Talk:Geography and ecology of the Everglades

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Geography and ecology of the Everglades has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 12, 2008.
June 1, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Peer review Geography and ecology of the Everglades has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] GA reviewing...

Righto, let's get this party started....comments to come. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style issues

All these are pretty minor. A good read and easy fixes.

  • The geography and ecology of the Everglades represents an elaborate system of interdependent elements throughout southern region of the U.S. state of Florida. - well, um yeah. I know what you are getting at (I think). i.e. its complexity but am a bit concerned the bolded bit is a bit vague really. It is describing complexity but comes across as a bit, well, abstract. I have to think about this.
  • other ecosystems are just as vital and borders marking them are subtle or do not exist at all. - I'd put a comma after 'vital' as I had to read this twice to get the gist of it.
  • As the water from Lake Okeechobee makes its way to Florida Bay, it meets salt water from.. I'd proabbly add a 'fresh' in the first sentence to contrast with the 'salt' water in the next clause, otherwise it does sound a bit funny
  • These systems undergo constant changes due to environmental factors, and shift, grow and shrink, die, or reappear within years or decades. - how about "Constantly changing due to environmental factors, these systems shift, grow and shrink, die, or reappear within years or decades." (succinct)
  • In geological terms, the Everglades is a young ecosystem, at only 5,000 years old. --> "At only 5,000 years old, the Everglades is a young ecosystem geologically." (succinct)
  • no other wetland system is fed primarily from the atmosphere - I know what you mean. fed is nice and succinct but seems odd in the context of water. Still I can't think of an alternative offhand. Not a deal-breaker this so don't worry too much
  • There are only two seasons in the Everglades: wet and dry. - add months for each here
  • Hurricanes are a natural occurrence: between 1871 and 2003 - semicolon needed here
  • with a frequency of one to three years in between. - odd construction, why not 'one every x years'
  • denude weakened branches -'strip'? simpler
  • epiphytes started to grow in areas.. - simply 'grew' is fine here
  • The only impediment to fire in the Everglades is the presence of water presented as rain. - '...in the form of rain' (?)
  • sweetbay - I'd use the latin name here as well and redlink it and/or make a stub. Loads of things are called bays. I like having scientific names everywhere. More debatable with vertebrates as many have official common names but plants have a lot of very generic common names.
  • I know there has been debate about capitalization of mammal names but bird names are.
  • Dade County pine has a remarkable longevity --> 'remarkably long-lived (simpler)
  • 200,000 acres - add hectare conversion


All changes made except for bird names - I'm sorry, are they capitalized or not? And Dade County pine has a longevity as a construction material, so technically it's not being referred to as living. --Moni3 (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensiveness issues

Nothing about weeds - were you going to put something about Melaleuca and/or casuarina in here? Or was that somewhere else? Also other feral species. Maybe touch on issues with alligators eating people/needing culling (?) Lastly, another very rare species the Everglades Kite should be mentioned. Maybe others. None of tehse needs to be in much detail, just a line or two. If you can't find latin names I can easily help out there and hunt up some stuff. it is only 45kb, plenty of scope for more info :)

Overall very nearly there. Well done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if I should make this clearer in the article, but for the most part, this article functions as what the Everglades was/should be in its most natural state. I know I touch on some issues of human impact, but Draining and development of the Everglades goes into that in much greater detail. And since invasive species has become an issue within the past 30 years that is directly related to the encroachment of urban areas in the Everglades, I covered that in Restoration of the Everglades. Are you suggesting that I just cover very basically some issues with exotic species in one or two sentences here? And the point about alligators eating people - I'm not sure what you're looking for there at all. It's actually quite rare. There is a section on wildlife issues in the Restoration article, and I need to include the Everglades snail kite in that section along with the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, and that's on my list of things to do.
I just happened to get up to deal with insomnia, so I hope I won't be on long tonight, so I'll take care of the grammar issues tomorrow. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I didn't see those other two articles. Good point (gawd, there is alot of information you've put in!!). OK, nevermind about weeds, but maybe there should be a more specific crosslink somewhere/somehow as cetainly I do think invasive species when I think 'ecology of x'. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: I am presuming the Roystonea species of Royal Palm is Roystonea elata (?). Also, this looks interesting. I always like promoting local provenance trees :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there are inevitably different types of Royal Palms in the Everglades, I left the link for the family of Roystonea. They are neat-looking trees, though. I wish I could have them in my yard. I included a crosslink in "Biodiversity" for invasive species. And I must agree with you - it is a lot of information. Nap time. --Moni3 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More plant species

Is the bustic, Willow Bustic (Sideroxylon salicifolium)? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Swamp holly is a disambig page - is it Ilex amelanchier?

I'm not as familiar with all the plant names - is it better to link to a general species or leave a red link for someone to come by and create and article, such as for the strangler fig? For FA, should I made all the plant names consistently latin throughout? --Moni3 (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a matter of opinion. Mine would be yes for consistency and precision reasons, because huge numbers of plants have the same common names in different countries. Things like 'holly' and 'myrtle' have different meanings. As well, many plants lack common names. And all plants as per MOS should be at their scientific name not the common one. Thus it will look neat having a nice blue italic name in brackets. I started doing a few already. Don't worry about redlinks. They are not deal-breakers and I am happy to come along behind and make stubs. Right now it is 11PM here and I have a cold so am about to go to bed. If you make redlinks I will make stubs tomorrow :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope you slept well. Now you have red links. An extra-special present for you! Yay! Let me know what else I need to do to get it to GA. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, Casliber! --Moni3 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)