Talk:New Croton Dam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Images

 It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

This really is an amazing structure, and the low-res photograph do not do it justice. Could someone take some better photos?

[edit] General

. Then on August 26 after years of arguing, the Croton Dam began its journey to become one of the most beautiful and well known Structures In the world.

No one knows about this damn. Is there any evidence that is one of the most well known structures in the world?

[edit] Images, Fame, Pyramid Doubts

I agree with both earlier criticisms, (1) that the images are fairly weak and (2) that the fame of the dam is mainly local and regional rather than global. I've re-worked the sections about fame. I've done nothing yet about the photos. I've seen much better ones on-line, but they seem to be copyrighted. I'm guessing that some public-domain ones exist that I haven't yet discovered. Help would be appreciated.

By the way, I can find no hard evidence for the claim that New Croton Dam is the second-largest hand-hewn masonry structure in the world. The claim appears in many published accounts, including stories in the New York Times, but I can find no real support for the claim. It may be anecdotal and false. Besides, what exactly is being compared here? Height? Weight? Width? Volume? Thickness? I'm going to delete the dam/pyramid clause. If someone finds specific quantified evidence for the "second-largest" claim, please let me know. Finetooth 00:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional citation

I've added a source for the rest of the dam dimensions cited by the author. The citation is tricky because it's tertiary (Yorktown Historical Society, Giordano Associates, Scientific American). It would be better to cite Scientific American directly, but that's easier said than done. In addition, the Historical Society lists a reservoir capacity of 30 billion gallons, which is at odds with the 19 billion I've cited from a more recent and direct source. The Historical Society number might be wrong, but possibly both numbers could be right if the reservoir has silted up that much in 100 years. Anyone who can shed light on this, please do. Also, I wasn't sure how to do this possibly complicated citation. Should I have acknowledged Giordano and Scientific American in some way, or is the citation OK as is? -Finetooth 23:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in July 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Finetooth 02:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Proofreader: Staceyburz 14:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have completed an initial proofread, but the references aren't acting quite right. I'll be back to fix them later. Staceyburz 17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that if the second image appears on the left, the text in the References section doesn't wrap properly and the footnote numbers disappear. I moved the second image to the right side which solved the problem (at least on my browser), although I admit I would prefer the image on the left. If there is a better fix for this, have at it. As it stands, the article has been proofed.Staceyburz 14:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)