Talk:Lake Lanier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lake Lanier article.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Rowing, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rowing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Georgia (U.S. state) Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Georgia (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
WikiProject Lakes
 Lake Lanier is part of WikiProject Lakes, a WikiProject which aims to systematically improve lake-related articles using the tools on the Project page. You are welcome and encouraged to edit the article attached to this page and to join the project.
WikiProject Lakes
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Water level table

Do we really need a table with the water level day-by-day? If this is important, wouldn't it be better presented as a graph? Dhaluza (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the lake level daily update table per WP:NOT#STATS. This sort of data table is not only visually obtrusive, it is not very useful. A graph might be more appropriate. Wikipedia should not contain information that changes daily. Dhaluza (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 22-January-2008: I have restored the water-level table, which was removed Jan. 11, narrowing the table to allow 9-words-per-line text wrapping, and bolding the December record-low levels. The table shows more than 32 record-low statistics, rather than the "not very useful" viewpoint. On the contrary, the policy WP:NOT#STATS recommends using a table (or infobox) to "enhance the readability of lengthy data lists" as stated:
"Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." (the paragraph at WP:NOT#STATS).
Tables are used to simplify the presentation of statistics; in this case, each statistic was a new record-low water level, such as 21 record-low levels in December 2007. A graph would have the advantage of a relational model of water levels but might create a larger display to also show the 100 numbers illustrated. However, the referenced source data is also presented in a similar table, allowing a direct verification of data, without the mental gymnastics of conversion into graph or histogram form. Because the source data is in tabular form, itself, the viewpoint of the table as "not very useful" fosters a criticism of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and many Wikipedia readers have engineering viewpoints. The issue of the table as "visually obtrusive" was abated by narrowing the table width, using "width=270px" (etc.) on the specification line of each table (see "Help:Table" from "WP:TABLE"). More Wikipedia editors need to learn how to reformat and condense the wikitables; however, Wikipedia hasn't yet established training for the editors. Anyway, readers are free now to ignore the table if they wish, and water-level updates are expected to end in February 2008, showing 2 months of data before/after the record-low levels which surpassed December 1981 levels. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Levels after January 2008

01-Feb-2008: The table for OCT/NOV/DEC/JAN was added to show 32 record-low levels ending 2007, plus 1 month before/after as daily comparisons. However, further data should be summarized: if data in February, March, or April (etc.) becomes notable, perhaps just mention particular days in the text, or if needed, create a 2nd smaller table with just Feb. 1, Feb. 15, March 1, March 15 (etc.). If record lows occur again in Nov/December 2008, a new daily table might be needed, in a new section for "Drought 2008" describing if new stolen cars or more firearms/etc. are found at the lake bottom. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table format options

01-Feb-2008: The table for 2007 OCT/NOV/DEC/JAN was narrowed using "width=270px" on the table specs (see: Help:Table). Further narrowing could be done with columns OCT/JAN by using small-font, such as <small>1056.3</small> for each number, plus reducing width=230px. I would avoid small-font numbers in the NOV/DEC columns, because some browsers don't allow bold for small lettering. A new table of semi-monthly data could use all small-font numbers to appear as a tiny table. Bear in mind that some people hate tables or images or anything not "word-ipedia" so expect opposition just as anywhere else. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table caption

Although I initially agreed that the removal of the table would be best I think its presentation has improved significantly and now merits inclusion in the article. I was reading through the caption for it and I think it could use a bit more information. First I think there should be a better information as what is meant by "New low levels are shown bolded." I assume this means levels lower than the previous record but I only gathered that from the talk page, so it could be more clear. Additionally a table of numbers is useless without some sense of scale, I think the caption should also include the fact that full pool is 1070 ft and "deadpool" is 1035 ft. I have found these numbers on various places around the web, I think 1070 is in the main text but I'm not sure about the 1035. Even with it in the main text however many readers, myself included, like to skim the article first to get an overview of how its structured, etc, before reading the main text. Looking at it from this point of view the table caption would be almost unintelligible. Finally, I mentioned "deadpool" and I see we don't have an article on this. I don't know enough to start one but if anyone here knows more about the subject its a great opportunity to get another article going. -AndrewBuck (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)