Talk:Geography and ecology of the Everglades

GA reviewing...

Righto, let's get this party started....comments to come. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Style issues

All these are pretty minor. A good read and easy fixes.

• The geography and ecology of the Everglades represents an elaborate system of interdependent elements throughout southern region of the U.S. state of Florida. - well, um yeah. I know what you are getting at (I think). i.e. its complexity but am a bit concerned the bolded bit is a bit vague really. It is describing complexity but comes across as a bit, well, abstract. I have to think about this.

• other ecosystems are just as vital and borders marking them are subtle or do not exist at all. - I'd put a comma after 'vital' as I had to read this twice to get the gist of it.

• As the water from Lake Okeechobee makes its way to Florida Bay, it meets salt water from.. I'd proabbly add a 'fresh' in the first sentence to contrast with the 'salt' water in the next clause, otherwise it does sound a bit funny

• These systems undergo constant changes due to environmental factors, and shift, grow and shrink, die, or reappear within years or decades. - how about "Constantly changing due to environmental factors, these systems shift, grow and shrink, die, or reappear within years or decades." (succinct)

• In geological terms, the Everglades is a young ecosystem, at only 5,000 years old. --> "At only 5,000 years old, the Everglades is a young ecosystem geologically." (succinct)

• no other wetland system is fed primarily from the atmosphere - I know what you mean. fed is nice and succinct but seems odd in the context of water. Still I can't think of an alternative offhand. Not a deal-breaker this so don't worry too much

• There are only two seasons in the Everglades: wet and dry. - add months for each here

• Hurricanes are a natural occurrence: between 1871 and 2003 - semicolon needed here

• with a frequency of one to three years in between. - odd construction, why not 'one every x years'

• denude weakened branches -'strip'? simpler

• epiphytes started to grow in areas.. - simply 'grew' is fine here

• The only impediment to fire in the Everglades is the presence of water presented as rain. - '...in the form of rain' (?)

• sweetbay - I'd use the latin name here as well and redlink it and/or make a stub. Loads of things are called bays. I like having scientific names everywhere. More debatable with vertebrates as many have official common names but plants have a lot of very generic common names.

• I know there has been debate about capitalization of mammal names but bird names are.

• Dade County pine has a remarkable longevity --> 'remarkably long-lived (simpler)

• 200,000 acres - add hectare conversion

All changes made except for bird names - I'm sorry, are they capitalized or not? And Dade County pine has a longevity as a construction material, so technically it's not being referred to as living. --Moni3 (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness issues

Nothing about weeds - were you going to put something about Melaleuca and/or casuarina in here? Or was that somewhere else? Also other feral species. Maybe touch on issues with alligators eating people/needing culling (?) Lastly, another very rare species the Everglades Kite should be mentioned. Maybe others. None of tehse needs to be in much detail, just a line or two. If you can't find latin names I can easily help out there and hunt up some stuff. it is only 45kb, plenty of scope for more info :)

Overall very nearly there. Well done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if I should make this clearer in the article, but for the most part, this article functions as what the Everglades was/should be in its most natural state. I know I touch on some issues of human impact, but Draining and development of the Everglades goes into that in much greater detail. And since invasive species has become an issue within the past 30 years that is directly related to the encroachment of urban areas in the Everglades, I covered that in Restoration of the Everglades. Are you suggesting that I just cover very basically some issues with exotic species in one or two sentences here? And the point about alligators eating people - I'm not sure what you're looking for there at all. It's actually quite rare. There is a section on wildlife issues in the Restoration article, and I need to include the Everglades snail kite in that section along with the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, and that's on my list of things to do.

I just happened to get up to deal with insomnia, so I hope I won't be on long tonight, so I'll take care of the grammar issues tomorrow. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I didn't see those other two articles. Good point (gawd, there is alot of information you've put in!!). OK, nevermind about weeds, but maybe there should be a more specific crosslink somewhere/somehow as cetainly I do think invasive species when I think 'ecology of x'. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: I am presuming the Roystonea species of Royal Palm is Roystonea elata (?). Also, this looks interesting. I always like promoting local provenance trees :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there are inevitably different types of Royal Palms in the Everglades, I left the link for the family of Roystonea. They are neat-looking trees, though. I wish I could have them in my yard. I included a crosslink in "Biodiversity" for invasive species. And I must agree with you - it is a lot of information. Nap time. --Moni3 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

More plant species

Is the bustic, Willow Bustic (Sideroxylon salicifolium)? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Swamp holly is a disambig page - is it Ilex amelanchier?

I'm not as familiar with all the plant names - is it better to link to a general species or leave a red link for someone to come by and create and article, such as for the strangler fig? For FA, should I made all the plant names consistently latin throughout? --Moni3 (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a matter of opinion. Mine would be yes for consistency and precision reasons, because huge numbers of plants have the same common names in different countries. Things like 'holly' and 'myrtle' have different meanings. As well, many plants lack common names. And all plants as per MOS should be at their scientific name not the common one. Thus it will look neat having a nice blue italic name in brackets. I started doing a few already. Don't worry about redlinks. They are not deal-breakers and I am happy to come along behind and make stubs. Right now it is 11PM here and I have a cold so am about to go to bed. If you make redlinks I will make stubs tomorrow :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you slept well. Now you have red links. An extra-special present for you! Yay! Let me know what else I need to do to get it to GA. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Casliber! --Moni3 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting questions

Per your request to the FA-Team, I am doing some copyediting here! I have some questions, of course:

• The geography and ecology of the Everglades describes the complex elements that affect the natural environment throughout the southern region of the U.S. state of Florida. - The use of "describes" in the opening sentence is what throws it off, I think. I tried to come up with a different wording, but couldn't.

• The Everglades is simultaneously a single geographic feature, a vast watershed that has historically extended from Lake Okeechobee 100 miles (160 km) south to Florida Bay (which takes up approximately a third of the southern Florida peninsula), and many interconnecting ecosystems united within the geographic boundary. - The parenthetical clause might be confused with a description of Florida Bay, but I wasn't sure where else to put it - do you think it is essential for the lead? I thought it was a helpful piece of information, so I didn't want to remove, but I wasn't sure where else to place it, either.

• Before its modern appearance, the South Florida climate was in turn arid and semi-arid, interspersed with periods of inundation. At the end of the Wisconsin ice age, sea levels rose, submerging portions of the Florida peninsula and causing the water table to rise. - Adding dates to these statements will help readers.

• The abundance of fresh water allowed new vegetation to take root and formed thunderstorms - How fresh water causes thunderstorms needs to be made clearer.

• episodic fluctuations of precipitation are normal - What does this mean exactly? Would it work without the "episodic"?

I am just going to keep adding to my list of questions as I copyedit. Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to leave comments. I'll work on the article in between Draining and development, and the peer review I'm getting at the same time for Everglades. I know this article has issues, which is why I didn't nominate this one.

That first sentence has triggered concern from three other reviewers. I've changed it several times. It seems a difficult task to put the title of the article in the first sentence, when it's quite self-explanatory. I will continue to work on it, though.

I crack at your issues one by one. Thanks again for your time. --Moni3 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

More as I go:

• Fossilized bryozoans and tiny shells, or oolites, make the limestone porous. Water is stored in the rock, sometimes from one year to the next - It is both porous and stores water? Could this be made clearer?

• I think a bit more wikilinking needs to be done.

• Once peat buildup reaches the surface, oxygen reacts with the microorganisms to decay rapidly - To decay the plant matter?

• Fire is an important element in the maintenance of the Everglades. The majority of fires are caused by lightning strikes from thunderstorms during the wet season. Their effects are largely superficial, and serve to foster further plant growth - It is hard to tell what is "superficial" and what is "important" here.

• The images in the "Everglades" section seem to be a bit smooshed together.

• Where sawgrass makes way for channels or free-flowing water, sloughs develop. - I found this a little hard to understand.

• Sloughs are deeper than sawgrass marshes, about 3 feet (0.91 m), and may stay flooded for at least 11 months out of the year if not multiple years in a row - They are deeper by three feet or they are three-feet deep?

• Alligators have created a niche in wet prairies due to their activity. - The "their" is unclear.

• Islands of trees growing on land raised between 1 foot (0.30 m) and 3 feet (0.91 m) are called tropical hardwood hammocks - What exactly are the islands raised from?

• Near the base sharp saw palmettos (Serenoa repens) flourish, making the hammocks very difficult to penetrate. - Near the base of what exactly? The hammocks?

• I don't know WP:MOSNUM well enough for this article, but I'm wondering about it!

• Hammocks illustrate the difficulty of characterizing the climate of the Everglades as tropical or subtropical. The northern portion of the Everglades includes more temperate plant species, but closer to Florida Bay, the trees are tropical and smaller shrubs are more prevalent. - Could you show the connection to hammocks more clearly?

More to come! Awadewit (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think the first paragraph of "Pine rockland" could use a bit of a reorganization. It didn't quite flow as logically as the rest of the article.

• How come some plant and animal species have their scientific names with them and some do not?

• I feel like the two paragraphs describing cypress tress at the opening of the "The Big Cypress" could be organized better - less important details, such as who is preserving the trees, come before important details such as how long they live.

• Red mangroves have roots that reach far, trapping sediments in between. - I think adding a few extra words here will make this clearer.

• Thousands of birds can nest in the mangroves at once, making a noisy and messy colony, but their droppings further the mangrove trees - further what the mangrove trees?

I'm done! Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good golly! Is there any part of your dissertation I can write for you in exchange for the peer reviewing? Because I know you want that... Ok. I think I changed what you asked for. I rewrote the first sentence, altered the wide image of the freshwater ecosystems cross-section (hope it's more helpful than hideous), added more Latin species names, though some groups, like shrimp, have no Latin because mention of species is unnecessary. I also tried to link more, but I'm cognizant of linking of common terms. Thanks again. I very much appreciate your input. --Moni3 (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

In response to Awadewit's note at Mission 4, I've given this article a second copyedit. Let me say that – as usual for Moni3 – this article is well-researched and well-written. As a native Floridian, I've really enjoyed learning more about this important area.

The following are questions and comments I have about things I didn't feel comfortable changing on my own. (Items on which I'd like Awadewit's feedback begin with an "A"). As always, these are suggestions for you to consider – please don't feel the need to provide green tick-marks, or seek my approval whether you change them or not.

• (A) There are a number of paragraphs without a citation at the end. It seems to me like it's a good policy to include one at the end of every paragraph, so that statements such as "Scientists point to fire as the reason." aren't challenged with {{fact}} tags.

• Does every statement need a citation? *sigh* I'll leave it up to Moni3 to decide which need citations and which don't. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• No, I don't think every one does – but can't we give a general citation at the end of the paragraph? You've all passed some of the Everglades FAs without doing this, I suppose, so I can imagine I'm just being paranoid. – Scartol • Tok 20:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• It could be that it is not possible to give a general citation that covers everything in the paragraph, though. Again, I leave this up to Moni3. Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fine with me. Ball's in your court, M3! – Scartol • Tok 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• For future reference: There is usually no reason to begin a sentence with the word "there". Ironic illustration is one exception. =)

Was this rule taught in school on every day I was ever absent? Or is this just really specific to encyclopedic writing? This comment above all your others had me blinking at it for minutes. --Moni3 (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just not considered superior form. This page from the Writing Center at Emory University, for example, lists it as a useful guideline. It's not urgent, and definitely not an Ironclad Rule™. Just something to add a bit of polish. – Scartol • Tok 20:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

• The area recognized as the Everglades was, prior to drainage, an interwoven mesh... How would people feel about a link to Everglades#Drainage for the word "drainage"? It feels like it just sticks out and is likely confusing to people not familiar with the region.

• she used the metaphor "River of Grass" to explain the blending of water and plant life in sawgrass marshes and freshwater sloughs. ¶ Although sawgrass and sloughs are the enduring geographical icons... I don't care for this repetition – how about removing the bits after "plant life" in the earlier sentence?

• Tropical hardwood hammocks and pinelands... This construction makes it sound like the pinelands are also tropical hardwood. If this isn't correct, maybe we should switch them? ("Pinelands and tropical hardwood...")

• The Big Cypress Swamp is well-known for its 500-year-old trees, but cypress domes can appear throughout the Everglades. I don't understand why the oppositional construction (with the conjunction "but") is used here. Maybe I'm missing something?

• Geologic elements, climate, and the frequency of storms and fire help to create, maintain, or replace the ecosystems in the Shark River Valley, Big Cypress Swamp, coastal areas and mangrove forests. Ooo, three lists in one sentence – can we break this up somehow? How about making "create, maintain, or replace" into "sustain and transform" or something similar?

• (A) Author Michael Grunwald wrote of the first perceptions by observers, "If the Grand Canyon... Is there a rule on using a comma or a colon before a quote? Without a real reason, I've become more and more confident that a colon should precede a complete sentence quote. Can anyone point me to a rule on this?

• I think either one is acceptable, but I usually use a colon. I don't know if there is a rule about this. Awadewit (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Scartol. I think I fixed everything mentioned that I could do. What I had questions about I asked. I have changed the first sentence for the lead at least 5 times. I don't like to ask for a fix if it ain't broke, but the first sentence is so important and it's much like a word you repeat too many times that no longer makes any sense...--Moni3 (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Forming processes

• At only 5,000 years of age, the Everglades is a young ecosystem in geological terms. Its ecosystems are in constant flux due to three factors: the type and amount of water present, the geology of the region, and the frequency and severity of fires. I'm nervous about having "ecosystem" twice in quick succession (in reference to two different scales of matter) in the first two sentences here. (Maybe use "region" for the first instead?) I also wonder if these two shouldn't be a short lead-in paragraph before the "Water" subhead.

• Before its modern appearance, the South Florida climate was arid and semi-arid... "its modern appearance" feels like a sketchy phrase. Maybe just say: "The climate of South Florida was once arid and semi-arid"?

• Although the region appears flat, the wearing away of the limestone in some areas created slight valleys and plateaus, a difference of inches in elevation, that affected not only the flow of water, but also types of vegetation present. I get nervous with so many commas in one sentence. I see there are no em- or en-dashes in the article right now, but could we use a set here? (I vote around "a difference of inches in elevation".)

• Sawgrass thrives in this river, dominates freshwater marshes (or sloughs) We've seen "sloughs" several times before this sentence. Should we move this description to the first instance?

• ...and is the main characteristic of what is commonly known as the Everglades. Again, this feels like an odd construction here. I vote for "the region" or "the ecosystem" at the end.

• ...and scientists noted the added sand from the storm surge improved nesting conditions for crocodiles and sea turtles. Is the "scientists noted" phrase needed here? It feels distracting to me.

• Isn't this article the main article for Geology of the Everglades? Maybe that link should be a "See also"?

• Initial attempts at developing agriculture near Lake Okeechobee were successful, but the nutrients in the peat quickly deteriorated by drying, and encountered aerobic processes. It's unclear who/what the final phrase "encountered aerobic processes" refers to.

• The only impediment to fire in the Everglades is the presence of water in the form of rain. It takes approximately 225 years for one foot (.30 m) of peat to develop, but the peat is not as dense as it should be for the 5,000 years of the Everglades' existence. Scientists point to fire as the reason. Two things: Technically speaking, isn't the marshwater also an impediment to fire? Second, these sentences feel jagged and stuck together. Is there some way to unify the end of this paragraph?

Everglades

• This seems like an ambiguous section heading. How about "Natural characteristics" or "Flora and fauna"?

• The discussion of the "River of Grass" makes it sound at first that the sawgrass is distributed around the 'glades, but the mention of a single river makes me think otherwise. Maybe we can clarify this?

This makes me think the article isn't very clear. If not, please let me know how else to make it clear. The Everglades are a river, but it's very wide and shallow—you could walk through it and get no deeper than your chest in most places. It moves really slowly, so it's not really apparent that it's a river, and sawgrass grows all throughout it. Occasionally there appear channels between the sawgrass, but otherwise, cypress domes or hammocks just pop out of the river apparently at random. So the answer to your questions yes to both. It is a single river with sawgrass distributed throughout. --Moni3 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph of this section just threw me for a loop. How about we restructure it like so (references removed for easier editing, and because I'm not sure what references what):

The Everglades is dominated by sawgrass growing in prairies and strands in a shallow river 100 miles (160 km) long and 60 miles (97 km) wide flowing from Lake Okeechobee to Florida Bay. This is the titular "River of Grass" popularized by Marjory Stoneman Douglas in 1947. Add something like: "This river contains a wide variety of plant and animal life..." An early American environmentalist named Gifford Pinchot said of the Everglades, "It is a region so different that it hardly seems to belong to the United States. It is full of the most vivid and most interesting life on land, in the air, and in the water. It is a land of strangeness, separate and apart from the common things we all know so well." Paragraph break? Some authors refer to the sawgrass and water combination as the "true Everglades" or just "the Glades". Prior to the first drainage attempts in 1905, the sheetflow, or the wide shallow river starting in Lake Okeechobee, occupied nearly a third of the lower Florida peninsula. Though sawgrass remains the main feature of the Everglades, other ecosystems are scattered among the marshes and prairies, and their borders are sometimes imperceptible.

I think this will make it easier for folks to get the jist of what you wrote here on the talk page. – Scartol • Tok 21:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• their borders are subtle or nonexistent This wording is replicated exactly in the lead – can we rephrase one or the other?

• Most marshes in the Everglases are dominated by the sedge known as Cladium, or sawgrass in common terminology. Insofar as we just finished a paragraph focusing on sawgrass, shouldn't this description appear earlier?

Did it really say Everglases? Anyway—what I'm trying to do is acknowledge what most people consider the Everglades to be, that River of Grass that has stuck to so many memories, but that is not all. There's more to it, all woven throughout. Then, however, I have to start describing each separate ecosystem. --Moni3 (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Major sloughs in the Everglades system include the Shark River Slough, Lostmans Slough bordering The Big Cypress, and Taylor Slough in the eastern Everglades. For consistency's sake, if we're doing to have a short locative phrase after two of the slough names, I'd prefer to have them on all three. Can we get one for the first?

• Alligators feed upon some of what comes to the hole. I assume this means animals? Could we clarify?

• ...hammocks may be so isolated that tree snails have color patterns and designs unique to single islands. This is unclear. I assume that the snails do have unique color patterns and designs? If so, then let's rephrase: "...the unique color patterns and designs unique to single islands may be a result of the isolation of certain hammocks."

• I found a missing serial comma – you'll want to go through and make sure they're all either in or out.

Flatwoods and the Atlantic Coastal Ridge

• The understory shrubs in pine rocklands are the fire-resistant saw palmetto, cabbage palm, and West Indian lilac. Are all of these fire-resistant? If not, how about putting saw "fire-resistant saw palmetto" at the end of the list? If so, how about rephrasing: "...include fire-resistant species like saw palmetto..."?

The Big Cypress

• The majority of trees are baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) and not true cypresses (Cupressaceae). The basin for The Big Cypress receives on average 55 inches (140 cm) of water in the rainy season. Cypresses are conifers that are uniquely adapted to thrive in flooded conditions, with buttressed trunks and root projections that protrude out of the water, called "knees". These three sentences don't fit together very well. I tried to find a way to reformulate them, but I don't feel comfortable enough with the subject matter to make it work.

• Though The Big Cypress is the largest growth of cypress swamps in South Florida, such swamps as well as portions of sawgrass marshes can be found near the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and between Lake Okeechobee and the Eastern flatwoods. This is another spot where I vote for an em- or en-dash, setting apart "as well as portions of sawgrass marshes".

Mangrove and Coastal prairie

• ...more than 90 percent of species that are harvested commercially are born or spend time in the shallow waters near the Everglades. An alarming statistic, which I'd like to have qualified. Does this apply to crustaceans harvested nationally? Internationally? Sold in Florida?

Indeed. It does require some more accuracy. My source states: This habitat provides vital refuge, feeding areas, and nursery grounds for sourthen Florida's aquatic creatures. More than ninety percent of the species considered valuable for commercial or sport purposes spend some part of their lives in these protected shallow waters. It's not clear from this text if that's commercial fishing in Florida, southern Florida, or the Atlantic Coast. Another source, Whitney, describes much of the focus of commercial fisheries, including pink shrimp, mussels, oysters, and lobsters, but doesn't give a number. I'll keep looking. --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Florida Bay

• Because much of the coast and inner estuaries are built by mangroves and there is no border between the coastal marshes and the bay, the ecosystems in Florida Bay are considered part of the Everglades. Another spot for em- or en-dashes, setting off "and there is no border between the coastal marshes and the bay".

• The Calusa Indians found the shell of the horse conch (Pleuroploca gigantea) particularly useful in making tools. This is a good bit of info, but it feels stuck into the paragraph. Any way to integrate it more smoothly?

• If the trend continues, within 500 years there may be a complete loss of land in the Keys. Does this refer to the Florida Bay keys, or the Florida Keys? Please clarify.

Biodiversity

• (A) For example, the Florida apple snail... Because it starts off singular, I made the first part of this paragraph all singular – but then it makes sense to switch to plural halfway through; I hope this isn't too confusing.

• I was bothered by that, too, but I think it works. Awadewit (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I had trouble with that while I was writing it. Putting it in the plural makes it difficult to describe the single gill and lung. Care to put money on the joker that comments during FAC: "Oh? They all share a single gill and lung? How does that work?" Now all I can think of is Giano's response: "Ha ha, aren't you a clever bugger?" --Moni3 (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Few places in the Everglades stay submerged from one year to the next, so alligator holes and rocky crags are vital to their survival. The last part of this sentence is unclear. The survival of the Everglades, I assume? Clarify?

• Environmental conditions in the Everglades favor no particular species. This feels awkwardly tacked on. If there's no better way to integrate it, couldn't we just drop it? (If no mention is made, I would personally assume it.)

Perhaps it's a personal quirk that I think an article should end with a little punch. I'll have to think of how to put it there. --Moni3 (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's it! Kudos for all your hard work, and of course feel free to ask away if you've got questions about any of this. – Scartol • Tok 16:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Dank55

• Anything with a single bullet in this section is mine; that's less tedious than signing every one. Anyone should feel free to interject with double bullets or something.
• Moni has done a fantastic job with the Everglades articles, and she's getting a very professional level of input ... kudos all around. I know that Moni has real-life work to do, so I'll try to restrain my comments, and just go ahead and make the edits when I feel somewhat confident. As always, anyone should feel free to question or revert any of my edits, I don't bite (much).
• I notice that the end section with notes and references in Indigenous people of the Everglades region, the first FA in this series, is References. For this article, it's Notes. WP:LAYOUT was changed a little while ago so that the guidance (not policy, not mandatory for stubs, etc) is that every article should have an end section called either References or Notes and references. I hope I'm not being pushy here, but since this end section in each of these articles has both notes and references, and since it's a guideline, I'll go make the edit, and as always, feel free to revert.
• "It is such a unique meeting...": It's maybe a little bit boring to give people grammatical advice in the lead, even though it's helpful to know that Everglades can be singular or plural. I could only find support for treating it as singular in dictionaries and encyclopedias, but I've heard it used as plural and that doesn't sound odd to me. I moved it to a footnote and reworded slightly. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• "soil inches above the peat, marl, or water" was just my best guess.
• "wrote of the first perceptions by observers" is unclear. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)

Sobriety is keeping me pensive about a couple of these changes. Thoughtfulness and consideration...if something doesn't bother me in 24 hours it's not that important to fuss over. But here 24 hours later the removal of what you call "grammatical advice" keeps me twisting my mouth. I never intended it to be about grammar, but about how the region defies a lot of expectation and categorization, to the point that it defies simple rules of English. And it was cited by not the Oxford English Dictionary or Webster's, but the most comprehensive reference on Everglades ecology. I can back it up with the second most comprehensive reference as well. Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Are my edits helping or hurting? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

By far, they are helping. I watch what you're editing, and most of the time I can see the sense in your edits. However, this one has me questioning. I added that statement for a reason that I still feel needs to be included, not because I was teaching people grammar rules. If the statement makes it seem that way, then I should change the wording of it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Sobriety is keeping me pensive" had me concerned; it sounded like, if you weren't restraining yourself, you would be yelling at me for ruining your article. If I'm helping, I'll keep working. [Note: there was a recent discussion at WT:MOS about using more subheadings, such as 5-subheadings (=====Like this=====), to make it easier to link to stuff so we don't have to repeat so much, which is what I'm doing below.]

My agenda

I have an agenda here beyond just working on an article I care about (I'm most concerned with articles in the intersection of law, public policy and technology, so this one is perfect), and beyond trying to help the FA-Team achieve some kind of critical mass: I'm looking to model the relationship between copyeditor and writer. (I don't mean that I'm a model copyeditor; if I were, someone would be giving me money.) This will help me do the same thing that all good copyeditors around here do (and there are many): build relationships of trust with writers so that I can multiply my efforts. This relationship is the engine that drives production of FAs, and it's also the way to teach people how to get paid for their writing. Also, I think that if we can't find a way to increase output of FAs and good GAs, eventually Wikipedia won't be at the top of Google searches. Lots of people are gunning for us. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's some fun insight into your ulterior motive. Having my work edited makes me grind my teeth, but I know it has to be done. It's been a hard lesson for me to learn. I used to have what I considered flawless writing skills, but... things change, and apparently neural pathways are some of the things that change. I can't remember like I used to, and my speech and writing patterns have been reflected in this loss of vocabulary. I compare my writing now to a tollbooth race—all my thoughts trying to get out as quickly as possible, and the ensuing verbal carnage is not pretty.

I wasn't done commenting and I hit the enter button...Now I can't remember what else I was going to say... Ha. --Moni3 (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's actually what I expected...not senescence (that would hit too close to home :), but a great writer who has learned many new things that are crowding out the old things. It's a by-product of having a curious and vibrant mind, of not settling for what you already know. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Back to work

• "an average of one every one to three years" might possibly be better as "usually one every..." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• "tiny shells, or oolites" I don't follow...oolites aren't shells. I do remember from when I attended Coquina Elementary School (east of Orlando) that Coquina was limestone with shells in it, so are we talking about either/or? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• "periphyton and algae and other microscopic organisms covered with calcium carbonate crystals" I'm not 100% sure how to parse that
• "The third cycle appears in a 550-year frequency associated with severe drought." The words "cycle" and "frequency" suggest a certain regularity; is this true, or is it more like an average of once every 550 years? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• I don't follow: "Before the first attempt at draining the Everglades in 1882", "Prior to the first drainage attempts in 1905"
• "alligators ... and fish ... usually feed on aquatic invertebrates": The young alligators will eat snails, but mature alligators don't feed mainly on invertebrates. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• "limited by factors such as frost..." frost in the Everglades? prevalent enough to be a limiting factor? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 05:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• I was able to find this at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4766&page=91: "The hydrologic boundary of a wetland is different from the hydrologic boundary of the watershed that contains it. The wetland is that locus of points in which the water balance produces enough saturation to maintain substrate and biota that are characteristic of wetlands." That's the closest I can get to a definition of "hydrologic boundary". So now I'm not sure what this means: "the swamp measures 1,200 square miles (3,100 km²), but its hydrologic boundary is nearly twice as large". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps "primeval" or "primordial" or would be an improvement on "ancient horseshoe crabs"; it just depends on whether people might think you're saying they live to a ripe old age.
• This information gives the impression of being outdated: "However, since 1932, sea levels have been rising at a rate of 1 foot (0.30 m) per 100 years. If the trend continues, within years there may be a complete loss of all the islands in the Keys." The story on NPR 2 days ago about the Big Sugar announcement discussed where the Everglades were going to last another 20 years or not; that's a bit drastic, but I think "500 years" is going to make the average reader go "hmmm". Global warming is an FA and may be helpful; would you like me to research this? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• The "Everglades" box at the end doesn't include the Everglades article; should it?
• Okay, I'm done. Great article. I'm not good at checking the format of references. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Coquina is the building material found on Anastasia Island, quarried by the Spanish for use in Castillo de San Marcos and some other structures. I realized I had "oolites" in there instead of "ooids". Ooids tiny are formations in limestone, made by a single grain of sand and calcium carbonate forming around it. It's part of how water is stored in the rock under the Everglades.

The difference between 1882 and 1905: at one point I had it worded as the first attempt at draining the Everglades system, which is accurate, because the 1882 attempts were made to the Kissimmee River and some to Lake Okeechobee. The 1905 attempts were made directly in the Everglades.

Yeah, frost in the Everglades. At one point, Juliancolton linked this list to one of the articles. The January 17, 1977 entry was particularly interesting.

The info about seas rising since 1932 is from once of my sources. I guess I can look for others. I didn't see An Inconvenient Truth yet, but I've seen those animated maps where most of the peninsula is underwater. Guess real estate Gainesville is going to be prime...

Are you asking for hydrologic boundary to be defined?

The title of the box is the link, though it was at one point a link within the box...--Moni3 (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be helpful to define hydrologic boundary; that quote I found above makes it sound like the hydrologic boundary of the swamp (as opposed to the watershed) is pretty much the same as the swamp.

I'm vaguely remembering that you mentioned that the Everglades in general is sinking, probably because of wear and tear on the limestone, but maybe you were referring to rising sea level. I'm off to Global warming to see if I can find some better data for anticipated sea level rise. Are there factors other than sea level rise I need to consider?

Next is Everglades? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm happy with your 1 foot/century. More data would be helpful, but we're actually just 2.5 months away from having much better data on anticipated sea level rise; we lost half the arctic sea ice last September, and things could turn out anywhere from a lot worse to a little better this year, we'll just have to see. If we start losing the arctic sea ice by the end of each summer, then we'll lose more permafrost in Canada and Siberia, releasing lots of methane, and the Greenland glaciers will move faster, and ... well, a quick trip to the Everglades before they're gone might be in order. Bottom line: let's leave it as is, except that that I thought the reference to "500 years" might detract, because people generally have the impression that things get interesting a lot sooner than that, so I deleted just that sentence. I'll come back and add more specific data in 2.5 months. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

*"Kissimmee-Lake-Okeechobee-Everglades" would also be fine as "Kissimmee – Lake Okeechobee – Everglades"; take your pick. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Changed my mind, going with Chicago's recommendation - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Broken link

The citation to support this statement at the bottom of the article...

"By the 1990s, the diminishing quality of life in many of these urban areas was linked to the degraded local environment."

...no longer connects to the cited document. I hunted for a better URL to support this assertion, but the State's online records are a headache. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.15.140.46 (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Bummer. I had to use the Internet Wayback Machine. Try here: http://web.archive.org/web/20110518165911/http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/fgils/agencies/sust/intro.html. If you can find a better link, that would be awesome. --Moni3 (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Geography and ecology of the Everglades. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/fgils/agencies/sust/intro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geography and ecology of the 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916070017/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/tracks1851to2007-apr08.txt to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/tracks1851to2007-apr08.txt

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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)