Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jordan River (Utah)/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:05, 21 May 2010 [1].

Jordan River (Utah)[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Bgwhite (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Jordan River flows through four of the five largest cities in Utah including Salt Lake City. The river is one of three major tributaries of the Great Salt Lake. The article has undergone a peer review, GA review and a copy edit. Bgwhite (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

map Images seem fine, although a map of the North American continent showing the location of Utah may be helpful as many readers may be unfamiliar with US geography, and the location is only shown with reference to this state Fasach Nua (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 16:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by the page range from 4-1 to 3-54? The latter is before the former. Ucucha 16:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
egads, you have sharp eyes. I meant 4-1 to 4-34. It's fixed Bgwhite (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jordan River watershed includes the creeks of — I'd omit the underlined since they're all named as creeks anyway
Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1270200,000 m³ — must be wrong
removed the extra zero Bgwhite (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • villagers graciously hosted them — where does Graciously come from, not in source?
gracious is not used in source. The Native Americans feed them, replenished their supplies, gave them new scouts.... gracious hosts. Would another word like kindness be better? Bgwhite (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The native birds have been replaced by black-billed magpie, mourning dove, ring-necked pheasant and starlings — The first two are US native species
Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC) More later Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object From a very brief look, found
    • normal hyphens used in page ranges
en dashed the article Bgwhite (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • BCE mixed with Christian AD, and usage of dots or not is inconsistent
Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The total average outflow from Utah Lake through the Jordan River is 416,000 acre feet (499,200,000 m³). The streams of Big Cottonwood Creek, Little Cottonwood Creek, Mill Creek, and Parley's Creek comprise 80% of the surface water flow to the river. Total estimated average inflow from eleven largest streams feeding the Jordan River is 129,000 acre feet (154,800,000 m³). Total average of water entering the Jordan River from sewage treatment plants is 92,000 acre feet (110,400,000 m³), estimated amount from groundwater is 121,000 acre feet (145,200,000 m³), the estimated amount from stormwater is 25,000 acre feet (30,000,000 m³), and the estimated amount of water returned from irrigation runoff, plus the over-watering of lawns and gardens is 18,000 acre feet (21,600,000 m³). The total estimated average outflow from the irrigation canals near the Jordan Narrows is 175,000 acre feet (210,000,000 m³). Total estimated outflow from the Surplus Canal and State Canal, two canals the flow directly into the Great Salt Lake, is 518,000 acre feet (621,600,000 m³). Total average amount of water entering the Great Salt Lake from the Jordan river is 106,000 acre feet (127,020,000 m³).

is like a bot reading from a stats sheet and punching out some pattern sentences YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragraph, again Bgwhite (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues: Very few; in general sourcing and referencing look excellent.

  • Ref 4. Your footnote wording seems somehow defensive. You say: "Online references give varying lengths, from 40 to 60 miles. Using data from Utah Division of Water Quality Jordan River TMDL 2009, p. 18 as it gives river mileage." To give it a bit more authority I'd shorten this and merely say: "Length per Utah Division of Water Quality Jordan River TMDL 2009, p. 18 (some sources quote other lengths)"
Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 22 and 51 are to the same web source, but are formatted slightly differently. Suggest make them consistent.
Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, no issues with sources. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: FA-level stream articles include discharge data if available. Please see Larrys Creek and Aliso Creek (Orange County) for examples. The data should go into the geobox and also into a "Discharge" section of the "Course" section. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has gauges that record this data on many U.S. streams, and it is sometimes available from other sources such as watershed councils or state and local governments. An interactive USGS map here shows all of the USGS gauges in Utah, including at least one on the Jordan River. To meet the requirement for comprehensiveness, you need to add a summary of the Jordan River discharge data to the article. If this does not make sense, please ping me on my talk page.
There is no reliable "discharge" data. Currently the Jordan River output from Utah Lake is controlled by pumps. I had put in yearly averages (see comment above about "is like a bot reading from a stats sheet"). I've gotten responses that have ranged from the paragraph is fine to remove it. So, I'm at a loss Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Sorry, I read through the other comments last evening but the removed paragraph for some reason did not register with me as discharge data. Of course it is, but I'm in agreement with YellowMonkey that it's off-putting as written. Here's a compromise suggestion: The USGS has a succinct summary of the discharge data here over the gauge's entire period of record through 2008. It includes the gauge location, the all-time maximum and minimum recordings, and a statement about the peculiarities of this highly regulated stream. I think you could paraphrase that summary, since most of the essentials are there. You might add a sentence saying what percentage of the whole drainage basin this particular gauge covers. In addition, though it's not so easy to figure out the USGS options at first, it's usually possible to arrive at a close approximation of the average discharge by forcing the USGS software to produce the set of statistics you want. Here are the raw average discharge numbers over the life of the gauge; from this set of numbers, you can calculate the overall average by adding the annual averages and dividing by the number of years. (This is tedious). Although this average discharge will not tell anyone what the river is doing at any given moment, it's still useful as a gross measure, and the max and min discharges add additional information about what kind of critter this river is. If you use this method to calculate the average annual discharge, it would be good to add a note saying that the figure was derived from USGS data. Finetooth (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to disagree on using the USGS gauge you've linked to. On average, 84% of the river has been diverted to the Surplus Canal before reaching this gauge. Plus, just over 100,000 acre-feet of water pass through the gauge location over a year. On average, there are 800,000 acre-feet of water flowing into the Jordan River over a year. The river's discharge beyond the Surplus canal is usually constant unless construction work needs to be done... Surplus canal is used for flood control. In the Jordan River's case, I think it's best to use the above acre-feet paragraph, but reworded... drop things like stormwater and irrigation. Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The complications make the system all the more interesting. I agree with you that the stats from the gauge I linked to are insufficient, and I like the summary you've written in your comment directly above this one. You know a lot more about this river than I, and I did not realize that the stream gauge was only measuring what is essentially the left-over water downstream of the Surplus Canal. I note that the PDF file I linked to for the Jordan River gauge says in part, "For records of Surplus Canal see station 10170500. For records of combined flow, see station 10170490." I'd recommend looking at the records for these other two gauges to see what they have to say before re-writing the discharge material. Even if you decide not to use the gauge data, I think it would be helpful to other researchers if you at least mentioned the existence of these gauges and included inline citations (one per gauge) or added links (one per gauge) to the "External links" section of the article. Finetooth (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Watershed: The map colors are confusing. Why not reduce the visual complications by making the watershed one color and everything outside the watershed another color? Water bodies and place labels would be exceptions. Unless the color meanings are obvious, they need to be explained in the caption. WP:WPMAP has info on map conventions, and the existing FA articles on streams have a variety of maps that might provide insights.
I'm not sure what you are saying by "making the watershed one color and everything outside another color". I see where I need to change the labels of the creeks and rivers. I did something stupid and deleted the project files for the map, so I'll need to start over from scratch. Before I do, would like to get it straight about what color to use where. Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I learned whatever I know about map-making largely by imitating the work of other Wikipedia editors whose maps I admired. If you look at the watershed map for Larrys Creek (by User:Ruhrfisch), you will see what I mean by "making the watershed one color and everything outside another color" (yellow and tan, in this case). It's no accident that these colors match those of the locator map. (I think the yellow is ffffd0 and the tan f7d3aa). The water on this map is blue, and the text is black. The map has a directional arrow and a scale. Everything essential is expressed with four colors and some text. The watershed map for St. Johns River (by User:Kmusser) uses, if I'm counting correctly, six colors, text, and a caption key to express complex information with maximum efficiency. It, too, makes the watershed and non-watershed areas quite clear with two colors. Finetooth (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern is 7,500 feet elevation difference and three mountain ranges in the relatively small watershed. How do you show elevation? Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. All of my maps have been two-dimensional, and I'm unfamiliar with the software you are using. You might ask User:Kmusser, who made the Columbia River maps, or User:Shannon1, who created the watershed map for Aliso Creek, how to include topographic details without creating map clutter. I would just ignore the third dimension, but that might not be the best solution. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, there is more of a black-white background showing the topology. I'll do two maps with no captions, one with the black-white and one like the St. Johns River. Will show you both and I'll go with the one you like best. I'm not sure if I can do any wikipedia today, but will have by tomorrow Bgwhite (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Maps are difficult. I look forward to seeing the new versions. Finetooth (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Black/White map stank, so I just did the other map. It's in almost done form, just need to center it better. The map shows the canals. Tell me what needs to be changed. The map can be found here. I had to laugh at your statement of "unfamiliar with the software you are using." The problem isn't with the software, it's with the user. I'll work on more of your comments from below later tonight. Bgwhite (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<outdent>When I click on the link you've provided, I get this error message: "Sorry, the page (or document) you have requested is not available." I'm not familiar with Google docs, so the problem might be on my end. Not sure. Finetooth (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it would have helped if I had clicked save on permissions. The link should work now. Bgwhite (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new map in the watershed section showing the geography and city locations... I'm assuming the new watershed map will go in the infobox Bgwhite (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add elevation to the basin map, take a look at File:Greenutrivermap.png for one way to do the shading. If you're using GIS I could give you the elevation I used for that map, though it might look pixelated scaling down that much - you can download more detailed elevation data from http://seamless.usgs.gov/. Kmusser (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The State of Utah has scattered land holdings of 9,778 acres (39.57 km2) throughout the watershed" - It might improve readability to round numbers like this to 9,800 acres and convert to square miles as well as square kilometers.
Done Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Salt Lake City receives 16.5 inches (42 cm) of precipitation annually." - Rainfall and general precipitation are usually expressed in millimeters, although snowfall is expressed in centimeters.
Done Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History: "United States Army's Corp of Topographical Engineers" should be "United States Army Corps of Topographical Engineers", probably linked to United States Army Corps of Engineers#History.
I put the link in, but I would prefer Topographical Engineers (TE) as his reports and books were filed under TE (including the article's reference) and resources I've looked at note him as a TE. Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The TE and link are fine, but "Corp" should be "Corps", and I don't think you need the "'s" on "Army's".
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further Finetooth comments:
Course
Does the river run parallel to any significant highways along parts of its course? Do any significant highways cross the river? Do any significant bridges cross the river?
No bridges. Salt Lake Valley uses a north-south/east-west grid system. So, all major north-south roads run parallel to the river and all major east-west roads cross the river. Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the course description should include the most important roads, like Interstates 80 and 215, that either closely parallel or cross the river. These should pretty easily fit into the existing course description. Finetooth (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With stream course descriptions, the convention is to begin at the source and proceed to the mouth and to identify tributaries as entering from either the right bank or the left. Compass directions generally don't work well because most streams don't flow in a straight line. The Jordan River does, so east and west work relatively well, but I'd still recommend at least adding a clarifying "left" for "west" and "right" for "east" on the first use of these terms.
Geology
A peer reviewer of an earlier version of this article mentioned the need for a geology section, saying " ...most of the pollution seems to be mine related, so I think this is especially important to include". I agree. Where did all that copper come from? What made the mountains? What happened in the region before the Pleistocene?
History
"The local Timanogots villagers graciously hosted them and told them of the lake to the north." - I agree with User:Jimfbleak about "graciously". It's an editorial comment expressing a point of view. If you simply delete the word, the sentence is fine.
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Watershed
The lead mentions that the river flows through four big cities. How big? Shouldn't they be mentioned in this section?
Done Bgwhite (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
River modifications
"The commission's 1885 decision stated that if the lake level were to rise above the established compromise level, the Jordan River must not be impeded by either dams or flood gates." - "Could not be" rather than "must not be"?
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Additionally, the commission stated that after water pumps were installed at the mouth of the river, the pumps should all be working if the lake were to rise above the compromise level." - Do you mean the source of the river rather than the mouth?
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, if the lake level fell below the compromised level, the river may be dammed so that water could be held for storage in Utah Lake." - "Could be dammed" rather than "may be dammed"? Also, "compromise level" rather than "compromised level"?
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wildlife
"Unfortunately, once-common native species such as the willow flycatcher, gray catbird, warbling vireo, American redstart, black tern, and yellow-billed cuckoo are no longer found along the river." - Delete "unfortunately" since it expresses an editorial opinion (point of view).
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pollution
"In 1948, the river in Murray recorded a total coliform level of 2.94x107 per 100 millimeters" - Do you mean milliliters (ml)? And should you say "2.94x107 bacteria" rather than using the raw number by itself?
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but looking at this again, I see a further problem. You write that "In 1948, the river in Murray recorded a total coliform level of 2.94x107 per 100 milliliters... ". The source says, "Murray, before a chlorination program was started, had an average coliform count of 2,770,000." The source then lists readings for several places, including Midvale at 29,400,000. Midvale appears to be different from Murray, and the numbers are hugely different. Should the existing number in the article be changed to 2,770,000? Or should "Midvale" be substituted for "Murray" in the text? If the latter, be careful to say something like "in the early 1960s" rather than "1948" for the Midvale numbers, since the counts, according to the source, were taken in different years. A further suggestion: these particular big numbers are not too big to write out, and I think they would be easier for most readers to grasp than the scientific shorthand. Or you might consider saying something like "an average coliform count of about 3 million per 100 milliliters". This would make it easier to compare to the 5,000 per 100 milliliters. Finetooth (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PDF documents
Dates consisting solely of a month and year don't need commas separating the two parts; e.g., "June, 2004" should be "June 2004".
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This may seem really simple compared with all the professional comments above, but I think that there needs to be a picture in the geobox and the map should also go in the geobox. Shannontalk contribs 20:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jordan_River_(Utah)/archive1&oldid=1141923204"