Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of springs in Florida/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of springs in Florida

edit

List of springs in Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Mgrē@sŏn 16:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...Hydrological Springs in the state of Florida are of great interest to many people, and there has been limited information generally available except for a popular few which are state parks. Mgrē@sŏn 16:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Resolved comments from Tomcat (7) 12:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quick comments
  • Do not write "This is a list of hydrological springs in the U.S. state of Florida.", but introduce the topic. The next sentence is a good introduction.
    --Changed as per suggestion.
  • I would briefly define a "spring" and describe the difference between a spring and a river.
    --Included definition.
  • There are some broken or unavailable pictures.
    --Unable to find images for all springs. Should I remove setup so the cell is blank?
  • I would add a header right after the lead.--Tomcat (7) 12:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    --Added header. Mgrē@sŏn 15:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Tomcat (7) 12:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quick comments
  • No lead image?
    --Included an image.
  • Lead is all wrong, you can't have a two-sentence lead then a History section in a featured list.
    --Added as per previous reviewer's suggestion above. It has now been removed.
  • Link Florida (the state) at some point.
    --Reworded intro and wikified Florida.
  • "More than 21 springs" so, 22? 220? 4000?
    --Changed to say "known" springs.
  • " at least 14 Florida cities have "Spring" in their name." surely we know exactly how many cities in Florida have "spring" in their name?
    --There are 14 municipalities and 78 place names. Which is the preferred usage?
  • "Daily Magnitude" why is magnitude capitalised?
    --Uncapitalised it.
  • Why is Millions capitalised?
    --Uncapitalised it.
  • Flow col doesn't sort correctly.
    --Hmm...working on that.
  • Scopes are wrong, the col scopes are being shown as row scopes.
    --Changed row scopes to col scopes.
  • Don't use bold to display a certain characteristic.
    --Removed bold.
  • Temp -> Temperature.
    --What are you suggesting; use the entire word?
  • Any real need for ELEVEN external links? If that information is so vital, it should be incorporated into the list as references.
    --Removed half of them as not important.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ColonelHenry

  • Oppose Wondering how an incomplete list (with a dynamic list template) claiming in the lede section there are 700 springs in Florida but listing only 110 (about 15%) meets criterion 3 for "comprehensiveness." By an analogue, I wouldn't consider a list of twentieth-century Nobel prize laureates to be "comprehensive" or "FL-promotable" if it started at 1900 stopped at 1915. Likewise, if someone mowed only 15% of my lawn, they'd likely not get paid. I think this article needs the other roughly 590 more springs advertised in the lede to be "comprehensive." Sure they might discover more springs as time goes by (and they can be included), but if the State of Florida identifies 700 (note: actually 720 per bulletin 66), this article should list 700. This article is well-organized, well-written, and has a great structure, but alas, only 15% of the race has been run.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is true that over 700 springs have been identified, only the first and second magnitude springs were visited and have current detailed information in Bulletin 66 (a maximum of 224). Most of the remainder have only five digit id numbers and are magnitude 3 or lower. Your comparison to Nobel honorees is like comparing apples to oranges. All Nobel winners are notable; relatively few springs in Florida are. Mgrē@sŏn 00:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why are you using a different spring classification system than the one laid out by the state in Bulletin 66 (see page 9 for their eight-tier classification)?--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1927 Meinzer system is the standard used by hydrologists, but most people can better comprehend gallons per day than cubic feet per second or a combination of both. Mgrē@sŏn 00:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, expand footnote No. 1 to read: State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection. "Florida Springs". Retrieved 22 January 2013..--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    DEP aded to ref as suggested. Mgrē@sŏn 00:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rejectwater

  • ""Type" denotes RR-River Rise; SS-Single Spring; GS-Group Spring; SK-Sink." What does this mean? What is a "River Rise", etc? The key should include explanations for each.
    Added explanations of types in text section of article as suggested. Mgrē@sŏn 20:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see there has been some discussion regarding the list as incomplete. Does the list include all the first and second magnitude springs in Florida? Perhaps, if it does and/or if this is a reasonable possibility, the scope could be changed and it could be complete. For instance "List of first magnitude springs in Florida" or "List of first and second magnitude springs in Florida". I'm not certain that overall completeness for a topic such as this one is something we really want, but reducing the scope of the list could be a compromise position. Rejectwater (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that the title does not match the scope of my project. I will change it to List of major springs in Florida. Thanks for the feedback. Mgrē@sŏn 20:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_springs_in_Florida/archive1&oldid=559205606"