Wikipedia:Featured article review/Restoration of the Everglades/archive1
Restoration of the Everglades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Moni3, WP Miami, WP Florida, WP Environment, noticed in November 2022
This 2008 FA promotion has fallen out of date. For instance, "Early tests by the Army Corps of Engineers revealed this method reduced phosphorus levels from 80 ppb to 10 ppb.[42] The STAs are intended to treat water until the phosphorus levels are low enough to be released into the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge or other WCAs." partially sourced to a 2003 document and the rest unsourced, estimates of panther counts from 2008, etc. The article discusses the NRC's 2008 report on the restoration of the Everglades, but an eight biennial review was released in 2021. Updates are needed here. Hog Farm Talk 00:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Congratulations. This is the first of my FAs that have appeared at FAR.
- You found a source, Hog Farm, why not update the article? Moni3 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I don't have the familiarity with the subject matter to feel confident being able to do the needed updates at a FA-level. But it's clear that this has not been maintained to a FA-level, either. There's an expectation that for an article to remain featured, it needs to stay at that level of quality. I wouldn't expect a reviewer at my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Lake Providence/archive1) to make all of the changes they identify should be made. It likewise shouldn't fall on other editors to do the needed maintenance for FAs on subjects that they don't have the needed heavy familiarity with the subject matter and available sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 19:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- It likewise shouldn't fall on other editors to do the needed maintenance for FAs on subjects that they don't have the needed heavy familiarity with the subject matter and available sourcing.
- It absolutely should! I wasn't an expert before I started. I visited Everglades National Park like any other pleb in 2007 and the article sucked, so I added some material to it. Other articles didn't exist so, you know, I wrote them. I'm still not an expert. I just read stuff and summarized it. That's pretty much what Wikipedia is about. The logical end of your view is article ownership, also gatekeeping editors to make sure they're experts before editing. Someone will have to take over this article. This torch is burning my fucking arm off, please take it.
- You found one source, here's some more:
- https://www.evergladesrestoration.gov/
- https://conservancy.org/everglades-restoration/
- https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/WERP/
- A few articles from the Miami Herald or Sun Sentinel would probably be beneficial to see if they think the government is lying. Not that they ever have in the past. I don't have access to those anymore.
- This looks like an interesting book: Amy Green, Moving Water: The Everglades and Big Sugar
- I believe in you. Not just you, Hog Farm. All you fine people. Moni3 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I don't have the familiarity with the subject matter to feel confident being able to do the needed updates at a FA-level. But it's clear that this has not been maintained to a FA-level, either. There's an expectation that for an article to remain featured, it needs to stay at that level of quality. I wouldn't expect a reviewer at my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Lake Providence/archive1) to make all of the changes they identify should be made. It likewise shouldn't fall on other editors to do the needed maintenance for FAs on subjects that they don't have the needed heavy familiarity with the subject matter and available sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 19:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)