Talk:New Waddell Dam

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I worked on most of it about two years ago and finally decided to nominate it now.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad you did! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

This looks fairly strong at first pass and presumably covers the "major aspects". There's persistent copyediting issues, but not to a degree that can't be fixed in this review. Various quibbles are listed below. Once these have been fixed or responded to, I'll move onto the checklist and do some source checks, etc. Thanks again for all your work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• "after decades of vision and planning." -- "vision" here seems both mildly redundant and mildly non-neutral

• Fixed

• The lead should be slightly expanded to touch on all sections ("environmental impact" doesn't seem to be covered)

• I did not include because the impact did not seem notable enough. Usually I include the environmental impact if there was significant impact and protest to go along with it. In the case of New Waddell it created a larger reservoir and flooded more desert. No reporting of people being relocated from their homes. It could be included in the lead to tie in the section but I do not think it is significant enough.

• Okay, that makes sense. Striking suggestion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• "was the ambition of local businessmen" -- check on gender-neutral language--you're confident all the participants were men? (It certainly seems likely for the 1880s)

• Source uses the term "speculative businessmen

• Great, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• "new, cheaper and improved design at the time" -- what purpose does "at the time" serve here? Can it be cut?

• Well, multiple-arch buttress dams were popular in the 1900s until earthquakes occurred near them and they collapsed. The well built ones have stood the test of time but the design is rarely used anymore. The design was controversial at the time of old Waddell Dam which developed cracks. I put more of the design controversy in the prose.

• "William Breadsly " -- is the correct spelling Beardsly or Breadsly? Didn't want to correct without checking.

• Fixed, Beardsley

• "employing a maximum of 600 workers" -- the tense is a bit confusing here. Did the dam employ 600 workers to maintain it after construction? Or had it had up to 600 workers at one point in construction?

• Fixed. There was as many as 600 workers at one time on the project.

• "It was also required that specific water levels..." -- is it possible to say who required this?

• The state Water Commissioner. Fixed

• The two very long paragraphs in "New Waddell Dam", especially the second, should be broken up into smaller ones for readability per WP:LAYOUT.

• Do you mean Old Waddell Dam? Split the second at a break in the story.

• " The predecessor project to the New Waddell Dam was the Orme Dam which was deemed as a requirement at first." -- this sentence is a bit unclear. Who deemed it a requirement? And what was deemed a requirement--that New Waddell be preceded by Orme? Or that a new dam replace the first Waddell Dam?

• Orme was integral for storage on the Gila River for irrigation. Removing it wasn't easy. New Waddell was part of the replacement. I fixed the wording to reflect this.

• " the problem at hand " -- what is the problem at hand here?

• The Orme Dam problem; it could provide flood control. Clarified.

• "In 1973, construction on the Central Arizona Project " -- break up this long paragraph into two

• Split

• " was the Buttes Dam" -- what is the Buttes Dam? Was it already in placed, or a proposed new dam? And where?

• It was the only approved dam left on the Gila River. Wasn't too important so I removed it.

• " Beardesly Canal" -- should this be "Beardesley"?

• Fixed, "Beardsley"

• I'd suggest chopping both of the long and complex paragraphs of "Design and operation" into smaller chunks, especially the second

• Split both

• "accessibility during these periods" -- during what periods? Year-round, or a specific time of year?

• Periods of both low and high water levels. I removed it as it isn't necessary.

-- Khazar2 (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough initial review! I can't believe I misspelled "Beardsley" so many times in so many ways and never noticed it.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries, that's what the second pair of eyes is for! All your fixes look good. I'll run through the checklist to see if anything's remaining here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Waddell 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/20121103181802/http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/az/az0200/az0230/data/az0230data.pdf to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/az/az0200/az0230/data/az0230data.pdf

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) 09:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Waddell 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/20120301000000/https://www.usbr.gov/projects//ImageServer?imgName=Doc_1303158888395.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/projects//ImageServer?imgName=Doc_1303158888395.pdf

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) 10:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)