Talk:Rampart Dam

Senatorial seniority

The article calls Ernest Gruening the "junior U.S. Senator from Alaska", right after noting that Alaska had been a state for a matter of months. As seniority is determined by length of service, and both senators from a new state are installed at the same time, how could there be a senior or junior senator just months into the state's existence? Should the "junior" be dropped, as it adds nothing to the story?

The story of how he became the junior senator is kind of interesting. When they became senators, he and Bob Bartlett flipped a coin. To determine the length of their terms, they drew slips of paper from a hat. There were three slips in there -- one said two years, another four years, and the third said six years. The two- and four-year slips were drawn, and the six-year slip remained in the hat. That's how they determined which class of senators they belonged to. JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   One prose comment: if you are going to not use {{convert}}, add a non-breaking space between number and measurement. I would recommend the use of the template, because there are multiple instances where the manual conversion is using the wrong number of significant digits. Otherwise well written.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Congratulations, the article meets all the GA criteria. Some ideas: try to reduce the amount of red links by making stub or equivilent articles, in particular those that are closely related to the dam project. Would a "legacy" section be approporiate? I am just thinking aloud here, but in Norway we had the Alta controversy in the late 1970s and early 80s, regarding a similar, albeit much smaller, project far up in the uninhabited (save for the Sami) north. While the Alta Power Station was built, this was the last dam of any size to be built in Norway. So, how did Rampart Dam not being built influence the political opinion on dam-building and nature conservation (the latter that really got going in the 1970s). I will leave these ideas for you to pounder upon. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

   Concerning ideas towards FA; I am somewhat limited in that I have never succeeded at FAC, nor written anything but a stub concerning a power station. My first thought is that the number of red links needs to be reduced [including Rampard Dam (Colorado)]. This is of course without reducing the number of links, but making stub articles. I tried fixing all grammer, typing, typographical and MoS issues I found, but writing 'brilliant prose' is not my strength in article work. Unfortunetly, the guys at FAC usually are much better at me and finding this sort of stuff, but in my mind it is fairly close to FA standards (much better than most stuff that goes through GA). As for structure, I though perhaps that the "weather" section was somewhat short for its own top-header, but I cannot find anywhere else it would logically go, and it does not need expansion either. Perhaps an image of the area would be available? There are lots of maps, but no pictures of the area. Oh, and the lead talks about GW, while the body uses TWh/year. Since these only in theory are the same (since a dam would not produce at full capacity all year round), including both under "electrical argument" would be better. I am sorry I cannot think of anything more now (hopefully because there are few issues). Good luck with the editing. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fisheries, IJC, Canada

I know the proposed flooding didn't impact Canada directly, but given that the Yukon is a major salmon river and as far as I remember the International Salmon Treaty and IJC were in place, and the Yukon is an international river, I'm just wondering if there were any positions papers from the Canadian or Yukon government or one of their departments, namely the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). This might have been "under the radar" as far as Canadian interests were...maybe. I hadn't heard of it before, I just came here because of the recent post on WP:AK. On the one hand, the salmon fishery is probably already covered by the article (which I admit to not having read in detail, only scanned), but other than navigation rights (if Canada has any, which I think it did during the Klondike Gold Rush, not sure about since) the fishery is definitely a bilateral matter. Or is now anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't go into it too much, but the Canadian government was against the project from its inception, for those very reasons. There's a sentence in the Ecological Objections subsection, but I didn't add more because none of the sources seemed to consider Canadian opposition as a big deal -- the focus was on Alaska and Outside resistance to the project. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think if you actually looked for some Canadian sources on it, given that the feds had a position, there shoudl be plenty; how much of that is online is debatable though. I'd also question the use of "ecological" in the context of that time-frame, there must be another term (the term "ecology" wasn't coined until after Silent Spring....). Anyway I'll see what I can dig up on the Canadian side when I get a chance, and will field it by some who've worked on Columbia River, as that article has a lot of bilateral aspects to it. Just because US sources focus only on US issues is no reason to focus on them alone, ie. "POV sources make a POV article", or to downplay the Canadian side; and I'd suggest that "Canadian objections" be its own section, even given overlap with aboriginal and ecological/environmental issues. Anyway I'll field this by the bunch at hte Columbia article, and also maybe WikiProject Rivers...Skookum1 (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

PS American sources rarely regard Canadiain perspectives/concerns as a big deal. This doesn't mean it's not a big deal, it just means the Americans downplay Canadian concerns as a matter of course....this is what I meant by "POV sources make a POV article"....Skookum1 (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm putting in a reference to the Washington Treaty right now, which provided for Canadian navigation of the Yukon River. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Americans do not "downplay Canadian concerns as a matter of course". What's a matter of course is Canadians saying Americans do that so they can bitch about it. "Americans are ignorant of anything beyond their borders, America is the world, Americans are uneducated and are unable to be educated". That is what is said - As a Matter of Course - by Canadians.

Cost Estimates

Does anyone besides me think this project would be a good idea? Also what is the cost in 2009 USD so I can compare against wind power projects. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

$7,625,346,968 according to this inflation calculator. But I doubt anyone's done a real modern cost estimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.229.88 (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Title change

Since this never got built, shouldn't the proper title of this article be Rampart Dam proposal?Skookum1 (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've thrown a redirect up at that link. As for the name change, I dunno ... do we gain anything by switching it? If there was another prominent Rampart Dam, I'd be all for switching simply to avoid confusion. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, we'd gain clarity and also consistency with other similar articles; the title gives the impression this dam was built, i.e. that it exists. It doesn't, and in the foreseeable future it won't. So it's not a dam, it's a proposal. e.g. when I get around to making Moran Dam proposal, which was another mega-dam, this time on the Fraser, it would be inappopriate I know to make it as Moran Dam and other editors in WP:CAnada would quickly move to change it. Klappan coalbed methane proposal similarly is another "proposal" article (and it's still pending). Maybe there's somethng in WP:NAME about this kind of thing, I don't know; it would just seem to me that for clarity the title should reflect reality, not reality-that-might-have-been.Skookum1 (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rampart Dam. 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/20090109043321/http://nsmp.wr.usgs.gov/data_sets/20030402_0639.html to http://nsmp.wr.usgs.gov/data_sets/20030402_0639.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)