# Talk:Central Valley Project

I added a drastically high amount of content and images to the page, mainly because there is far more info on the subject than presented. However, I did keep most of the sections of the original article, mostly the latter part of the intro, external links, etc. Environmental impacts is now under the "Benefits" and "Negative impacts" section.themaee 02:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty darn good to me.  I am sure I speak for many more, when I say "thank you," for all the time you have been willing to donate to this article.  EditorASC (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
No big deal, I just like to contribute to articles that should have lots more info than they do. Just makes me feel somewhat better as an editor. themaee 01:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am having some difficulty in understanding this section, as part of the negative impacts:

### Shasta Dam
The Shasta Dam, at the opposite end of the Central Valley from Friant Dam, is the largest and one of the most important dams of the CVP, yet has had a large negative effect on the Winnemem Wintu of California, as well as perhaps other native groups. Originally, for more than 1,000 years, up to 14,000 Winnemem Wintu people lived in the area near the confluence of the McCloud River and Sacramento River. After the Shasta Dam was constructed, most of the land in the vicinity was submerged, and by 1900 only 396 tribe members had survived. Currently, only about 125 members of the tribe survive.[42]

Since Shasta Dam wasn't completed until 1945, I do not understand why a population of 396 Wintu Tribe members, in the year 1900, is relevant to the existence of Shasta Dam?  How many of those 396 were left in 1945?   If they numbered as high as 14,000, many hundreds of years earlier, and were down to only 396 in 1900, why is that mentioned in relation to the idea of "negative impact?"  People who live in areas where dams are built have to relocate---regardless of what is their ethnic origin.  Are we suggesting that no dams should ever be built, if doing so requires any humans to relocate?  Can't we come up with some negative impact for just about every large structure that has ever been built by man?  What is the point of putting that in the article? EditorASC (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Central Valley Project/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


### Well written
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 Prose is good and very much improved since the last review.
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
 Keep in mind that readers coming across this article may not be familiar with abbreviations like "MW", even when they apply to units, so it's a good idea to spell these out when not citing a number directly as was in the lede (I corrected this). Beyond this, things look OK.


### Factually written and verifiable
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
 Very well referenced
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
 Be careful with inline citations. Just because an entire block of text comes from one source doesn't always mean it's OK just to put the reference at the end. For example, the history section had many detailed facts present inside it, especially specific dates and numbers. Each of these details should be cited in-line, even if it means repeating the reference a few times. I have corrected this and found no other issues.
(c) it contains no original research
 No indication of WP:OR


### Broad in its coverage
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 Very broad, well covered topic
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 Detailed, but appropriate


### Neutral
it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 Very neutral and covers all sides. The controversy section is an interesting, balanced read.


### Stable
it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 No ongoing content dispute


### Illustrated, if possible
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 All free, however the header image could be better as an SVG. This should be investigated.
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 Images are relevant and appropriate


### General comments
An interesting read, indeed. With a little fine tuning, this article could easily become a featured article. Well done. See the concerns above for some things I had to tweak to make it fully compliant with WP:GAC.


### Overall
 Having satisfied the above criteria, I hereby pass this article as a good article. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Central Valley Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090401081847/http://www.usbr.gov:80/power/data/sites/shasta/shasta.html to http://www.usbr.gov/power/data/sites/shasta/shasta.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060926044213/http://www.recreation.gov/detail.cfm?ID=26 to http://www.recreation.gov/detail.cfm?ID=26
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120326181724/http://www.wateradvocacy.org/id61.html to http://www.wateradvocacy.org/id61.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Central Valley Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604150718/http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/CAMP/CAMP_documents/Central_Valley_Project_Improvement_Act.pdf to http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/CAMP/CAMP_documents/Central_Valley_Project_Improvement_Act.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Central Valley Project. 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/20110615004945/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Central%20Valley%20Project to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Central%20Valley%20Project
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100315150148/http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/tech_services/tracy_research/tracyfacility/MapSchematic.html to http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/tech_services/tracy_research/tracyfacility/MapSchematic.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303171905/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=New%20Melones%20Unit%20Project to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=New%20Melones%20Unit%20Project
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613140008/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Powerplant.jsp?fac_Name=New%20Melones%20Powerplant to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Powerplant.jsp?fac_Name=New%20Melones%20Powerplant
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fotr.org/newsletters/Sept09.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104185500/http://www.fishsniffer.com/dbachere/050401elec.html to http://www.fishsniffer.com/dbachere/050401elec.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140324032321/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=New%20Melones%20Unit%20Project&pageType=ProjectHistoryPage to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=New%20Melones%20Unit%20Project&pageType=ProjectHistoryPage
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615004945/http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Central%20Valley%20Project to http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Project.jsp?proj_Name=Central%20Valley%20Project
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: 5 June 2024).

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 <span style="color:green;font-family:Rb wars. There should be the history behind the disputes among the stakeholders during the Peripheral Canal . A link could be sourced for briefly explaining about water rights and the diversion of waters from Californian southern users from North California due to their excessive water demands.
I would like to know what negotiation and investments were settled among the distributors of water consumption. 
The link referenced support claims of this involved in funding facilities through contracts is relevant to the expansion of facilities that were recipients of water distribution of the Colorado River.  Thus, the content does has ample information about the conflict with politicians intervening with Los Angeles getting their share in water, specifically the Colorado River before the Peripheral Canal was constructed.
The section that was underrepresented was the section on Los Banos Grandes, but after reading and looking at references it does not need to be further explained because the reservoir wasn’t funding and it did not proceed forward. One idea that distracted me was in the controversy section explaining about the dam capacity and costs to supply water during droughts, being a different negative impact contrary to environment impact. It could have different subheadings of the controversy section so that it easier to transition to the individuals impacted by the dams. In spite of the tribes’s land being affected by the Shasta Dam, this could be further expand with an additional source and transition after the  sentence "The added capacity of the reservoir would change flow fluctuations in the lower Sacramento River, and native fish populations, especially salmon, would suffer with the subsequent changes to the ecology of the river” [51] In addition, the disruption of migrating fish’s flow pattern could be titled environment impacts as subheading underneath controversy. Overall great sources and content, it just needs to be organized into sections. Based on the talk page, there were comments on the grammar and adding content because it could be further explained, but it should be addressed for each section so that the reader is well-informed 
As a reader, the environmental impacts portray the article as biased when the Wintu Tribe are mentioned. It should also include the benefits that resulted from the Central Valley Project, even if there was many disputes and environmental degradation. 
Jujiberry (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)jujiberry