Talk:Metro Vancouver watersheds

Note: This page was created in March 2016 as an educational assignment in the University of British Columbia course BIOL 345. The 'Review' comments below are from fellow students. Rosieredfield (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Outline comments from Rosie: Wow, this is excellent!

One problem you might run into is access to the watersheds to take photos, since in general I think our watersheds are closed to public assess. One option would be to take a watershed tour; there are snowshoe watershed tours on Mt. Seymour in February. Or you might be able to contact the watershed authority and get permission for access to take photos for your page.

Including a map of the watershed (and/or of its location) would be very valuable. There's a web site where you can get copyright-free maps - let me know if you can't find it.

You might want to discuss access to the watersheds. Are they all closed to the public?

Links: You could include a link to the watershed tours page above. Rosieredfield (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Outline comments from Ruth: Yes, Rosie is right, this is excellent! You may be able to get some maps and some photos from wikimedia commons. The search function on the wikimedia commons website is not the best so try a variety of search terms before you give up! It seems that you have proposed to do quite a lot. If you find you are running out of time you could maybe leave out the biodiversity section, depending on how long it takes you to do everything. RuthVancouver (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer review by Ellen

A very well organised and well written page overall. A link to the general watershed Wikipedia page would be a good addition somewhere in the introduction as watershed is not defined in the page. Some other terms like reservoir could also have links to the main pages just to clarify them. I think it would be better to have a link to the sockeye salmon page when it is first mentioned in the “Salmon in Coquitlam Lake” section rather than at the end of it with the other species. I do not understand what water intake screens are, there could maybe be a description of them to help understanding of the page. The table with the dates of the reports seems a little out of place, it might be better if there was a brief description of what was detailed in each report in another column, or the table could just be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellrobso (talk • contribs) 23:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review from Constance

This is a really good Wikipedia page.

Overall organization and content: Your ideas are presented in a logical order, the point of view is neutral and external links are well-organized. I would suggest you to do more paragraphs in the " Establishing the Watersheds" section in order to clarify your information. About your " Logging" section, you could try to resume it more by making a sort of list because it imbalances a bit your page. Your table " Policy & Land Status Summary" repeats a lot what you have already written in the logging section. Maybe you could try to put them together and remove information already cited. It's a good idea to include in your page tables.

Integration with other Wikipedia pages: I propose you to include an external link to your page in the " Metro Vancouver" Wikipedia page. Otherwise,links to existing pages are appropriate.

Standard Wikipedia page layout and organization: It will be better to have you Table of Contents after the main title and your introduction. An Infobox could be helpful in this page. Be careful with your references, some are not well-cited (or not cited).

Writing quality : Nothing to say. Some repetitions for few words in the same sentence (for example "salmon")

Illustrations: I like your first map with the different watersheds, really relevant. Your illustrations are good, maybe you may add one for the "Coquitlam" section.

Overall, your page is really interesting, there are just few details to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collecon (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review from Vicente

The overall structure of the page seems fine. The information is well organized by topics and all the subheaders seem to be where they should be. However, some information is repeated in the Policy and Land Status summary so you could place this graphic within another section and also eliminate some of the repeated chronological information. This way you could present the information concisely and also present it visually. I don't want to say that you should eliminate information because the Logging section is very well presented and gives a complete history of the region but you might want to write it more concisely to reduce space and make it a faster read.n

You should work on linking your page to others especially when referring to places (Seymour, Coquitlam) or other relevant entities for which information might be lacking (Vancouver Waterworks Company for example). Any specific term, place, person or entity should be linked.

The page is well written and the range of your information is very impressive and comprehensive. However, with so much information you should be careful not to forget to cite. There is some data and some facts that are not cited especially at the beginning of the page when you give the sizes of the different watersheds.

The pictures are interesting and appropriate, especially the first one with the map.

I agree that an infobox might be useful.

Besides that this is an excellent page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicente.gonzalezm (talk • contribs) 22:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Jacob Review

Wow! Excellent job. I’m impressed by the level of detail and coherence of the writing, especially in the history section. You guide the reader through the what, why, where, and when of the topic flawlessly. That being said, I think you missed the opportunity to link to other Wiki pages, such as “Capilano River”, “Seymour River”, and many other companies mentioned. Good job tying the history into present-day discourse surrounding the watershed, like the highway debate.

Each section is chock-full of information and is clearly well-researched. It is important that you include a section that details the environmental impacts, as that helps to encompass a perspective outside of just the benefits it has had to humans and the political discourse surrounding it.

However, you should include the impact it had on populations that perhaps were already living there before the government decided to take the land for its own project. You could have included something about the disruptions the Canadian government was causing for indigenous people in this area, as the creation of the watershed was probably not good for all people, only those who were not oppressed by the government.

Overall, very well done. I learned a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7825:1700:130:C476:75DA:922E (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Rosie's comments

Your grade for your draft version is based on the March 9 version, but these suggestions refer to the March 27 version. Subheadings: Many of your sections would be easier to read if the paragraphs began with boldface subheadings.

Snowpack: Consider explaining the role of the annual snow pack in replenishing the reservoirs as the water is drawn down in our dry summers.

Climate change: You could briefly discuss the implications of climate change for the watersheds. Will they continue to be adequate?

Rosieredfield (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ruth's Comments

Yes, this is really great. Good job! My comments below are also for the 27th March version.

I only have a couple of small things to add:

• There are quite a few links in your page that don’t work. Check Wikipedia’s editing guidelines on when to have red links and when not to Wikipedia:Red_link

• Make more of the place names link in The Capilano Highway Debate section?

• Maybe expand your introduction a little bit to include a little more about who the watersheds supply to give a little bit more context before we get into the history section? i.e. how large an area? How many people?

RuthVancouver (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Areas that need attention

We have run out of time to create some of the subsections recommended by the reviewer. It would be great if someone could add information on the following:

• Implications of climate change for the watersheds
• Role and importance of the snowpack in replenishing the reservoirs
• History of indigenous peoples in the watershed areas

Also, we added an infobox, but it is very simple, and could be improved.

A photo for the Coquitlam watershed is needed.

Alaidlaw (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Final comments from Rosie

• This page is excellent - well beyond the expectations for this assignment.

I have made a few minor edits, but there remain a few more substantial changes that would improve the page:

1. Under 'The Capilano Highway debate', it would be helpful to have a map showing the proposed road and the locations of Vancouver and Squamish

1. Under 'Human Impacts', the description of salmon issues in the Coquitlam watershed should be supplemented by a brief description of the original Capilano Dam salmon ladder and, later, the Capilano Hatchery. And what about salmon in the Seymour watershed?

Rosieredfield (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metro Vancouver watersheds. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bctwa.org/SEYMOURGATE.pd
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160404213727/http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/plan_protect_sustain/water_use_planning/capilano-seymour-wup.html to http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/plan_protect_sustain/water_use_planning/capilano-seymour-wup.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) 22:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)