Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Geography and ecology of the Everglades

Geography and ecology of the Everglades edit

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 1, 2013 by Bencherlite ^Talk 09:29, 17 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The geography and ecology of the Everglades involve the complex elements affecting the natural environment in the southern region of the U.S. state of Florida. Before drainage, the Everglades were an interwoven mesh of marshes and prairies covering 4,000 square miles (10,000 km²). The Everglades is simultaneously a vast watershed and many interconnected ecosystems. When Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote her definitive description of the region in 1947, she used the metaphor "River of Grass" to explain the blending of water and plant life. Sawgrass and sloughs are the enduring geographical icons of the Everglades, pinelands and tropical hardwood hammocks are located throughout the sloughs; the trees, rooted in soil inches above the peat, marl, or water, support a variety of wildlife. The oldest and tallest trees are cypresses, whose roots are specially adapted to grow underwater. As the fresh water from Lake Okeechobee makes its way to Florida Bay, it meets salt water from the Gulf of Mexico; mangrove forests grow in this transitional zone, providing nursery and nesting conditions for many species of birds, fish, and invertebrates. Geologic elements, climate, and the frequency of storms and fire are formative processes for the Everglades. (Full article...)

Ecology. Please help polish what an editor left us, both blurb and article. A picture that shows better in small size would also be nice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Gerda, if you nominate an article primarily written by a retired editor, I think the onus is on you, not us (and not me), to prepare a blurb that is the proper length. You've nominated enough articles now to know that this blurb, at 1,599 characters, is 33% longer than it should be. And if you think the article needs polishing, and you're not going to do it yourself, it would be helpful if you indicated in what respects you think polishing is needed: deadlinks? Uncited statements? Choppy prose? What do you mean? I am always grateful for your assistance here, but putting up an over-long blurb with a picture you don't like for an article you say needs polishing makes work for everyone else, particularly for me if I decide to run this! Bencherlite ^Talk 09:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened. I thought someone closer to the writing style of the author (not you, Bencherlite) could have done that better. I have no specific concerns about the article, just know that it hasn't been touched for a while, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]