comes close to comparing to the Clark Fork (ie, mean annual discharges: Pend Oreille, 26,430 cfs; Clark Fork: 21,930 cfs). Essentially the two are one river with a big lake along the way. The Jordan River doesn't seem to have a single main tributary like that. Utah Lake is fed by two main rivers, I think: Spanish Fork, 237 cfs, and the Provo River, 200 cfs (there doesn't seem to be a USGS gage on the American Fork, is it significant?). The Provo & Spanish Fork appear to have drainage areas of similar size. So, anyway, my thought is that while it would make sense to describe the total drainage basin of the Jordan in some detail, it wouldn't be quite like the Pend Oreille/Clark Fork case, where one could arguably write a single page about both rivers. The Jordan case seems closer to the Spokane River, Lake Coeur d'Alene and its two main inflows, Coeur d'Alene River and Saint Joe River. Of course the Spokane River page has a full basin map (one of Karl's maps). Anyway, I don't have a particular point and no quibbles, just comments for future thought. Pfly (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooop, I just learned something else about the Jordan's full watershed. Perhaps y'all know, but there are two "trans-basin" diversions feeding water into the Jordan watershed, via the Provo River. The Duchesne Tunnel diverts up to 630 cfs from the Duchesne River, a tributary of the Green River. The Weber-Provo Canal diverts a varying amount, up to a max capacity of over 1,000 cfs from the Weber River (a tributary of Great Salt Lake separate from the Jordan River) to the Provo River. See this website. I didn't find anything about annual mean discharge stats, but the max capacity is an awful lot for the region. Again, just info for some future time. Pfly (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it gets alot worse. The Central Utah Project is the umbrella organization that directs all the water projects. There is a bigger diversion that sends water from Strawberry Reservoir (on the watershed map, it's the big reservoir due east of Utah Lake that is just outside the natural watershed) to Diamond Creek and into the Spanish Fork River. The water is sent to the Spanish Fork River and eventually into Utah Lake to offset the water taken out of the Provo River and sent via the Provo Reservoir Canal (the canal is now a pipeline) to the Salt Lake Valley for drinking water. Tracking where the Spanish Fork water eventually goes is a mess as it's diverted all over the place. Plus, add in the customary canals going everywhere. The total water taken out of the Duchesne and Strawberry is around 135,000 acre-feet per year. Utah Lake and surrounding Jordan Basin is my next article. I'm 1/2 done with the rough work, but haven't been motivated to get back into it the past few weeks. I'll definitely bug all three of you. Bgwhite (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. I think I read somewhere that large scale irrigation in the US was pioneered by the early Mormons, probably focused on the Jordan River. I'm not sure if the page says anything about this, but if true it would be notable, I think. I'll see if I can find that old book I read. Pfly (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>I'll throw in another two cents, mostly for future reference. Late in the evening, I do background reading not necessarily connected to any particular article. I've just started The Pacific Slope by Earl Pomeroy, a historian. It's interesting in part because it includes a lot about Utah as well as the more western states. On page 85, Pomeroy says, "President Young and his hierarchy soon built canals more reminiscent of the theocratic irrigation states of Biblical times than of anything in the modern American experience, and also an iron works, a railroad, and a telegraph." On page 111, he says, "The Mormons may justifiably claim to have been the first industrialists of the region as well as the first irrigationists, though theirs were also the first industrial failures." Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some browsing last night, mostly online, but also books like Cadillac Desert and Meinig's Shaping of America books. There was so much about how the early Mormon irrigation work after their amazing "exodus" to Utah set the foundation for most irrigation projects in the West. Mormon collectivism allowed for much larger schemes than most western pioneers could manage (and allowed for failures to be made that would destroy a smaller, less "communist" settlement). When governments got involved in helping Western settlers with irrigation they used the projects of the Salt Lake Valley, Utah Valley, etc, as a template. The early Bureau of Reclamation was apparently made up of mostly Mormons experienced in large scale irrigation. Put more dramatically, one can trace a fairly direct line from the early irrigation projects along the Jordan River to Grand Coulee Dam and the Columbia Basin Project. Meinig wrote that although most Americans in the mid-late 19th century did not approve of Mormon society, there was a great respect and admiration for the Mormon's transformation of such a hostile environment into a major urbanized and developed "oasis". Anyway, yea, this is a pretty amazing bit of history. It doesn't seem far-fetched to say that early development of the Jordan River had consequences of major national significance. Pfly (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pfly clicked save before I could... Here's a good encyclopedic article on irrigation in Utah. At the bottom it gives several books as sources. Cadillac Deseret is an excellent book that focuses on water development throughout the west. It's depressing, sobering and makes you angry. Irrigation definitely wasn't focused on the Jordan River as wherever people settled, they needed water. Bgwhite (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Cadillac Desert is depressing, though the writing is enjoyably spunky. It took some hunting but I found, via the Seattle library, a PDF of Thomas Alexander's article "The operation of the Irrigation Companies in Wasatch Oasis Communities, 1847-1880". Looks good and very detailed so far. Pfly (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another journal article by Thomas Alexander that focuses on 1870-1930. The link is a pain to load, but the article is up front so you can read without loading the entire thing. I've found this book, "Report of irrigation investigations in Utah" from 1904 to be invaluable to figure what/why/how of canals in Utah. I love this quote, “There are three things we value in the West. We value women, we value gold, and we value water. And you can fool around with our women and with our gold. But damn you, Mr. President, don’t touch our water!” Senator Barry Goldwater to President Jimmy Carter. Bgwhite (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a bit off topic, but I haven't been online for almost 2 days; what Pfly mentioned about the Duchesne Tunnel if that diversion didn't exist I believe the Green might be larger than the Grand (Colorado) at their confluence. Also I ran into a problem similar to the Weber-Provo diversion with the Mississippi River. Apparently water from Lake Michigan also flows into the Mississippi via the Chicago and Illinois but as Kmusser said, showing a combined basin wouldn't be appropriate because the water amount is negligible… Then in the case of the Weber-Provo diversion wihch was mentioned to be 1000 cfs or something?! (Does the Weber even have so much water? Even the Bear's average flow is barely over 3000 cfs…) Since 1000 cfs is a lot for a desert region, maybe showing the upper Weber basin in a different color would work… I've seen that sort of stuff on several Eastern Canadian river maps, such as the La Grande; it shows the natural basin in yellow with the diverted basins in orange. Lots of odd interconnections going on there, messing with the natural flows of the rivers since they're so close together and have no 10,000 foot high mountain ranges separating them… Poke me if you feel like modifying the map, I'd be glad to do one for the Jordan, if showing the combined basin is better. Shannontalk contribs 21:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The key word is "max capacity". It can carry that much, but it doesn't. Here is the data for the current year. The Duchesne diversion is relatively small, so far 20,000 acre-feet for the current year. The Weber diversion is at 40,000 acre-feet. There are no reservoirs above the diversions, so most of the water diverted would happen in spring to mid-summer. There are reservoirs below the diversions (Jordanelle and Deer Creek) that impounds the water to be used for drinking water in summer and fall. The Duchesne diversion is putting water into the Provo River that would otherwise be diverted into the Spanish Fork River. The Strawberry diversion to Spanish Fork River is much larger. The tunnels can carry 600 cfs, but as there are reservoirs above the diversions, the tunnels carry a more constant flow. Here is a map showing the mess. On average, the strawberry diversions carry 163,000 acre-feet per year. btw... currently the Green is running at 8,400 cfs and the Colorado above where the Green enters is at 10,000 cfs. The state of Colorado has their reservoir mess too. I'll do a combined map to let you see how it looks. Should have it tomorrow. Bgwhite (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... doing a little math... 20,000/763 is about 26 cfs and 40,000/763 is about 52 cfs. Funny when the capacity of the tunnels are exponentially larger, it’s as if they also served as spillways. And yeah, that’s one hell of a mess there; all those diversions going on. I looked up the discharge for the Weber River yesterday, 260,000 Acre-feet a year /763 is something like 320 cfs, .....Then again, like what I said about the La Grande,the diverted basins could be shown in orange... but looking at that map, the diverted area is small enough that it might not warrant inclusion. I guess it might be better to stay with the original natural watershed... Shannontalk contribs 16:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

HI. Nice article. but I have a small problem with this:

The Jordan River Parkway was originally proposed in 1971 as a flood control measure with two reservoirs, restoration of wetlands, shoreline roads for cars, walking trails, and parks.[99][100] By 1986, $18 million had been used to purchase lands around the Jordan River and to construct the Murray Golf Course, several smaller parks and about 4 miles (6.4 km) of canoe runs and trails.

Who exactly was it purchased by and who actually proposed it in 1971?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Jordan River Parkway was for flood control? That sounds bogus. It is clearly recreational, but what, if anything was done for flood control? Ksnow (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the main article on the Jordan River Parkway, it looks like the flood-control provisions (the two proposed reservoirs) were dropped, and only the recreational and beautification aspects were retained.Ksnow (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]
Question of "Who exactly was it purchased by and who actually proposed it in 1971." I suggested you read the references 99 and 100 of who proposed it. Short answer... Salt Lake County Board of Commissioners (today's Salt Lake County Council) asked for a study that was completed in 1971. A public push spearheaded by the Deseret News newspaper in 1973 galvanized support and started the funding. Various county and city entities formed the Jordan-Provo River Parkway Foundation to coordinate in building the parkway. The foundation is no more with Salt Lake County and Utah County coordinating the work. Look at page 2 in reference 103 for all the stakeholders involved in the Jordan River Parkway Trails Master Plan Stakeholder Committee.
Reference 101 shows what state money went for construction by 1986. It also gives some nice history of the Parkway. However, it doesn't show federal grants and city contributions. For example, Murray City contributed money towards Murray City Golf Course.
For flood-control provisions... The primary purpose of the parkway was flood control with recreation secondary. The reservoirs were dropped. However, there were alot of flood control measures besides just reservoirs. Reference 99 and 100 gives a list of measures proposed in 1971. Specifically, river was dredge and straightened near the Great Salt Lake. River was dredged elsewhere much to the chagrin to environmentalists. The surplus canal was enlarged so the Jordan River could carry less water thru populated Salt Lake City. Storm drains were created so Immigration and Parley's Creek no longer run above ground and in case of high water, the excess water flows into the Surplus Canal instead of the River....Bgwhite (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TCO review and suggestions[edit]

Nice article and cool river. I like river articles.

1. Do some more work on the maps. They are CRUCIAL for following a river article. They're actually more important than the text. Get them buffed up. Don't feel like you need to do it yourself or just use what is in Commons. Go to the Graphics Lab and engage an expert and really make them EXPLAIN the article. Display large and centered (see Manhattan project for guidance). Use a cutout for the place in the world. Make sure the lines for political boundaries and watercourses are clear. Add some graphic showing the diversion to the canals. Consider to rotate course map with an indicated compass point (will help aspect angle when showing centered and kinda works in terms of showing the stream from source to mouth). Consider to cut the endorheic rivers as they are confusing and not really a part of this river basin.

2. It seems like the 4 different big cities are all part of SLC metro area. Suggest to be clearer about this in lead.

3. Some work on ordering lead would be good. It is not bad, but still could use a little more.

4. Would be worthwhile to mention the river naming in lead and to wikilink to the biblical river. It helps orient people who are not from Utah and gives some context. It's really amazing how similar the rivers are. And this is notable.

5. Add a comment about the major two diversions to canals in the lead.

6. (ruffle and flourish) some sort of table or graph showing stream output versus time could be interesting and help support the discussion of pumping and diverting and all.

7. The flora and fauna discussion where we say all the large mammals are gone is confusing especially after the topic sentence (I doubt the deer, coyotes and rabbits are all absent now).

8. Please research if there are turtles and then if so mention what kind. If none and sourced statement, would be good to add even the negative info.

9. Second para in course is much too long. Almost 400 words, 17 sentences. Cut it into 2-3 paras. It's even more painful since the content is kinda dry and since there are so many numbers with parentheses of alternate units.

P.s. I can help with the work...it is not all on you...just mentioning on talk first, so we don't edit war.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jordan River (Utah). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jordan River (Utah). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Jordan River (Utah). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Jordan River (Utah). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jordan River (Utah). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jordan River (Utah). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jordan_River_(Utah)&oldid=1204936257"