# Talk:Petitcodiac River

The book is partly online as a Google "sampler" here, but the most relevant page, 978, is not part of the on-line material. In any case, I would not cite the unstable on-line version but instead cite the print version, which I am looking at as I write. Here is the complete sourcing information: Benke, Arthur C., ed., and Cushing, Colbert E., ed.; Cunjak, Richard A.; Newbury, Robert W. (2005). "Chapter 21: Atlantic Coast Rivers of Canada" in Rivers of North America. Burlington, Massachusetts: Elsevier Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-088253-1.
Page 978 of this book has a watershed map at the top. The map includes Shepody Bay (or at least a lot of it) as well as the Memramcook basin (even though the Memramcook flows into the bay rather than into the Petitcodiac). This page gives the basin area as 1,360 square kilometers, which differs sharply from the 2,400 square kilometers of the "Petitcodiac and Memramcook Watershed 2006 Water Quality Report". I have looked for a reliable third source that might confirm one or the other, but I haven't yet found one. (But now I have. Please see postscript below.)
Here's the wildlife info from page 978:

"Number of fish species: 8"
"Number of endangered species: 1 fish, 1 mussel (extirpated in 1968)"
"Major fishes: alewife, American eel, brook trout, rainbow smelt, white sucker"
"Major other aquatic vertebrates: beaver, muskrat"
"Major benthic invertebrates: stoneflies (Leuctra), mayflies (Baetis, Paraleptophlebia), caddisflies (Hydropsyche, Brachycentrus), true flies (Simulium, Tanypodinae), Hydracarina"
"Nonnative species: brown bullhead, chain pickerel, smallmouth bass"
"Major riparian plants: willows, white spruce, white pine, speckled alder"
A brief discussion of fragmentation of the basin lists the causeway at Moncton, a dam on Turtle Creek for municipal water supply, and three abandoned dams on (unspecified) tributaries. Also of interest might be a list of "major information sources" from this page, including COSEWIC, the Petitcodiac Riverkeeper site, and The Atlas of Canada, although I'm pretty sure you've already checked these out. I tried to find the length of the river in the Atlas, but I don't see it there. Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently expanding the Wildlife section as we speak (I've already gone through tree and plants), but the list of aquatic vertebrates, insects, and riparian plants will serve as excellent material. You should be able to see the result in just an hour or so. Thanks. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Postscript: Caissie says on page 1, "The drainage basin of the Petitcodiac River has an area of approximately 1360 km2 above the Petitcodiac River causeway dam, a tidal control structure which incorporates a major highway crossing connecting the communities of Moncton and Riverview." It appears to me from this that the Rivers of America basin size stems from this source but fails to add the caveat that this is the number for only that part of the basin above the causeway. Just eyeballing the watershed map in Rivers, I'd say that caveat leaves out nearly half of the total. Therefore the 2,400 now looks pretty good to me (though it does include the Memramcook). If I were the author, I think I'd use the 2,400 claim, using the original Water Quality Report as the source, but adding an explanatory note to the reference that says that this includes the watershed of the Memramcook, which enters Shepody Bay near the mouth of the Petitcodiac. Finetooth (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The Petitcodiac Watershed area is currently sourced (by the PWA/PMWG) in the article to be at around 2,000 km2. That's consistent with sources (like the Riverkeeper) saying that it is 2,400 including the Memramcook (which is a little over 400 km2), and sources (like New Brunswick Department of Fisheries) saying that it is 2,800 including both the Memramcook and the Shepody (which is a little over 400 km2 as well). So I don't think that is a problem; however, I've read Caissie's report a few months ago (which I used for the Discharge section), and I still don't quite understand where he gets 1,360 km2. I'm forced to ignore it due to the pile of other sources indicating otherwise. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
That sounds fine. I think we are basically in agreement. Finetooth (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In the "Resettlement and modern history" section, two sentences say, "The final vessel built in Moncton was the Woolastook II on May 14, 1980,[120] while the final ship to sail up the Petitcodiac River was the Inox from France, which arrived on July 12, 1986, (and was, ironically, stranded in Moncton until November 3 due to the river's tidal fluctuations.)" Should those dates be May 14, 1890, and July 12, 1896? Finetooth (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Nope. I'll quote you the excerpts. "For a short time in the late 1970's and early 1980's Moncton had its last fling in shipbuilding. [... The Woolastook II] slid down the ways into the Petitcodiac on May 14, 1980, the last of a long line of vessel launchings which began in 1827. (p. 413)" and "Probably the last sailing vessel to ever come up the Petitcodiac River to Moncton arrived on Saturday, July 12, 1986. (p. 427)" EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source supporting the claim of about 80 kilometers for the river's length. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's reliable enough, as they seem to have taken the length from an unspecified PWMG source. I've changed it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Are there other concerns to be addressed? The FAC was closed, but I don't recall seeing any other "comprehension" issues other than what was there. Unless I'm mistaken. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping you'd add something about parks and recreation. It's pretty common part of the river FAs, though they are not all identical in form. Yesterday I did some minor proofing and added some WP:NBSP codes and other tiny things because I thought the article was nearly complete and getting close to meeting the requirements for FA. Since promotion requires consensus or near-consensus, I also wanted to be sure that the concerns of all the other involved editors were satisfied and that you were satisfied with the recent changes that other editors had made. My feeling still is that the article is not far from FA and that it will not take much more to make it so. Finetooth (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, the recreation section. I forgot about that. I could probably work on that tonight. And thanks for the reassurance; I figure that a third nomination wouldn't look so good on the article's track record. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 Done Forgot about the AMEC report, which gave good information. I might look over it and see if I can add anything else from it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. I made a few minor proofing changes; please revert if you don't agree with them. I don't see any large problems remaining. If you are satisfied with the watershed map, File:Petitcodiac River watershed.png, it would be good if Cornforth added a link from the license page to the Natural Resources Canada (GeoGratis) page to make it a bit easier for fact-checkers to find the source data. By the way, I don't think the number of nominations will have any effect on the FAC process except that you'll probably be asked whether you've dealt with the issues raised in the previous FACs. Finetooth (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I've done this myself. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the idea that the name "Chocolate River" came from abnormal sedimentation in the river has been reintroduced into the article. Two points need to be stated:

The source for this does not back up this contention.
Evidence of Mi'kmac legend that suggest the contrary has been removed on the ground that the source was not reliable.
Why has this factoid been reintroduced into the article without evidence to back it up? Why has evidence that suggests the contrary been removed? Michael Glass (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"The Petitcodiac has been nicknamed the "Chocolate River" because of the water's brown colour, the result of heavy sedimentation." [1]
"The fact that the tidal waters of the Petitcodiac River have a very high concentration in suspended sediments, which gives it its chocolate-coloured look, isn't reason enough to call it 'dirty.' Every biologist knows this" [2]
The first source has always covered the claims. The second was added just now to reinforce the claim. The Mi'kmaq legends come from an unreliable (or, at least, not of high quality) source, but even with it, we cannot claim that the name comes specifically from them. No mention of the causeway is ever made here. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Eric,
These comments need to be made in reply:
I questioned the wording "abnormal sedimentation"; you defend the wording by referring to "heavy sedimentation".  I have no objection to the use of "heavy sedimentation"; I object to the wording "abnormal sedimentation" because I believe that this misrepresents the sources. It should be noted that the heavy sedimentation is natural. Hence your quotation: "The fact that the tidal waters of the Petitcodiac River have a very high concentration in suspended sediments, which gives it its chocolate-coloured look, isn't reason enough to call it 'dirty.' Every biologist knows this."
The previous wording never stated or implied that the name "Chocolate River" came from the Mi'kmaq.
On what ground do you say that the First People website is not a high quality source?
I think a reference to the Mi'kmaq legend would be appropriate if the source is reliable, but my chief objection is the use of the word "abnormal" in reference to the sedimentation. Michael Glass (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you're understanding the present wording. Abnormal sedimentation is referring to the fact that the river has more sedimentation in comparison to other rivers due to the Bay of Fundy tidal fluctuations. Heavy sedimentation is saying the exact same thing, but "abnormal" places emphasis on the fact that sediment of this calibre is not "normal". The source you provided is not high quality because we cannot verify that the information on it was written by a scholar or someone knowledgeable in the subject (there is no about us section anywhere). EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The trouble with the use of the word "abnormal" is that it is not used in comparison with other rivers. The article makes no comparison with other rivers. Using the word "abnormal" implies that there is something abnormal about the river or the sedimentation. There is nothing abnormal about the river in its natural state, even if it carries a heavy load of sediment. The word "abnormal" is not used by the sources about the river in its natural state, and shouldn't be used in the article because it is potentially misleading, when the river was damaged by the building of the causeway. It is a pejorative word and it is better to follow the source and use the more neutral word "heavy". Michael Glass (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright then. I've changed the wording. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Eric. Michael Glass (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a review of the article as if it were at FAC or a very detailed Peer review. I think it looks very good, but am trying to point out as many nitpicks as possible.

Lead Since the Chocolate River name is not official, I would change The Petitcodiac River (English pronunciation: /pɛtiˈkoʊdi.æk/  ( listen); also known as the Chocolate River) is a Canadian river ... to something like "also known informally as the Chocolate River" or "also known colloquially as the Chocolate River" or "also known by the nickname Chocolate River"
 Done I chose the second as it sounds better, and because I think I used the third somewhere else in the prose. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
...and is home to a diverse population of land and aquatic species. would "land and water species" or "terrestrial and aquatic species" be better?
I personally don't see the difference, but okay. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
... and forced the town into unincorporation would it be clearer just to say ... and forced the town to unincorporate? I am not sure "unincorporation" is commonly used as a state a community can be in
 Done It was the term the source used, but I guess that would be better. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I read refs 4 - 7 and do not see the Chocolate RIver as a result of the causeway connection. Watch out for WP:SYNTH
In the lead, I might split Heavy sedimentation in the river gave rise to the nickname "Chocolate River", due to the resulting brown tint; however, when the Petitcodiac River Causeway was built, an estimated 10 million cubic metres (13 million cubic yards) of silt was deposited in the 4.7 km (2.9 mi) of river downstream from the causeway in the first three years following construction. into two sentences. How does "however" work in this sentence? How is deposition of sediment after a causeway is constructed unexpected? Dams and such silt up all the time.
In the Etymology section, the however is used again in a way I do not see, plus there is the phrase strengthening the validity of the name.[5][6][7] which I did not see supported in those refs. If I missed it, I apoloze, and could you please point it out to me?
Oh, the however must be the one causing the confusion. I'm not trying to say that the name came from the causeway; this has been discussed and solved before. Dividing it would make it clearer, but that makes the final sentence (in Etymology) useless. Should it be removed, or is there still a worthy mention?
Geography the infobox and lead 79 km long, here it says about 79 km long - which is it, and if it is approximate, the lead and infobox should reflect that too
 Done. Infobox one can't be changed due to character limitations. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
New note: Actually, it can, but it's not obvious how to do it. I didn't know how off the top of my head but knew enough to look at Template:Geobox to see if I could find a way this very flexible template could accommodate the desired information. From there I followed the link to Template talk:Geobox/River and imitated the way "approx." was added to the Amazon's length. If you do more work on rivers, you might find the template page handy in other ways. Finetooth (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
More soon, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 04:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Good comments. 

Point 1. Very good point. Personally, I prefer the third option: " "also known by the nickname, Chocolate River." This is the simplest and clearest way to put it.
Point 2. Either suggestion would be better than the present wording. I would again go for the simpler "land and water species".
Point 3. Agreed. We cannot say or imply that the name Chocolate River came from the construction of the causeway without direct evidence. I have commented about this before but the factoid has once again crept back into the text.
I also support the other points made. Michael Glass (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Here are some more points, thanks.

Geography awkward sentence The community of River Glade precedes Petitcodiac River's right tributary, Pollett River, between Elgin and Salisbury, with a watershed of 314 km2 (121 sq mi).[12][18] Perhaps focusing on the Petitcodiac would help? So perhaps something like The Petitcodiac next passes the community of River Glade, then the Pollett River enters on the right between Elgin and Salisbury; the tributary [the Pollet?] has a watershed of 314 km2 (121 sq mi).[12][18]
I removed "between Elgin and Salisbury", which probably makes the sentence less awkward.
New note: I agree with Ruhrfisch. Simply removing "between Elgin and Salisbury" doesn't solve the basic problem with the sentence. It's hard to imagine a community preceding anything; it just sits there, not moving. It's the river that's moving, and its direction of flow is a central organizing feature of the course description. I think Ruhrfisch's wording solves the problem (though other solutions are possible, as he acknowledges with "perhaps something like") and that yours does not. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I had to read the MacLean's article to understand this - I did not understand the relation of the 100 meters to the causeway, and there seemed to be too much material for the sentences: From the time the causeway at Riverview was built until 14 April 2010, when it was opened permanently, it stopped all but 100 m (330 ft) of water as the river flowed downstream toward the Gunningsville Bridge.[21] Before the causeway's construction, the mile-wide river surface area continued to expand past the bridge and Dieppe.[10] and think it might be clearer as something like The river flows to Riverview next; after the causeway there was built, the river eventually narrowed from a width of 1.6 kilometres (0.99 mi) to 100 m (330 ft). The Gunningsville Bridge is a short distance downstream of the causeway, which was opened permanently on 14 April 2010. I am not sure how to include the width beyond the bridge and Dieppe - Dieppe is downstream of Moncton, so I am not sure this is the best place to put this.
I specified that I was describing the width of the river. Hopefully that removes the confusion.
New note:I think Ruhrfisch's description is much more clear. Part of the problem here is that the river at times had (and again has) a reverse flow extending above Moncton; thus "as the river flowed downstream" is a bit misleading. The causeway dam's main effect seems to have been its blocking of the reverse flow of the tidal bore. Finetooth (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Also am not sure I understand all of this A series of banks on both sides of the river precede the 90 degree turn to the south,[10] a feature that gave Moncton its original name, Le Coude (The Elbow).[22] All rivers have banks, so why are they mentioned here - or are these some sort of special banks, perhaps flood control levees? I think I would mention Dieppe after Moncton too.
The "feature that gave its original name" was referring to the 90 degree turn. Dieppe is now mentioned after Moncton but just before Hillsborough.
New note: Your change doesn't address the main concern here, which is why banks are mentioned at all. If the banks aren't special in some way, why state the obvious, that the river has banks? Finetooth (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The map File:Petitcodiac River watershed.png is nice, but I know the borders were disputed at the FAC. The watershed border shown on this map also seems to contradict the article here, which says The Memramcook River, which has a watershed area of 412 km2 (159 sq mi) joins the Petitcodiac River near its mouth.[23][24] (the map shows the river ends before the Memramcook enters the river or bay, depending).
The Memramcook River isn't a trib, so it's not included in the watershed area. The km2 also takes this into account.
New note: Eric, a problem that's discouraging to reviewers, who are very busy people, is to (if I may lapse into a tired sports analogy) hit the tennis ball to the other end of the court only to see it flop around on the ground and not come back. Ruhrfisch has pointed out a logical contradiction in the article. I missed it, though it is related to the general problem of the watershed boundaries. You can't have it both ways. If the Memramcook is not part of the Petitcodiac watershed, then it can't be true that it "joins the Petitcodiac River near its mouth". What I want, and what I assume Ruhrfisch wants, is for you to keep doing research until you find a definitive answer to the question of the watershed boundaries. It can't just be a guess, and it can't be that the Memramcook is both within and outside of the watershed. Surely you see that. Finetooth (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Update. User:Kmusser, a cartographer, says that Cornforth's watershed map appears to be correct and that the GeoNet Names Server here agrees with defining the mouth of the Petitcodiac as upstream of the Memramcook. This makes the remaining problem fairly trifling; the language of a couple of sentences needs a bit of adjusting, that's all. Finetooth (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
As does Geographical Names of Canada, for what it's worth: 45°51′59″N 64°34′29″W ("Petitcodiac River". Geographical Names Data Base. Natural Resources Canada.) and 45°52′2″N 64°33′5″W ("Memramcook River". Geographical Names Data Base. Natural Resources Canada.). I'll keep my eye on this page in the future. Great names--Petitcodiac, Memramcook... Pfly (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Watershed I would move the Greater Moncton area pop stat after the series of years and populations for Moncton. I know I asked for this information to be included, but I think the population does not really fit in the first sentence here as is. The Petitcodiac River watershed is about 2,071 km2 (800 sq mi), while the Greater Moncton area was home to over 126,000 people in 2006.[27][28] What is the ocntrast that while is needed? How do these two phrases fit together?
I honestly don't know, haha. Changed the 1996 stat in the following paragraph for the 2006 one.
It would help to locate the Caledonian Highlands in some way - I assume they are in the western part of the watershed (as water flows downhill), so could a direction be added?
South-west, yes. Added.
Awkward and unclear to me Although the Petitcodiac River's watershed is geographically distinct from that of the nearby Memramcook River, some groups merge the two for categorisational purposes.[12][29] First off "some groups merge the two for categorisational purposes" is awkward. Not sure how to change it - maybe "some groups merge the two into one category"? Second, if the Memramcook is a tributary of the Petitcodiac (which the article seems to say above "The Memramcook River ... joins the Petitcodiac River near its mouth") then isn't the Memramcook's watershed a part of the Petitcodiac's watershed (as a tributary's watershed is part of the parent stream's watershed)?
How about "some groups merge the two for simplicity"? Explained the second concern above.
New note: The explanation for the second concern is illogical. Finetooth (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Awkward / could be tightened  The watershed was rated on the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment's Water Quality Index, which gave two study sites an "excellent" rating, 20 sites a "good" rating, 27 sites a "fair" rating, and five sites a "marginal" rating.[29] Perhaps something tighter like The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment studied 54 sites within the Petitcodiac watershed; measured on its Water Quality Index, two study sites were rated "excellent", 20 sites "good", 27 sites "fair", and five sites "marginal".[29]
Done.
OK, calling it a night. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 05:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Getting the rest done tonight. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Look, I'm extremely busy as of lately, and this FAC is really not one of my priorities. I really appreciate all of these comments, but I just can't cut through them right now. I'll try to get some work done before winter break. Just not now. Keep criticising if you want though. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Eric, one of the nice things about Wikipedia is that there are in general no deadlines. I will stop for now (I have lots of other things I can do) and when you are ready, please ask and I can resume my review. I came here because you asked me to (diff), and I tried to review the article line by line as I would at peer review for something I felt was pretty close to FA quality, but still had some issues. For most articles at FAC the toughest criterion to meet is 1a (a professional level of English), so I tried to focus on what I thought were still a bit rough. Having outside eyes look for such rough spots is something I personally find very helpful in articles I write. It is always fine to say you are busy, and doing so helps the reviewer too as it helps clarify expectations. I hope when you have the time, you will more carefully consider what I wrote here and make more substantive changes that really address the issues raised. The article is quite good, but for FA it has to be literally the best it can be. Yours, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 02:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. For some reason I felt under pressure, and that really doesn't help considering what I have IRL. I guess I got carried away here. Again, thanks for the help, and I'll ping you once I get most of this initial stuff done. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
More Course and following
I think this could be tightened a bit: From the confluence, the river passes under the bridge on Route 106 in Petitcodiac, The road then follows the river to Moncton on the left side of the river. [14][15] could be something like After the confluence, the river passes under the Route 106 bridge in Peiticodiac; the route follows the river to Moncton on the left bank.[14][15] Left bank can be linked to Wiktionary as [[wikt:Left bank|left bank]]
I think the "lake" created by the (accursed) causeway should be mentioned in the Course section. FA articles on rivers with such impoundments mention them like this - see Columbia River for an example
Watershed Tweaks for  Only four percent of the area is used for commercial, residential, or private usage. The word "Only" may be seen as POV, and I think a tweak might make the whole sentence clearer A total of four percent of the area is used for commercial, residential, or private usage.
Water quality This might be American ENglish vs Canadaian, but I would use "upstream of" or " downstream of" in sentences like Two sampling sites, one upstream from the causeway and one downstream, were used during the 2009 study.[40] Your call
More tightening  A publication by the New Brunswick Department of Environment in 2007 showed that the watershed did not meet the quality guidelines for E. coli in 10 percent of samples, for dissolved oxygen in 5 percent of samples, and pH in 3 percent of samples; in contrast, the river was always within safe nitrate levels.[29] could be somthing like In 2007 the New Brunswick Department of Environment reported that 10 percent of samples from the watershed did not meet the quality guidelines for E. coli, 5 percent for dissolved oxygen, and 3 percent for pH; the river was always within safe nitrate levels.[29]
The whole third paragraph in Water quality section could be tightened to something like Agriculture affects the river's water quality. In 2001, the Petitcodiac Watershed Alliance recommended that local farmers install cattle fencing around streams on their properties, and "eventually phase out" cosmetic pesticide usage.[43] The Petitcodiac Riverkeeper's stronger position on the issue is that pesticides "find their way into the surface and ground water by leaching into the soil or as part of stormwater runoff." While the provincial government regulated some cosmetic pesticide usage in 2009, the Riverkeepers have called on the province to forbid its usage altogether, and to require chemical manufacturers to disclose health warnings and all ingredients on labels.[44] The New Brunswick Department of Environment warned that the common "land use practice" of removing riparian zones causes erosion.[29] Hopefully I have not changed the meaning, but I think this is much tighter and says the same thing.
Fourth paragraph could also be tightened a bit. I also think it makes more sense to move the oil and gas exploration to chronological order. Mining in the area essentially stopped with the closure of the gypsum mines in 1982.[45] In 2006 involved exploration for oil and gas at Turtle Creek, where the Greater Moncton has its water reservoir, was blocked by the municipal government.[49] Uranium mining later bacame a potential problem for the river.[46] In 2007, the province controversially gave Vale Limited (formerly CVRD Inco) uranium mining rights at Turtle Creek.[47] Environmentalists feared that contaminants could be pushed into the surrounding water.[48] The Petitcodiac Riverkeeper noted uranium mining's "irreversible effects to the health of ecosystems, watersheds, wildlife, agriculture, recreation, and public health", and joined 30 other environmental groups in asking the provincial government to ban it. The province later restricted uranium mining to 300 m (980 ft) from residential areas and banned it from protected drinking water areas.[46]
More tightening Various materials were disposed of in the area, including petroleum waste oil, pipe and foam insulation, ... could just be Materials disposed of in the landfill include petroleum waste oil, pipe and foam insulation, ...
I would add the year of testing in the next sentence, so While the landfill was shut down in 1992, samples by the Environmental Bureau of Investigation and the Petitcodiac Riverkeeper showed that ... could  just be While the landfill was shut down in 1992, in 2000 the Environmental Bureau of Investigation and the Petitcodiac Riverkeeper showed that ...
Discharge tightening The river aids in the drainage of ten significant bodies of water... could just be The river drains ten significant bodies of water....
A report in 2000 showed that it handles an average discharge of 27.3 m3/s (960 cu ft/s) into its mouth yearly, with a recorded high of 730 m3/s (26,000 cu ft/s) in 1962 and a low of 0.36 m3/s (13 cu ft/s) in 1966.[53] could also be tightened to just In 2000, the average annual discharge at the mouth was 27.3 m3/s (960 cu ft/s), with a high of 730 m3/s (26,000 cu ft/s) in 1962 and a low of 0.36 m3/s (13 cu ft/s) in 1966.[53]
Tidal bore The section header is singular ("bore") but the first sentence uses plural ("bores"), then most of the rest of the section is singular. I think the confusion is between the phenomenon (the Petitcodiac's tidal bore) which should be singular and is the the subject of the section, and the fact that there were two individual tidal bores each day. I would use the sigular, except in the sentence comapring this one to other tidal bores (or in direct quotes, but I think these are all singular).
Change this so there are fewer square brackets in quotes:  The Admiralty referred to the tidal bore in a hydrographic chart published in 1861, observing that after "its passage the rise of the tide is very rapid until high water is attained", and that during the lowest tides "the Bore still appears but its broken front usually is only a few inches high."[58]
I would change the image caption from A reproduction of the tidal bore in 1906 to something like A 1906 postcard showing the tidal bore
OK, will stop for now. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 17:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wildlife I would link the names of each species at first use (I know someone else asked that they be unlinked, but I know most river and protected area FAs link the names of species.
Tweak The Petitcodiac River was the only known Canadian habitat of the dwarf wedgemussel, and was later isolated to just nine American watersheds after its elimination from the Petitcodiac.[64] to just ... the dwarf wedgemussel, which was isolated to just nine American watersheds after its elimination ... (just may be seen as POV and could be cut too - your call
Tighten Various insects and arachnids reside around the Petitcodiac River. Among them is the stonefly, the mayfly,... to something like Insects and arachnids around the Petitcodiac River include the stonefly, the mayfly,... I would remove the words "Petitcodiac River" from the next sentence (just use watershed)
The Semipalmated Sandpipers seem to contradict themselves - first one says 50 to 90 % are there, but the next sentence gives the much lower 7.7%, which seems at odds with the first sentence. Second sentence could be tightened a bit too Around 269,445 stop there before migrating to South America, a number which accounts for [is] at least 7.7 percent of the total population. It also seems odd to say "around" (approxiamte) followed by 269,445. Perhaps say the year of the count? So In YEAR, 269,445 stopped there before migrating to South America, which was at least 7.7 percent of the world's population.
Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 21:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a river on this page that says it is called "Little River" however everywhere I see online including Google Maps, it is called "Coverdale River". Little River seems to be where Coverdale River separates at Prosser Brook/Parkindale.  Can anyone verify this?

This review is transcluded from Talk:Petitcodiac River/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
I find the article to be well written and organised following the Manual of Style and project guidelines.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Referenced well, references are RS, sources support the cited statements.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Through with uneccessary detail.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
This article meets the criteria so I am happy to list it. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)