Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Everglades/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Everglades[edit]

edit | discuss
Everglades
8 articles
Geography and ecology
Indigenous people of the region
Draining and development
Restoration
Everglades National Park
List of invasive species
Marjory Stoneman Douglas

Everglades. Because I have 666 pages on my watchlist and this will change that number. --Moni3 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meah. 18.74.6.84 (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the lord my soul to keep...yeah support. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always found that prayer disturbing... Guettarda (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A la Dawn of the Dead-type stuff...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I discovered it as a 9-year-old my take-home message was that you might die in your sleep. Guettarda (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I notice that the Everglades page has navbox at the bottom with far more links than this topic. Several look like they should be here, including the state park, the marine sanctuary, and the two wildlife refuges. At the least, you can't include the Everglades National Park and not Biscayne National Park. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 20:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biscayne National Park is located in Biscayne Bay, not in the Everglades. It is tangentially related to the some of the same environmental issues that the Everglades also face.
Would the best solution to appease your opposition be to remove the other links? I disagree with including every article in Template:Everglades. The Everglades are fully and comprehensively covered with this suite of articles and you have not provided sufficient reason why an Everglades topic lacking a GA-class article on Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve, for example, is a disservice to readers seeking more information on the Everglades. I'm fine with your oppose. Either the topic is featured with these articles or it is not. --Moni3 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moni, you bring up very good points; I apologize for speaking before doing more research. I agree that the navbox includes far more articles than would be pertinent in a featured topic--some of them will never be able to be more than a stub, or only tangentially relate to the Everglades. I looked through the list of articles included and see that Ernest F. Coe is a large article with at least as much relevance as Marjory Stoneman Douglas. I feel that to include Douglas and not Coe is not really a balanced topic nomination. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 22:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can see the next article to be buffed for GAN then....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking through the set, trying to see if anything is missing. If Marjory Stoneman Douglas hadn't been there, I would never have given the omission a second thought. But with her, you start to wonder why Coe isn't. I can see her as being more important than him, certainly. But I'm not sure where you draw that line. Guettarda (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ernest Coe is as large as it is because that's everything I could find about him. Unlike Douglas, Coe was not a journalist, did not have a lengthy writing career, did not write an autobiography--nor have any books written about him--and did not live into the late 20th century where media repositories saved relevant information about him. There are considerably fewer sources about Coe than Douglas. Does this mean then that this suite of articles could never be a featured topic as Coe's article would probably never pass GA? --Moni3 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why couldn't it? I have had shorter articles that passed as GAs, even as FAs. Ucucha 13:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - it doesn't seem to short for a GA. In addition, FTs can have "reviewed" content that, for whatever reason, are ineligible for GA/FA. Guettarda (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, kids. We're discussing comprehensiveness here and it's not the length of Coe's article at issue, it's the fact that I couldn't find what F. as his middle initial stood for, or why his nickname was Tom, or what he did for the first 60 years of his life. I'd fail that shit in an instant in a GA nomination. His story is told as backstory to the establishment of Everglades National Park in the sources I could find. I don't think enough source material exists--that I could reasonably gain access to--to make this a worthy GA. He has letters and correspondence I believe in the Special Collections department at the University of Miami, but that's an issue with primary sourcing and still it would all concentrate on the period of his life after he moved to Florida. I don't have access to it anyway.
How is this process being decided here? It does not seem as if knowledge of sourcing and comprehensiveness of the Everglades as a topic are the primary considerations, but quick skims of a template and experience with past featured topics. This seems askew. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean about Coe. As for me, I am reading through the articles and trying to see if I can think of any gaps. And engaged in rambling conversation in the meantime. Overall I think it's pretty good, although I always take issue with "invasive" species, since it's a term that's so widely used, and so poorly defined. But yeah, the entire 'featured content' process is askew. Guettarda (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - for the same reason I (and 2 others) opposed last time, namely I feel that Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan should be included, or merged into Restoration of the Everglades. However I don't feel any individuals should be included. A good way to illustrate why is that none have {{main}} links in the lead article. While these individuals have no doubt done a lot for the Everglades, they are not subarticles of the lead. One other slight query I have - why a list of invasive species but no lists of native species? I guess the former are more notable than the latter? rst20xx (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it has been 10 years since CERP was passed and very little of it has been accomplished, I don't feel that the article is that integral right now to the Everglades. The Restoration of the Everglades article includes a discussion of CERP and its lack of implementation.
    Hmmm maybe you're right. The topic would obviously be improved for having the article added, but on reflection I don't think it is valid to oppose due to its exclusion - rst20xx (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your comment about main links in the lead article.
    Let me put it another way. Marjory Stoneman Douglas is not a subarticle of Everglades, and her article is in no way summarised in the latter article. The articles that are summarised are those with a {{main}} link, and hence a topic on the Everglades would be best including those articles - rst20xx (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But her life was directly involved in promoting Everglades conservation and restoration. Can you explain why an FA about Douglas is inappropriate in a suite of articles about the Everglades? --Moni3ontheroad (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Topics are about their lead articles - and so they start from their lead article and are built outwards from there. The lead article mentions Douglas a number of times but is in no way about her. Whereas all the other articles have their own sections in the lead article. Hence there is a mismatch between her article and the others - rst20xx (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Invasive species in the Everglades, as noted in the lead of that list, are notable as South Florida is one of the most highly infested locations on the planet. Geography and ecology of the Everglades covers native flora and fauna. --Moni3 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK the Geography and ecology of the Everglades article discusses native species. But it doesn't list them, and so they are not covered in as much depth as List of invasive species in the Everglades.
    Over a thousand native plants and hundreds of vertebrate animals are considered to be native to the Everglades. The distinction is that several sources have identified specific invasive species in South Florida and the harm they have caused the natural environment. The damage they do requires explanation and the list itself is notable. No such list exists for native plants and animals other than, quite literally, a potentially unmanageable roster of plants and animals native to the Everglades. It is more efficient for readers and it mirrors source material more closely to discuss how native flora and fauna act within the natural ecology of the Everglades as explained in the Geography and ecology of the Everglades article than it would be to list them all out. --Moni3ontheroad (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, you've convinced me - rst20xx (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry it took me so long to reply. Look forward to your responses - rst20xx (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Don't mind if the Coe article is included or not. ceranthor 14:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think after a careful consideration of the articles and the scope of the topic, I think that this level of coverage is appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this gives a good overview of the Everglades and will be a worthy topic to be featured. The layout of the box is weird, though; to me at least it looks like "Geography and ecology" and "Draining and development" are subarticles of "Indigenous people", and likewise "Everglades NP" and "Douglas" of "Restoration". Ucucha 12:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I get for following the template. I'm not sure how to fix it. Anyone can feel free to tinker with it. --Moni3ontheroad (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Can you pick an image for the topic, and also make it a book? Just look at any other book and copy that as a model - rst20xx (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I chose another image, one I just took last week. I think I did the book thing right, but it's the first time I did it so I may have to fix something. --Moni3 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice pic. Makes me want to get back down there again. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 16:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I really don't find anything missing in this topic. It may have scope for expansion, sure, but there's no obvious gap. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good to me. One query — all the articles have the word "Everglades" piped out, except the park itself. Why not pipe that too as "National Park" for consistency with the others? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. A couple other editors have come along to tweak the topic box. This is my first featured topic nomination. I don't know what is done normally. Tips? Suggestions? --Moni3 (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Everglades National Park" is a title - rst20xx (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I believe the topic meets the comprehensiveness requirements. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll leave a note on Goodtimber's talk page to see if his oppose still stands; he hasn't edited in a while though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close with consensus to promote. Rst's concern was addressed, and Goodtimber's concern was looked into by others with the decision that the topic was fine as is. I'd like to see Coe added myself, but nonetheless this topic will now be promoted. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/Everglades/archive2&oldid=1091467909"