Talk:Osborne Reef

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Osborne Reef has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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.
WikiProject Environment
Portal
This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Florida; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the 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.)
Low This article has been rated as a Low priority article
This article contains or may have contained one or more non-free photograph or photographs. It is requested that a freely-licensed photograph be included in this article to replace such copyrighted images, if possible, in order to better comply with our policy for non-free content. Many copyright-free image sources are listed at our public domain image resources, or you could create your own. Alternatively, you may request permission from the copyright holder of the original images to release them under a free license.
Wikipedians in Broward County, Florida may be able to help!

Contents

[edit] GA status

I have reviewed this article, and it looks well organized. However, I cannot say the article is ready for good article status. It clearly needs a really good copyedit. There are all sorts of grammatical inconsistencies. For example: "With the endorsement of the US Army Corps of Engineers[1], Broward Country approved the project. That spring, enthusiastically supporting the reef construction, more than 100 privately-owned boats volunteered to assist with the project; accompanied by the USS Thrush they simultaneously dropped thousands of tire bundles onto the reef." (e.g. 'Broward Country' in the first sentence, and the second sentence is poorly-written and is kind of a run-on sentence).

The article could use some images, although I understand the difficulty some editors might have in taking underwater photos.

There are a lot of red links, particularly towards the end.

You're going to have to define the word, "minortoxin." It's a red link, and without an article to click on, most readers will be lost. The sentence probably also needs a citation, as it's original research without one.

It's getting close. A little more work, and I think it will be WP:GA. Editors might want to review WP:WIAGA and WP:CITE for suggestions. Dr. Cash 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A blow-by-blow reply, if I may:

I've re-read this off-and-on since the WP:GA was declined, and I'm not sure how "clearly" it needs a copyedit. I re-wrote the sentence around the "Corps of Engineers" bit, as well as a few spots here and there, but I'm not sure if the areas I touched upon are what were being referenced or not. It reads well to me, but then again, I wrote most of it and am not objective as to the stylistics of my writing.

I originally had some images from the Florida Environmental Agency (or whoever), but they turned out to belong to the Sun-Sentinel and became fair-use as opposed to free-use. I tagged the talkpage with {{reqfreephoto}}, but I'm not holding my breath.

  • The Reef Ball Foundation may or may not be sufficiently notable to warrant an article, so I left the redlink alone for others to hash out.
  • I've removed the redlinked "minortoxin" as it (a) isn't a real word and thusly unlikely to gain an article, and (b) may be a misspelling of the writer quoting the interviewee in the referenced article (further point though, the "minortoxin" bit is sourced, why the WP:OR warning?).
  • I also removed the wiki from "International Coastal Cleanup"; as a part of The Ocean Conservancy, it probably wouldn't prove to be sufficiently notable for its own article.
  • Coastal America may prove to only be notable with reference to this article, but I'm not so sure and left that redlink in for the possibility.
Based on derek.cashman (talk · contribs)'s recommendations I've tweaked the article as above (and more); but ultimately, I don't think it really changed that much. What further improvements and/or changes could and should be made to the article to make it the best it can be? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

It seems as though Fort Lauderdale tire reef and Osborne Reef are different names for the same artificial reef. I know little about it, so I won't take the initiative to merge Fort Lauderdale tire reef into Osborne Reef, deleting the former. But this should be a simple matter for soemone better informed than I am about this reef. --Zantastik talk 04:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Maralia 05:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the merger into Osborne Reef. I won't mind being bold and making the merge myself; while the other article may have some information this one doesn't, we need to ensure proper and accurate sourcing before merging any of it into here. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, upon further study, Fort Lauderdale tire reef only has the one source and it's already in this article. I'm inclined just to make the redirection of that article into this one, barring any objections. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 07:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. There are several issues that need to be addressed before I will pass the article:

  1. Expand the lead a little more, there is no mention of the cleanup at all. The lead should adequately summarize the article while meeting the requirements of WP:LEAD.
  2. Go through the article and make sure that all of the inline citations go directly after the punctuation. I saw at least two occurrences.
  3. "Gregory McIntosh, an employee with BARINC, would laud the project to the attendees of a 1974 conference on artificial reefs: "Tires, which were an esthetic pollutant ashore, could be recycled, so to speak, to build a fishing reef at sea,"[3]" The comma should be a period.
  4. "The culmination of the project was the deposit of over two million tires bound with steel clips over 36 acres of the ocean floor, approximately 7000 feet offshore and at a depth of 65 feet." The single sentence shouldn't stand alone, so either expand on it or incorporate it into another paragraph.
  5. "Unfortunately, no exceptional efforts were made to ensure the non-corrosivity of the steel restraints and they summarily failed" Don't use "unfortunately", this doesn't sound NPOV (even though it makes sense to use the word). Use something else that is more factual
  6. The — is used twice in the article, but there is a space before it in one occurrence, but in another it is touching the word. Make sure they are fixed so that they are uniform.
  7. "Furthermore, the tires were now easily subject to the tropical winds and storms that frequent the eastern Floridian seaboard and are found to collide". Reword "and are found to collide" to "were found to have collided".
  8. "An original estimate of between $40 and $100 million led the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to plan to arrange a deal with those companies whose construction damages the seabed and reefs." Add an inline citation for this.
  9. "This plan faced criticism on the part of environmental groups who felt that this would only hasten the destruction of more marine habitats." Change to "faced criticism by environmental groups".
  10. "CWO Donovan Motley said that the cleanup of Osborne Reef easily met those requirements: "This project allows these military divers and Army LCU crew members' real-world training in 'wartime' salvage ops. And perhaps, more importantly, it exercises interoperability with federal, state and county agencies and these skill sets could have the most significance in the aftermath of a Katrina-type natural disaster,"" Add a source, and change the comma to a period.
  11. "Barring unforeseen operational commitments and engagements, military divers hope to use this project as a training platform for the following several years and "recover the maximum number of tires possible from day one,"" Reword "following several years" it sounds awkward; again, change the comma to a period.
  12. Also, if you can, mention what type of fish the project hoped to attract. See if you can find another picture, either of a tire(s) or maybe of several of the fish.

I am going to leave this article on hold for seven days and if the issues above are addressed, I will pass the article. If you have any questions or when you are finished, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 05:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, awesome, thanks for the input! I've edited the article and have addressed most of your points. If I may:
  1. I worked on the WP:LEAD, and I think it's pretty sufficiently comprehensive. Let me know what you think.
  2. I moved some in-line citations around, but would appreciate a once-over again if you wouldn't mind.
  3. I changed the comma to a period. The commas that you wanted changed to periods I originally left in there because they were direct from the original source. Grammatically, I would have changed them, but since they were part of the original quote I pulled, I was wary.
  4. I just merged this sentance into the previous paragraph where I think it still sounds appropriate. I initially left it alone because I felt it summed up the entire section well, but thinking on it, I didn't do that with the other sections, and it is ultimately unnecessary to stand alone.
  5. I'd thought about that before, and wasn't sure what others would think. I changed it to read "As there were no exceptional efforts made to ensure the ..."
  6. Fixed the —s.
  7. I didn't change this to the past tense as you requested because in my reading it seems that this is a continuing, ongoing problem. I reworded it to say: "... eastern Floridian seaboard and continue to collide ..."
  8. The citation you requested for this is the same that appears about a sentence or two later. I've duplicated it where you wanted it, let me know if that's what you intended.
  9. Done, no problem.
  10. That entire paragraph is all cited to the same citation at the end, do you want it placed throughout the paragraph as well? Took care of the comma>period.
  11. I reworded that blip to read: "military divers hope to use this project as a training platform for several years and ..." Took care of the comma>period.
  12. Nothing I've read yet says anything about specific types of fish expected, except to say: "game fish".

    I originally had two pictures that I had sourced to Broward County and were not listed as being copyrighted. However, the County's website later changed and now sources those pictures to the Sun-Sentinel; being copyrighted now, they failed the non-free content criteria (#1) and I requested they be deleted (Image:Divers distance.jpg, Image:Fishprofile.jpg).

Thanks again for taking the time to look over all this, I really appreciate your input; if you have any other questions or comments, lemme know. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA critera. I made a few minor corrections, but other than that the article looks fine. Considering the inline citations, I usually recommend adding one to each statement, even if the next sentence uses the same source. If there is only a cite at the end of the paragraph, when another editor/anon who doesn't know about the sourcing, they may stick more relevant information into the paragraph from a different source. But if there is no inline citation after the prior statement, then readers will think that all of the information is from the same source. It may seem redundant at times, but it doesn't do any harm. Keep searching for more sources so you can continue to expand the article and make sure that all new information that is added continues to have sources. Keep up the good work, and I hope you continue to bring articles up to GA quality. If you have any further questions about the review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 22:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)