From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleEverglades 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic starEverglades is the main article in the Everglades series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
July 22, 2008Good article nomineeListed
July 24, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
August 2, 2008Featured topic candidateNot promoted
July 6, 2010Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Map request[edit]

I am requesting a geographical map on this page to show WHERE the Everglades is. Axezz 12/04-2005 00:03 CET

A map would be great - Marshman 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, it would be nice to have a number on the percentage of Florida covered in the everglades before and after colonization. Also, headline text is repeated twice at the bottom of the page and some links are broken, or don't appear as links yet. -Da Newb 3/06-2007 12:20

I added a map using NASA's blue marble imagery and WWF's ecoregion boundaries. I don't have info on percentages of Florida covered by the Everglades.Pfly 10:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I realized that the WWF's page on the Everglades [1] has stats that could give percentages of altered/converted area. There's no truly objective way to delineated an ecoregion or to say how much human-caused change equals "no longer the Everglades", but using the WWF's numbers here's what I worked out: Total size of the Everglades ecoregion (pre-colonization) = 7800 sq mi. Of that, 1093 sq mi were converted to farmland south of Lake Okeechokee, and 936 sq mi to urban (or urban-related) in the east. Of the whole 7800 sq mi the WWF says only 2% (156 sq mi) remains "truly intact", and 30% (2340 sq mi) are "altered but restorable". See that WWF page for details on all this. Pfly 18:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

noticed vandalism[edit]


Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Everglades. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 17:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (suitable for nonsense)

There have been recent expansions to the park's tourist facilities to bring in more money to Florida's economy such as a massive extension to the visiting center, many outposts along the bridges that span the Everglades that teach people about the many birds and other wildlife native to the Everglades as well as a small petting zoo for tards.

edited this comment out last night,posted as retards, and somone had changed it back to just tards. Proceeding to edit out this comment again.

Everglades Image[edit]

Someone tried to post "The Florida Everglades-2006.jpg" in the middle of the introduction. I removed it, as when I corrected the code thingeh, the image was too big. Does anyone actually want to use this, or was this just the work of some guy that's never going to come back? >_> Count DeSheep 20:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Stoneman Douglas published "The Everglades" in late November and the park was dedicated in early December, so it seems unlikely to me that the former had a singularly galvanizing effect and caused the creation of the park, as claimed in the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Derivation of name[edit]

I removed the following from the top of the article:

"'Everglades' comes from the Old English Saxon word "glyde," which means a bright, shimmering place in a forest."

It may be worth adding a note on how the Everglades were named to the History section. I may just take a stab at it. -- Donald Albury 00:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Article expansion[edit]

During the superfun Featured Article Candidate process for Everglades National Park, I promised in writing to expand this article, and I'm readying myself for this, what I foresee, will be a massive rewrite with additional articles. Individual articles will probably be needed for Geology of the Everglades, Ecosystems of the Everglades, Human History of the Everglades, and Development and Conservation of the Everglades (if not an article devoted to Restoration of the Everglades apart from the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan). Dalbury assisted me with some of the history of the park article. I've purchased over $200 worth of books and I'm considering buying more for this...Yarrr.

However, I think the layout of the article should probably appear as:

  • Lead (3-4 paragraphs)
  • I. Etymology
  • II. Geology of the Everglades
  • III. Climate of the Everglades, tying in to the climate of South Florida
  • IV. Ecosystems of the Everglades (greatly expanding the eight ecosystems in the national park article)
  • V. Human History: Native Americans in the Everglades
  • VI. Human History: Settlement of South Florida
  • VII. Human History: Land Boom and Development
  • VIII. Human History: Water Diversion
  • IV. Human History: Conservation and Restoration of the Everglades

I'm going to need assistance with visuals as well. Anyone handy with a drawing program for making maps?

Thoughts or comments? Last issue: There is no manual of style address for singular or plural references to Everglades. It is proper to say "The Everglades are" as well as "The Everglades is". But we're probably going to need to be consistent. I prefer the plural myself. --Moni3 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The 5000 years age of the Everglades is casually passed by in the article without a twitch. That's a very recent origin. The Everglades are not immemorial. Within human memory the Florida Platform stood high and dry, when the Wisconsinian glaciation dropped sea levels as much as 100 meters. "...the rise of sea levels that occurred approximately 17,000 years ago" is misdated; oceans were at about their lowest stand c 15000bp. This is essential to the picture, imo.--Wetman (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
From what I've read, peat deposits are the indicator scientists are using to determine that widespread regular flooding was taking place in South Florida. My sources say the peat deposits are about 5,000 years old. --Moni3 (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
...yes, indeed! and the base of the oldest peat deposits identifies the first widespread flooding, as water tables rose with the rise in sea levels, forming the Florida we recognize... at only ca. 3000 BCE, to use a familiar marker. That is, within human memory. --Wetman (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're saying this is an interesting fact, or you're saying I'm misinformed. I'm no expert on what I'm writing about, just someone who thinks this article should be far better than it is, and is trying to do something about it. If you think my information or writing is inaccurate, point me in the right direction. --Moni3 (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out a very interesting angle that seemed to be missing: the Everglades didn't exist during the glacial period: they came into being only 5000 years ago. Here's a map of the estimated Florida coastline during the recent glacial maximum: with sea level estimated 100m lower, the area was high and dry. I googled "glacial Florida" and brought up samples of Gleason and Stone, "Age, origin and landscape evolution of the Everglades peatland: environmental changes leading to the formation of the Everglades", in Steven M. Davis, John C. Ogden, eds. Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration (pp 156ff), which support my amateurish understanding. Try it yourself. Very interesting.--Wetman (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Headwaters in Gatorland?[edit]

There's a sign in Gatorland saying that the headwaters of the Everglades is in Gatorland up near Orlando. A look at the maps in this article show that it might be possible. If you think this might be true. I will post the photo. Americasroof (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC) my opinion, by a very narrow definition. Not one that the USGS might recognize. --Moni3 (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Doing a google for everglades headwaters produces all sorts of interesting claims around southern Orange County and Kissemmee. I may add a section. My photo is kinda cool. Americasroof (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you're going to need a better source than Gatorland's website. Print source, preferably, if it's about hydrology. --Moni3 (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree and I don't think it'd be that difficult to find either.--Karl Svensson (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

everglades is a wet place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Pliocene glaciers in Florida?[edit]

  • "Glacial activity during the Pliocene Epoch created a limestone formation..." There's no telling what the thought behind this was. Can this be fixed? --Wetman (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Wetman. Sorry it took me so long to respond to this. I need you to be more specific about what it is you think needs fixing. I don't mind at all direction to be as accurate as possible, but I can't fix for accuracy when the complaint is vague. Help me out. --Moni3 (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
In what way did Pliocene glaciers in Florida lay down a limestone foundation? Limestone foundations are laid down in shallow seas. Limestone is the product of calcium carbonate in shells and tests, sinking to the sea floor over long periods. Pliocene glaciers (and Pleistocene ones too) were nowhere near Florida. The sentence "Glacial activity during the Pliocene Epoch created a limestone formation... is not susceptible to re-editing to make sense of it. --Wetman (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
My book says there were four major periods of Pleistocene glaciation. --Moni3 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Pliocene is not a variant spelling of Pleistocene. The Pleistocene glaciations didn't reach Florida: you can forget them, except that glaciations lower sea levels, exposing additional facies of the limestone platform to erosion, the opposite of deposition. I am doing some corrective editing, as little as possible, with a link to Florida Geological Survey: Tamiami Formation. --Wetman (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If I didn't make it clear before, let me do so now - I have no authority to be writing on geology. The only reason I'm doing so now is that nobody has done it yet, and this article is painful as a representative of the Everglades. I understand Pleistocene and Pliocene are two different periods, and more often than not I have to re-read my sources on geology many times. I would appreciate your assistance with geological issues and anything else in the article you think needs to be more accurate. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
How would one explain "Pliocene marine unit" to folks who have no geological background? --Moni3 (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point. A more reader-friendly version might be "a unified series of limestone strata laid down on the floor of the shallow epicontinental sea during the Pliocene". Would that be good? I'm not a geologist either: I merely read it as one might read poetry without being a poet. --Wetman (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead question[edit]

Do you think it would make the article a little more accessible to shorten the lead? For example, the first sentence is now "The Florida Everglades are a subtropical marshland located in the southern portion of the U.S. state of Florida, specifically in parts of Monroe, Collier, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Broward counties."

How about, for example, "The Florida Everglades is a vast system of fresh water marshes located in the southern portion of Florida? You can go into more explanation and detail in the body of the article. –Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Matisse. I like the pic on your userpage. Ok...I expanded this article by 5x within the past month. I hope to bring it to FA soon, once the satellites I created for this article go through. This article needs 20 copy edits, and I admit it, but it still contains much more material than it did in March. Yes, it would be easier to shorten the lead. I would like to bring this to PR to get input from many folks on it. Right now I'm copy editing Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Geography and ecology of the Everglades (on hold at GA), Draining and development of the Everglades, and Restoration of the Everglades. Once the issues with these articles are tackled, I'll probably rewrite this one a bit since I lifted chunks of info from the satellites into this one. But if you have an earnest interest in improving this one, feel free to edit where you see problems, or list them here. I'll get to it, I promise. And I need all the help I can get. --Moni3 (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
O.K. My interest at this point is principally in the geology. I'm a minimalism when it comes to copy editing articles, especially those aiming to FA status. I won't do anything traumatic, hopefully, or you can just revert it. It sounds like there is plenty of time (with your work load outlined above!) –Mattisse (Talk) 17:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Good. I need help with geology. Not my strongest suit. I would like it to be clear and comprehensive, but not overwhelming. Please make suggestions or edits where you see fit. --Moni3 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)[edit]

Why not put most of the information from the CERP section into the CERP main article? --Jagz (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

When I took on this article, I wanted to give a more comprehensive idea of what restoring the Everglades has been about. So I created Restoration of the Everglades to address that, and used the information from that article to include in this one. I don't think I've actually edited the CERP article, but I don't have a good reason why. I think it does deserve its own article, but if you're suggesting the information about CERP be taken out of this one to be used in CERP, I disagree. CERP information must be included in the Everglades article. --Moni3 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
It's odd looking having article sections much larger than the main article. --Jagz (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeh, but I don't know who took on the CERP article (see also Children's Crusade (civil rights) that I have not edited vs. Birmingham campaign that I edited extensively). With all the spare time I have, I should crack on CERP, but it seems to be a neglected project that may never come to full fruition, tragically. People should know what's going to happen to the Everglades when CERP is long forgotten. --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


I am no image expert, but I have tried to give the images a once-over:

The only reason I mention the commons moves is because I once had an FAC reviewer demand that I move everything in the PD to commons and, after all, it is a nice thing to do! Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, could we consider making them bigger? RC-0722 361.0/1 03:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The sign warning visitors not to eat more than one bass per week appears to have been vandalized. (The actual sign, not the image) Someone appears to have scratched out the B in bass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

"Sloughs are about 3 feet (0.91 m) deeper than sawgrass marshes, and may stay flooded for at least 11 months out of the year if not multiple years in a row.[41]" Do we really need to describe what a slough is? RC-0722 361.0/1 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. For the folks who grow up in New Mexico, or Hawai'i. --Moni3 (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
But if they want to know what a slough is they can click on the link can't they? I mean, that's what it's there for, isn't it? RC-0722 361.0/1 14:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Articles that go through the featured article candidate process are often cited for WP:Jargon. As I intend to take this to FAC, I'm trying to make sure that even though there are links to technical terms, the terms are briefly explained here to make this article comprehensive and independent from others. --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty then. Just checking. RC-0722 361.0/1 14:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


Should we have an intro paragraph for the Ecosystems section? RC-0722 361.0/1 04:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Landmark Florida Everglades deal"[edit] - rst20xx (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It was added to the article within minutes of it appearing on the front page of The New York Times yesterday. Not by me, either. I was so stunned by the news I had to read the article several times to understand it. Apparently, the news attracted a few new readers as well. --Moni3 (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


  • If something is in a WP style guideline, then I'll just go ahead and make the change...but of course, if you'd rather I just make a note here rather than making a change, that's fine. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Go and do. I'll watch. --Moni3 (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't like this, but I really don't know what I would say instead: "Wet and dry seasons, and flooding and drought have shaped the natural environment." It needs either 2 commas or none, but that's not really the problem. Do you have a second choice for your last sentence of the first paragraph? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This was our attempt at taming the massive lead. Something about the climate should be introduced, as well as the forming processes of weather. If you can come up with a substitute that mentions wet and dry seasons, storms, fire, and drought that are all natural and normal phases and processes, by all means...if not, I'll try to write a better sentence.--Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess my only input here is that you just said that there's a wet season, which implies that there's a dry season, and you also don't want to say things implied by the following sentence. There are many options, but one sentence I'd be happy with is just what you said, plus "also", minus the first part: "Flooding and drought have also shaped the natural environment." (with or without "frequent") - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC) How about "The natural environment shows the impact of cyclical flooding and drought"? I don't want to duplicate "shape" from this sentence to the next, "cyclical" catches your idea that it's a natural and recurring process, and I'd like a stronger word with floods and drought than something like "effect"; floods and droughts create big changes, so maybe "impact" would get across the idea. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • First sentence, second paragraph, I would prefer something other than "formed"...I think. Water, rock and fire constrain the ecology of the Everglades in several ways, and they determine several kinds of boundaries. If you liked "formed" because you'd prefer something punchy here (and gods bless you for trying), then I might substitute "constrained by", or (ick) "born in" if you're feeling poetic. (This is just quibble, "formed by" isn't wrong, and I'm having trouble coming up with something better.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Aha! "ever-changing, shaped by water, rock and fire"...what I was grasping for was something parallel to "ever-changing". Does that work for you? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds great. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "water and sawgrass flowing slowly southward": the mats drift, some of the sawgrass is dislodged, but most of the sawgrass doesn't flow slowly southward, at least not in the sense that the water does. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Following more than 200 years of contact with the Spanish that began in the 16th century, both societies declined..." You know a lot about indigenous Americans, so you know that we have frustratingly little to go on, but considering the rapid decline of the Aztecs (25 million to around 700 thousand in around 105 years, and then a measles epidemic after that), mostly due to disease, I'm thinking that I wouldn't say that the tribes declined "following more than 200 years", unless your sources are clear about that. I would think they were very likely declining during that time as well, unless their contact with the Spanish was incidental. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep racking them up. I'll knock 'em down at once. I'll start tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not as explicit as you might want, but I have found this, "Despite efforts by Spaniards to proselytize and to forge political alliances, the Indians of central and south Florida shunned those attempts and retained their vital and complex socioreligious systems, inter-regional relations, and independence. Consequently, many of their pre-contact traditions remained unaltered throughout the early historic period, largely unaffected by Spanish influence and disease." Matthews, Janet Snyder. (2003) "Foreword". in Hahn, John H. Indians of Central and South Florida:1513-1763. University Press of Florida. P. xii. From other sources it is clear that the tribes of central and south Florida remained intact until the raids by the Province of Carolina and their Indian allies began at the end of the 17th century. We have no population data for those tribes, so we can only speculate about population declines due to disease. In any case, I think it is clear that those tribes did not suffer anything like what happened the the Timucua during the 17th century. -- Donald Albury 12:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Donald, thanks, that's helpful. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • is the website for the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. Perhaps if someone reads "The Seminoles continue to live in and around the Everglades", they'll think that's the only place the Seminoles live as a tribe/nation, so I'd prefer "The Seminoles live today in and around the Everglades and in Oklahoma." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • They also live throughout Florida, near Tampa, and north of Lake Okeechobee. Do you think that's something the lead should say? That might be too much detail for the lead that ate Detroit. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
How do you feel about "Some Seminoles live..." or "There are Seminole communities in..."? I see you changed it to "Seminoles", that should work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • How do you feel about "With national attention turning to the environment in the 1970s" instead of " problems of the environment..."? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • Sounds good. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a guess, but I don't think reviewers will like "Restoration began with the filling in of canals and the returning of cattle grazing areas to marshlands..." Is there an alternative? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Everglades/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review[edit]

I am beginning the review. Due to the length of the article, I will probably post my comments in stages. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

First stage

This is an unusual article to find at GAN. It has been researched, prepared and written to a standard that suggests that its ultimate goal is FAC. One choice for the GA reviewer is to swiftly pass it and recommend it goes to FAC; however, the nominating editor obviously felt the need for an extra layer of review before taking such a step. I have decided to to review it beyond the GA criteria (though its promotion will be determined by those criteria), as a potential FA candidate, in the hope that this course will be the most helpful to the nominating editor.

There are two general issues before the detail:-

1. Length: At 10,300+ words the readable prose is beyond the 6,000-10,000 range quoted in WP:LENGTH as the maximum before reader fatigue sets in. At 95kb it is nearly at the point where WP:Length says an article should "almost certainly be divided". Have the editors thought about dividing? The obvious step would be to separate the "history" section, which itself is around 4,000-4,500 words long. There really does seem to me to be two articles here, and I would recommend giving some serious consideration to the question of dividing.

2. Accessiblity: The article is well-written and for the most part eminently readable. There are instances, however, where the technical descriptions and language used may alienate or confuse the general reader. I have to say that at times I wasn't clear in my mind what I was reading about. One advantage of a split would be that it would provide room for explanations of some of the more complex terms. I will try, in the detailed review, to indicate words, phrases or sections where I found comprehension difficulties.

Review details

  • Lead
    • As with the whole article, the lead is long – 600+ words, 5 paragraphs – longer I supect than the "too long" example given in WP:Lead. Could some of the detail in the lead be absorbed into briefer summaries?
    • There is an awkward double-mention of Lake Okeechobee in 2nd/3rd lines. The link is on the 2nd mention
    • Sentence beginning "The Kissimmee River…" is far too long. My suggestion: stop (US=period) after "fresh water lake". Then new sentence: "Water leaving the lake…" up to a stop after "(160 km) long". Then final sentence: "This flows southward…" etc. Three sentences from one.
    • Comma required after "drought" in last line, 1st para.
    • "prairies of sawgrass in water that flows…" Shouldn’t "flows" be "flow" (related to prairies plural)?
    • To some readers, terms like "slough" and "ecosystem" will be unfamiliar and may need explaining (difficult, I know, when I’ve said the lead is too long). Ecosystem could be linked, however.
    • The sentence beginning: "In 1947, Congress…" is too long and deals with two different things. Break sentence at "control devices".
    • Why, and in what sense, did conservation of the Everglades become an "international issue?"
    • Is it "divisive" (tending to divide) or "divided" (already separate) interests?
  • Etymology
    • I often get accused, with good reason, of using elitist language in my articles. I wonder if the term "etymology" is widely understood? Perhaps a less elegant heading, such as "Derivation of term", might be preferable. Think about this.
    • "A British surveyor named John Gerard…etc" could be "British surveyor John…"
    • Commas needed after the name, and after 1773
    • A comma is also needed in the second sentence of this para, to determine meaning. Should the comma be after "grassy place", or after "forest"? The meaning depends on the placement.
    • Marjory Stoneham Douglas doesn’t need linking on 2nd mention
    • Surely, "that 'River' was turned to 'Ever'…"
    • "…although it was spelled as two words…" – you don’t then need to spell the two words!
    • (last line) "although it appeared…"
  • Geology
    • I tend to link the first mention in text of scientific disciplines, even better-known ones such as geology. This is just a suggestion.
    • "What Florida is today was part of…" is a little clumsy. "What is now Florida was part of…"?
    • Gondwana shouldn’t be described as an "African" supercontinent, since it included South America, Australasia and Antarctica.
    • Sorry, I’m trying to get my head round the sentence: "About 300 million years ago, North America collided with Africa, connecting Florida with North America". Did they actually "collide" (crash together with violent impact), or did they "merge"?
    • "Continental rifting"? Don’t know this term, I think it needs explaining.
    • With regard to Pangea, rather than relying on a link to a somewhat technical article, couldn’t a footnote explain in a sentence the Pangea formation?
    • "When Florida was initially part of Africa…" - "initially" is redundant (later) Suggest: "When Florida was joined to Africa"
  • Limestone and aquifers
    • "found in sea water" phrase probably unnecessary
    • Repetition of "limestone formations" at end first/start second sentences reads awkwardly
    • The "however" in last sentence of first para looks misplaced. Try it at beginning of sentence
    • May I suggest you don’t use the Ft abbreviation for "Fort" (and especially not Ft.)? It looks wrong, and the abbreviation means something quite different in Brit-Eng.
    • No comma needed after "epoch"
    • The sentence beginning "Bordering the Tamiami…" is much too long, and with two parenthetical clauses, too convoluted. Divide into at least two, possibly 3 sentences.
    • In what sense is "properties" used, in "properties of the Everglades"? Does this mean real estate, or general componentss, or what?
  • Hydrology
    • I wonder about the organisation of this section. It seems to begin rather suddenly. The natural beginning to the section seems to me to be the sentence beginning "The consistent Everglades flooding…", with the stuff about peat and calcium coming after. This is just my impression, however.
    • It’s easy to miss the point in front of 5, and so misread this as 5 miles per day. It would be better as "half a mile a day", and probably more in accord with MoS.
    • "approximated" is an ugly word, and I’m not sure it exists as a verb. "Estimated" would be neater.
    • General – I did find this section quite hard to follow, with its unfamiliar terms. I am getting a little concerned with the question of accessibility for the ordinary reader.
  • Climate
    • I understand a 5-month summer wet season, when 75% of rain falls. The other 25% falls in a 7-month dry season. But you only mention November to March, which isn’t seven months. So my image of the year’s rainfall spread is confused.
    • "Convection thunderstorm" is not a familiar term to the layperson
    • I am puzzled by this sentence: "Strong winds from these storms serve to disperse plants and animals and offer natural opportunities for the renewal of mangrove forests, coral reefs and other ecosystems". It isn’t clear to me where these renewal opportunities are coming from - strong winds? dispersal of plants and animals? I just can’t visualise a process here.

This is the first section of the review. More will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the next instalment. Since there is concurrent peer review, some of my points may be raised and dealt with there. Where that happens, please strike my point out on this list.

  • Formative processes (preamble)
    • I see old Marje gets linked again
    • "Borders between ecosystems are subtle and imperceptible". This, and the two sentences following, reads like (educated) opinion. They must be cited.
  • Water
    • This subsection is under-referenced. It contains several statements but only one citation
    • Why was the rainwater "slightly acidic"?
  • Rock
    • Since you have clearly explained what a hydroperiod is, I don’t see a need for a redlink – unless you intend to call your next article "hydroperiod".
    • "Ooids" is another term you continue to link, long after its first mention.
    • Second para: is all the info in this para found on p. 38 of Lodge’s book? If not, there are other citations to be made.
  • Fire
    • The sentence about destroying root systems looks in need of citation
    • Is "muck" the scientific term for what you’re talking about here?
  • Sawgrass marshes and sloughs
    • First sentence – this point made in similar words a couple of subsections ago –( I called it "opinion".) Unnecessary to repeat it here
    • I don’t think it necessary, either, to repeat the full measurements of the shallow river (spoils the flow of the text).
    • "11 months of the year" should be "out of the year", with a comma after "year"
  • Tropical hardwood hammock
    • Grammar point: "The height of the trees are limited…" – should be "is limited"
  • Pineland
    • "understory shrubs" – unexplained term
    • "as of 1990…..of pine forests remain…" 1990 is 18 years ago, so it must be "remained". Are there no more up to date data to quote?
    • Can "transition" be a verb? Doesn’t sound good.
  • Cypress
    • "The name refers to its size…" Better to say "area"
    • Last sentence looks in need of a citation
  • Mangrove and coastal prairie
    • This sentence has lost its way, somewhat: "Where fresh water meets salt water is a transitional zone where mangrove trees grow, and are specially adapted to both kinds of water, called brackish." Perhaps try: "Mangrove trees grow in the transitional zone where fresh and salt water meet, since these trees are specially adapted to brackish water".
    • Last part of 2nd para needs citation. The penultimate sentence could also be simplified, to: "Red mangoes also have far-reaching roots, trapping sediments that can build on to…" etc
  • Florida Bay
    • "There are approximately a hundred keys in Florida Bay…". You must explain the term "key". Also, why "a hundred", not 100?

Part three to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Episode 3:-

  • Calusa
    • Entire first paragraph is without citation
    • "seventeen" should be numeric
    • "Finding little use for the soft limestone, most of their tools were made of bone or teeth.." Not a grammatical construction – try "As they found little use…" etc
    • There’s a lot of uncited facts between refs [76] and [77]
    • "and asked the Spanish to be removed to Cuba where almost 200 died of illness". This isn’t right – there are two quite separate facts which happened at different times:(i) they asked the Spanish to remove them to Cuba, (ii) while they were in Cuba, 200 died of illness (or disease?). So I suggest: "…asked the Spanish to remove them to Cuba. Here, 200 of them subsequently died of illness".
    • "again" in final sentence is unnecessary.
  • Tequesta
    • Once again there seems to be under-referencing, before [81]. Perhaps these facts are referenced in the main article, but they need to be here as well
    • "Menendez maintained a friendly relationship with them and took the chief’s nephew to Havana to be educated, and the chief’s brother to Spain". Needs tidying, along the lines: "Menendez maintained friendly relations with them, sending the chief’s nephew to Havana to be educated, and taking the chief’s brother to Spain".
  • Seminole
    • First three statements all want citing
    • Comma wanted after "agriculture"
    • "They made a living hunting and trading…" – needs a "by" before trading
    • The phrase "probably from the Calusa" needs commas either side of it
    • Despite the link, I think that Jackson ought to be identified in the text ("future US president")
    • My general feeling about this subsection is that, at times (e.g. in the last sentence), it drifts away from the Everglades. I think that words could be saved here, by tightening the focus.
  • Drainage
    • Piffling point – but is it "Secretary of Treasury" or "Secretary of the Treasury"?
    • It would be good to have a modern value equivalent of $500,000. According to the present worth of $500,000 in 1842 is just over $13 million.
    • To help with the chronology, would it be possible, within this section (or the previous one), to say when Florida became a state?
  • Hamilton Disston
    • Comma required after (IIF)
    • Either a comma after first Disston mention, or insert "who was"
    • As a matter of interest, $1m in 1881 = £20m now.
  • Henry Flagler
    • "Became enchanted" is a phrase that has to be cited
    • What does "incorporate the town" mean, in this context?
  • Empire of the Everglades
    • Should specify the Florida gubanatorial race
    • "He called the future of South Florida the Empire of the Everglades, and compared its potential to Holland and Egypt". Must be cited
    • Missing word: "Soon after his election (he) fulfilled…"
    • Numerous copyedit problems in the second para. Jennings should be specified as predecessor as governor. Clarify it was Broward who was elected to the Senate in 1910. Semicolon, not comma after "warranted them". "Instead" is redundant in last line, and 1912 is misplaced, since it refers to the change of plan, not to reaching Key West.
    • Just a thought: is this subsection appropriately titled?

I'm taking a short break here. I shall return. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the final section of my review

  • Population and economic surge
    • "Advertisements promised that within eight weeks…"
    • Comma after "find the peat"
    • Excessive detail in 2nd para, especially in relation to feathers and millinery
    • The "and" after "population boom" would be better as a "with", with a comma after boom
  • Flood control
    • "Control of…… was (not were) delegated"
    • "legal limits of the lake" – depth limits, presumably?
    • Comma after "was also constructed", and also after "deep"
    • 2nd para: the last sentence would read better: "The populations of the small towns surrounding the lake tripled after World War II"
    • "Scientists…did not take into account that the organic composition…"
    • (Last line) The comma after "places" should be moved to after "stilts"
  • Everglades National Park
    • Ms Douglas has been mentioned (and linked) 3 times prior to this, yet you are introducing her as though for the first time. In the lead she was described as an "environmental activist".
  • Flood control project
    • Comma redeployment: transfer the comma after "bordered each WCA" to after "dryer times"
    • Does in the information in the last few sentences, beginning "During the 1950s and 1960s…" really belong in this subsection, about a flood control project?
  • Everglades agricultural area
    • On a technicality, "sod" is not grown, since the term refers both to the grass and the earth that binds it together as turf. It is the grass that is grown. It looks very odd to see "sod" treated as a crop alongside beans, celery etc.
    • Comma redeployment: transfer the comma after "two sides" to after "in and out"
  • Jetport proposition
    • The first part of the section s unreferenced.
    • It’s Marjorie again: did she really give "hundreds" of speeches?
  • Invasive speeches
    • I can’t make any sense of the following sentence: "The seeds of the tree were sprinkled from airplanes using salt and pepper shakers, because they take water in greater amounts than other trees". It seems to have been inserted into the paragraph from somewhere else.
    • Consistency: Brazilian pepper or Brazilian Pepper?
  • Comprehensive Everglades restoration plan
    • I am not sure about "the quality of South Florida". You need to specify what quality. Is it the quality of water in South Florida, or something more general? You must be clear.
    • "the report noted was ironic for the 53 inches.." Suggest "was ironic, given the 53 inches…"
    • "harm to the system" is too vague a phrase. "The system" isn’t precise enough. Is it the South Florida ecosystem?
    • Para 3 first line, "however" is redundant. And "this, not "the" proposal
    • Comma after "has been purchased by the State of Florida"
    • The "and" after "budget surplus" should be a "but"
  • Future of the Everglades
    • This short subsection gives a rather downbeat ending to the article, and the low-key information doesn’t do any justice to the rather grandiose subsection title. I would scrap the title, which promises more than it delivers, and graft these two short paras to the end of the preceding section.
  • Reference formats.
    • I notice that you are not combining references, despite many opportunities to do so. For example, [13] and [19] are to the same page of Lodge, as are [27] and [29]. There are many other examples. You can combine further using short page ranges – refs [153] to [156] could all be combined in Lodge, pp. 241–44. I reckon you could reduce the length of this reflist by at least 25%.

Having worked through the entire article, I am more convinced than ever that it needs to be split. It is too long. It is scholarly and very comprehensive, a formidable piece of work, in fact. But it’s not a light read, and it gets harder to concentrate in the latter stages as reader fatigue sets in. My strong recommendation is to take out the history sections and create a companion article.

As I said at the start, I would review with FA in mind, but would determine the GA outcome on GA criteria. As it stands, notwithstanding my views as to its size, it seems to me clearly of GA standard, and I don’t see any point in messing about with contrived hurdles. That will enable you to get on with the serious business of preparing it (?them) for FAC. Before I do the actual promoting I would like to know your views on the splitting option; you may have compelling reasons for not doing this, and I’d like to hear them.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

On splitting[edit]

I read most of the comments and haven't yet had a chance to get started on a thorough editing session. As you were the GA reviewer for Restoration of the Everglades, and there are {{main| article links throughout the Everglades article, I'm sure you noted that this article has 5 splits: Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Geography and ecology of the Everglades, Draining and development of the Everglades, Restoration of the Everglades, and Everglades National Park. The history has actually been split off into three main articles.

If your recommendation is to brutally cut the majority of detail from this one...I can try (without weeping like a child). I do, however, need to make it very clear that abuse and neglect has been very much a part of the history of the Everglades, and has adversely affected the nearby urban areas. It will take me a day or so to cut and edit. I'll let you know when I think I'm done with that... Thank you for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want you to do anything brutally. I understand fully your reluctance to cut something that you have put your heart and soul into, and this is a quality article. As an alternative to splitting, I think that with some judicious editing and selection of material, you could probably reduce your text by 10 to 15 per cent - that's 1000 to 1,500 words - while keeping the existing structure, but in my view increasing the article's readability. Even that might be painful, but if you don't take some kind of step in this direction I think you will be risking trouble over the length issue at FAC. That's my view, but what do other people say? Ask around before you take any final step. I'll be happy to support any decision you take with regard to the future of the article. I am dealing with the GA promotion, since this is not an issue. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I put the history section into a sandbox and I'll play around with cutting 50% and 10% in two different versions. I asked SandyGeorgia about article size a while ago when I thought this article was going to be huge. With large concepts like Roman Catholic Church and Action potential, it's usually a valid reason for the size. However I am concerned about readability. I'm willing to cut, but I have to play around with these versions. --Moni3 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
If we can make it more readable, then I don't think the length will be a problem. One way to accomplish that is to move a few bits of the more technical words and concepts into the 4 articles that Moni just got through fact, those articles already have some of this material in them. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting 2[edit]

  • "as did the indication that the deterioration of the environment was harming quality of life in South Florida's urban areas": not clear on this. Does the source support the position that there was an actual decline in quality of life, or that people were worried there might be? If the former, then I'd suggest: "as did the decline in quality of life in South Florida's urban areas due to deterioration of the environment". (P.S.: also, you haven't responded to the "impact" sentence it okay?) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Bordering the Tamiami Formation and Lake Okeechobee is the Caloosahatchee Formation of limestone, followed by the Fort Thompson Foundation (comprising the region between Palm Beach County and Big Cypress National Preserve), Anastasia Foundation (where metropolitan areas in Palm Beach County are located), Miami Limestone and were formed during the Sangamon interglacial period." Not following that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • "that makes an almost 60 miles (97 km) wide expanse of river" needs help. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • "...water has shaped the land and every living organism in South Florida. The presence of water defines how plant communities develop into ecosystems. Animals adapt to the seasonal rise and fall of water, as the Everglades are in constant change due to the amount of water present." could be tighter. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • "Freezing in winter months can occur, although is rare and erratic in severity" needs rewording. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • Casliber will want to change every occurrence of "approximately" to "around"; I'm neutral on this. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • "struck directly or close to the Everglades" needs rewording. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • "Episodic fluctuations of the presence of water is characteristic of the climate in South Florida": verb tense, also tighten. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You can say "freezes" but my sense is that "freezing" is more common. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • "as the region formed into how it appears as today" and "presence of water presented as rain" need rewording. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • I'm going to stop right at the "Ecosystems" heading, for a couple of reasons: I'm heading out on wikibreak, and it looks like there is significant overlap starting at that point with the other Everglades articles I've already copyedited, so I suspect there will be some wrestling over how much of that content should be merged or transferred. You might also look at my copyediting on the other articles to see if it applies to the same material in these sections; some of it does. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
All addressed. Double check to make sure, particularly the Geology section. Making geology interesting tests the limits of English. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Excellent work! Now I'll go up and peek in on Brian's comments. I notice that he would like for the article to be shorter, and I think you'll hear some of the same at FAC. After some wrestling has occurred over what goes and what stays, I'll come back and finish up the copyedit starting at "Ecology", if you'll have me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • My edit summaries are so long that I don't have room to explain everything in them; fear that. My deletion of "sloughs" in the first paragraph is optional, but I agree with Brian that it will need to be explained, so I'd prefer we postpone the word until it's described (quite well) in its own section. Note that the word "marsh" already implies channels of water, I think, so we don't have to be explicit about this in the first paragraph. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Why, and in what sense, did conservation of the Everglades become an international issue?": Moni? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • I just removed autoformatting of date links using Lightmouse's new script, per Tony1. There are complicated reasons why some of us are starting to convert FAs using this tool. Ask Tony if you want the full story, but one reason is that using links to invoke autoformatting in the first place was supposed to be a short-term kludge that was going to be fixed by the devs "soon", and they completely dropped the ball on that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I can go either way on linking the first occurrence of "geology" (that isn't in a heading). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree regarding linking Marjorie; no phrase should lose its link because it was linked 5 sections above. I will generally delete a link if the same link occurs in that section or the section immediately above. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "strong winds? dispersal of plants and animals? I just can’t visualise a process here." The visualization that comes to my mind is "Auntie Em! Auntie Em!" Fixed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Brian asks for more citations in a number of sections. I couldn't tell which cite to use, Moni, since they're not online. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
  • Brian didn't like the last linking of ooid; I'm fine with it since the previous linking is many sections above. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Brian doesn't like "muck"; some will consider it too informal, but I can't really think of a better word here. You've already given appropriate technical words, such as marl and peat. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
    • Er, Brian doesn't mind muck, I just wondered if it was the appropriate term. If you're happy with it, fine. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, that gets us down to Ecosystems; I'll take a breather here and wait for comments to my comments and edits to my edits from the usual suspects. Moni, I've tightened things up so it's a little shorter; do you have a sense yet of whether you want to offload anything starting with Ecosystems into the other articles? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to keep track here, during my normal work day in between bouts of actual work. I'll go through and check all edits up to History. Then I think I'm going to write an abbreviated interim sandbox history and ask Brian to take a look at it before chopping this one up. Muck, by the way, is the actual ecological term. There are several types of muck, too. --Moni3 (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing. I should be ready after supper to start where I left off; would you prefer I copy to my sandbox, or make edits directly in the article? Btw, in one edit summary I meant WP:MOS when I said WP:LEAD (the one about not repeating the article title in headings). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting 3[edit]

  • Pineland: "transitioned" seems fine to me. It's also in MWOS, and it's not a word that NYTM warns against.
  • Calusa: WP:MOS says both "seventeen years" and "17 years" are okay.
  • I'm going through making the changes Brian recommended and some of my own, but I'm not making changes where the objection was "too much detail" or "interrupts the flow"; these are judgment calls, and if you do make changes, you might shift material between this article and the "main" articles rather than just deleting it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure what to do about "The seeds of the tree were sprinkled from airplanes using salt and pepper salt shakers, because they take water in greater amounts than other trees". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Brian is right about the Future of the Everglades section but I'm not sure how you want to handle it, Moni.
  • Okay, done for now, which means I've read and applied Brian's comments from Ecosystems to the end, but haven't done my own copyedit yet. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Nice work on the lead, Moni. The addition of the UNESCO sentence helps; I tightened it a bit, but feel free to revert. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I like to give barnstars for good copyediting and review work, and Brian got one. Very nice work, Brian. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ugh, getting a lot of "database locked" today. I'll be back. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Grunwald and Whitney not on in the bibliography section.[edit]

There are notes that refer to Grunwald and others to Whitney, but they are not listed in the bibliography section. Halgin (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no explanation for that... Puzzling, but it's fixed. Thanks for the heads-up. --Moni3 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team update[edit]

This is the last of the Everglades articles and I was wondering how it was going. What do we need to do to get it to FAC? Awadewit (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I need to take a well-needed rest from the material in the article, because must like a word that is repeated, it's lost its meaning. I'm involved in another article for now. I would like to get this to FA, but I think I will do that after I've worked on another. If you would like, you can close the FA Team Mission 4 as successful. The last bits to do in this article are mine, and my brain just cannot function without a topic break. It will be mysteriously re-energized at some point in the near future, I'll edit like a fiend, seeing all the problems, and bring it to FA. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
We can just put it on the back burner for now. It will be like a lovely, long-simmering stew. :) Awadewit (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Anything I can help with? I'm aware I signed up for this, but I've made about one edit in total so far (I find the drawback - if one can call it that - of having so many top-notch editors on an article is that I can't spot anything that's not already being well attended to :P). EyeSerenetalk 18:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image placement[edit]

Moni, I see you're moving some image links to just above the relevant headings instead of just after. As argued recently at WT:MOS, I will fight to the death to have images that appear to be entirely contained in one section be considered a part of that section rather than the section above; however, WP:ACCESS currently says that the image link has to follow the heading, because screen readers aren't currently smart enough to read the heading before the image, and the devs in their wisdom store such an image in the database record of the preceding section or subsection. Not sure what to say, except that I'm slack and I haven't fought this battle with the devs yet, but I should. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, do you hate me personally or is this just poke Moni in the eye with a stick day? --Moni3 (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
1. Check Moni3's contribs. 2. Apply encyclopedic knowledge of guidelines to point out why your edits are crap. 3. Smile and pretend to have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, if you're in the mood for a little civil disobedience, keep those images right where they are, and I'll fight this out with the devs (and win, policy is on my side). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It's just not possible to keep track of the many changes and interpretations guidelines and policies go through. For Geography and ecology of the Everglades, Scartol asked me to place all images above headers, and I admit it looks crisper. As I'm unfamiliar with screen readers, I can't really visualize what might be read to someone with limited sight. Shall we wait a week until this guideline is changed? Eesh. --Moni3 (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahem. WP:Update. I've covered the 25 core style guidelines for September, and I'll get to work on content policy as soon as I'm finished making trouble at Harvey Milk. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Maybe I missed it somewhere in that rather large article, but I failed to see a section on the animal life in the Everglades. In the ecology section, there are a dozen or so specific species links for plants, and only vague references to sea turtles, reptiles, turtles, crustaceans, etc with no specific species mentioned. most people can figure out what kind of alligators live there, but animals such as the snail kite (and others i can't think of at the moment) probably deserve a mentiona and a wiki link. Just something to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Geography and ecology of the Everglades article might yield further details. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
ah, yes, that's much better, thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


It looks like references 12 and 13 need additional "p"s. Could someone confirm this and fix it, as I'm not sure if there's some weird rule regarding it. Mm40 (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I added "map designers" since probably most people don't know definition of "cartographers".

I saw this. Cartographers is linked so people can click on it if they wish. I recall learning this word in 7th grade. I understand offering a brief explanation for words that are regional or otherwise specialized, but I don't think this one is it. --Moni3 (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


I've removed the sentence about an asteroid impact:

The basin formation is so neatly rounded and so unlike the rest of the topography of Florida that one scientist hypothesized that it was created by an asteroid strike in South Florida approximately 36 million years ago.<ref> {{cite journal | last = Weisburd | first = S. | title = Asteroid Origin of the Everglades? | journal = Science News | volume = 128 | issue = 19 | pages = 294–295 | month = November | year = 1985 | url= | accessdate = 2008-06-20 | doi = 10.2307/3970158}}</ref>

Seems a geologist proposed this at a GSA meeting in 1985, it was picked up by Science news, then nothing until the proposer co-authors a book in 2007 and ties it in to the Chesapeake Bay impact. Don't see anything else relevant in google scholar 1st 5 pages of cites. I also note that Gene Shoemaker didn't think much of the idea at the GSA meeting. An interesting idea and "headline grabbing" hypothesis, but seems nothing came of it. So ... seems perhaps a bit of undue weight. Vsmith (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to disagree with this. I put it in when I first began constructing the article, and now that I've read everything I've read on the Everglades, it does seem to be a bit far out. --Moni3 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Impenetrable vs impermeable[edit]

Hmm... changed this aquifer lies beneath thousands of feet of impenetrable sedimentary rock to this aquifer lies beneath thousands of feet of impermeable sedimentary rock and it was promptly reverted with the summary: undo; this refers to well-digging more than liquid percolation. Now it seems unlikely anyone is going to dig a well thousands of feet deep, and well drilling equipment does not find sedimentary rock impenetrable, so I would assume impermeable was preferred as a cap to an artesian aquifer. Don't have access to the book ref'd but doesn't seem likely. Please explain what I may be missing here. Vsmith (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked the source. The author uses impervious and impermeable. I'll change it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Vsmith (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Geology and hydrology questions[edit]

I've been looking over the article, and imagine that I will several questions about it (though only two at the moment). Each is signed by me to compartmentalize discussion. Awickert (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

  • In the Rock section, it is written, Longer hydroperiods are possible in areas that were submerged beneath seawater for longer periods of time, while the geology of Florida was forming. More water is held within the porous ooids and limestone than older types of rock that spent more time above sea level. What is meant by "the geology of Florida was forming"? When you say that more water can be held in the ooites, does that relate to the hydroperiod, or is that about porosity rather than permeability? Awickert (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In Everglades#Limestone_and_aquifers: Fluctuating sea levels compressed numerous layers of calcium carbonate, sand, and shells. Is it actually meant that these things were deposited in an environment with fluctuating sea levels? (Compression is also used later; my guess is that the writer was referring to lithification.) Awickert (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Everglades: Singular (The Everglades is...) or Plural (The Everglades are...)[edit]

The current Wikipedia edit begins: "The Everglades are...", but Everglades has traditionally been a singular place name.

The latest edition of Garner's Modern American Usage says use of Everglades as a plural is "ill-advised".

Encyclopedia Britannica uses Everglades as a singular.

U.S. Government documents found online also refer to the Everglades as a singular.

The plural use is understandable and common in speech and online writing, but is still a mistake.

I think that any open-minded researcher who spent some time at the library would see that the singular use is correct.

This is an important article and it should not be spreading a misuse, however popular. (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It is both: The Everglades is a region encompassed within the state of Florida. (singular) The Everglades are interconnected ecosystems fed by the same water source, sharing the same geography. (plural)
This is cited to Lodge, who wrote The Everglades Handbook, (p. 13) who states that both are found in literature, there is not an Everglade, and that writers must simply choose a consistent way to write about the Everglades. Marjory Stoneman Douglas chose plural when she wrote about the Everglades ("There are no other Everglades in the world"). Lodge chose singular. He makes the point that the Everglades is/are so unique language is limited in describing it/them.
Enter obligatory reply to "any open-minded researcher who spent some time at the library" and pepper it with some condescension and profanity for good measure. --Moni3 (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You've listed one author who prefers "are" without admitting that the vast majority of reputable sources use "is". Even Lodge, who you chose to quote, prefers "is". This needs to be examined by others who care about quality and good editing in Wikipedia. (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Business: plural or singular are both grammatically appropriate as proven by cited source.
Pleasure, since that's why we all participate here: Show me how to write such wonderfully ignorant and passive aggressive comments on Wikipedia. One that insinuates you are aware of and have consulted the vast majority of reputable sources on the Everglades (countering your previous comment indicating you had only consulted a dictionary), and the editor(s) who constructed this article (myself somewhat high amongst them) give not two shits about quality and good editing can only be described as so full of win! As an anonymous IP who cares deeply about only the most superficial non-issue and has never edited this article previously, I expect nothing less than your being as disagreeable as possible, drawing out this discussion about an astonishingly petty style preference for several weeks. I recommend demanding a full apology from me over imagined offenses and urging that I should be blocked. That's good for the most entertaining show of shows.
If you'd rather be an insufferable bore, though, you could possibly reply "Singular and plural! I did not know that. Are there many terms in English that would apply for? The Everglades are (and is donchaknow) special indeed. I learned something today. Imagine that. Carry on." --Moni3 (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

'Are' is a styilistic choice forgiveable by Marjory Stoneman Douglas, but not in an encyclopedia. (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Map Addition[edit]

An interesting map addition, would be a "Geologic/Geographic Map", showing the width of the Florida peninsula, and its width with continental shelf drop-offs, when the ocean levels dropped to 200 meters lower?... or is it 400 FT, about 133 m... anyway the width of the peninsula changes by 50 to 75 percent, I believe, thus the species related, and watershed of the Everglades would change during that time period....Mmcannis (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There's this: File:Florida Platform.jpg, currently appearing in the St. Johns River article. It would go in the Geology section. However, my concern is how busy the section would be if another image were added there. It cannot go under a second level header on the right (directly underneath Geology) because, unless screen readers for the visually impaired have fixed this problem, an image on the right would mess how the prose reads. The map of the Everglades in 1857 in the section above would bump down a left-aligned image, making it too busy.
Any ideas? --Moni3 (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the shape of the Florida peninsula when the sea level was much lower is particularly pertinent to the current Everglades. The figure I usually see for the sea level drop at the height of the last glaciation is 100 meters or so (more than 300 feet). For the peninsula in general, the land was high and dry, with standing water available only in deep sinkholes and the lowest parts of old river beds. For instance, at Little Salt Springs in Sarasota County, the water table was about 90 feet lower when the sea level was more than 300 feet lower. This means that the current area of the Everglades and Florida Bay would have been high and dry, with little or no surface running water. Due to the very gentle slope of the western side of the Florida Platform, there may have been coastal swamps, and even something like the Everglades, along the lower western coast of the enlarged peninsula, but we have no evidence for such. There was also a time when the sea level was a little higher than at present, and the limestone of the ancient reef that is now the Florida Keys was dissolved and washed into a shallow sea to the west of the reef, where it precipitated into the Miami oolite that covers parts of Dade County and the lower Keys. Much of what is now the Everglades would presumably have been flooded by the sea at that time. What this all does mean is that the Everglades in its current form and location has probably existed only since the sea level rose to somewhere near its current level some 3,000 years ago. -- Donald Albury 15:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Sources for the article say about 5,000 to 6,500 years ago, but for the most part I agree. Only one paragraph in the article would warrant an image of the Florida peninsula when it extended far into the Gulf of Mexico, and that is the first paragraph in Geology. Only a few sentences discuss this part of Florida's formation, however, so I'm not terribly fussed that an image is not there to illustrate what it was like. Plus the aforementioned problematic placement of an image. --Moni3ontheroad (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Propose adding text on U.S. National Research Council review on CERP[edit]


I'd like to add some text about a series of U.S. National Research Council reports that review the progress of CERP. I think this could be added at the end of the current text on CERP, within the Restoration section (section 8.4).

A series of biennial reports from the U.S. National Research Council have reviewed the progress of CERP. The fourth report in the series, released in 2012, found that little progress has been made in restoring the core of the remaining Everglades ecosystem; instead, most project construction so far has occurred along its periphery.[1] The report noted that to reverse ongoing ecosystem declines, it will be necessary to expedite restoration projects that target the central Everglades, and to improve both the quality and quantity of the water in the ecosystem.[2]
To better understand the potential implications of the current slow pace of progress, the report assessed the current status of ten Everglades ecosystem attributes, including phosphorus loads, peat depth, and populations of snail kites, birds of prey that are endangered in South Florida. Most attributes received grades ranging from C (degraded) to D (significantly degraded), but the snail kite received a grade of F (near irreversible damage). The report also assessed the future trajectory of each ecosystem attribute under three restoration scenarios: improved water quality, improved hydrology, and improvements to both water quality and hydrology, which helped highlight the urgency of restoration actions to benefit a wide range of ecosystem attributes and demonstrate the cost of inaction.[3]
Overall, the report concluded that substantial near-term progress to address both water quality and hydrology in the central Everglades is needed to reverse ongoing degradation before it’s too late.

I'd appreciate any feedback. Best wishes, Earlgrey101 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


The Everglades[edit]

Should this article be renamed the everglades

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Everglades. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Where exactly is Everglades ?[edit]

The map under is confusing.--Ezzex (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Everglades. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

problems with everglades[edit]

I think there is a water problem for everglades can you help clarify it and can you use the info in your artical — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicspy (talkcontribs) 17:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Greetings: I am an editor that has been working with and on the "External links" sections of articles for some time patrolling "External links". I became involved before and assisted in discussions that resulted in Wikipedia: External links/Perennial websites and actively work to ensure "External links" sections conforms to policies and guidelines. My goal is to maintain quality standards provided by the broad consensus of policies, guidelines, and even community accepted essays.
The issue: This article, listed as a good article by six WikiProjects ranging from mid, high, to top importance, has four sub-sections with a total of twenty external links listed. Community consensus has consistently shown that an acceptable number of links has been three to four, and I have not bothered with any longer articles with five. I can even see stretching the criteria to six on such a large and comprehensive article such as this.
Concern: Twenty external links means there either needs to be an "exception to the rule" such as WP:IGNORE (requiring more than local article consensus) or a discussion as to how many of these links can be incorporated into the body of the article. A cursory glance saw all but a couple acceptable for inclusion or as references.
I have no intentions of wanting to be in some "battle". I lived in Homestead, Florida, and went to school at both Naranja Elementary School and Redland Junior High. We were either in the Everglades or the ocean every weekend for two years and I am glad there is a plan to help restore the area. My family lost everything when hurricane Andrew raged through. With all this stated I would like a review of the contents of the "External links" with collaboration, or protecting editors help, to correct the over-use of links in the section, without degrading the article status, or hitting a wall and having to go to dispute resolution.
  • Relevant policies and guidelines:
  • Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember (#3): "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.".
  • Wikipedia:External links#Links to be considered: "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page.", with #2 providing exceptions for a possible increase on a case-by-case basis. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Everglades. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The name meaning for Okeechobee is incorrect[edit]

Okeechobee means “big water” in the Seminole or Creek Language (perhaps the writer means “Pay-hay-okee”). Rahiim03 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

You are right. Since there is not mention later in the article of the meaning of the name "Okeechobee", I removed the sentence. After all, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. - Donald Albury 00:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)