# Talk:Osborne Reef

I have reviewed this article, and it looks well organized. However, I cannot say the article is ready for good article status. It clearly needs a really good copyedit. There are all sorts of grammatical inconsistencies. For example: "With the endorsement of the US Army Corps of Engineers, Broward Country approved the project.  That spring, enthusiastically supporting the reef construction, more than 100 privately-owned boats volunteered to assist with the project; accompanied by the USS Thrush they simultaneously dropped thousands of tire bundles onto the reef." (e.g. 'Broward Country' in the first sentence, and the second sentence is poorly-written and is kind of a run-on sentence).
The article could use some images, although I understand the difficulty some editors might have in taking underwater photos.
There are a lot of red links, particularly towards the end.
You're going to have to define the word, "minortoxin." It's a red link, and without an article to click on, most readers will be lost. The sentence probably also needs a citation, as it's original research without one.
It's getting close. A little more work, and I think it will be WP:GA. Editors might want to review WP:WIAGA and WP:CITE for suggestions. Dr. Cash 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A blow-by-blow reply, if I may:I've re-read this off-and-on since the WP:GA was declined, and I'm not sure how "clearly" it needs a copyedit.  I re-wrote the sentence around the "Corps of Engineers" bit, as well as a few spots here and there, but I'm not sure if the areas I touched upon are what were being referenced or not.  It reads well to me, but then again, I wrote most of it and am not objective as to the stylistics of my writing.I originally had some images from the Florida Environmental Agency (or whoever), but they turned out to belong to the Sun-Sentinel and became fair-use as opposed to free-use.  I tagged the talkpage with {{reqfreephoto}}, but I'm not holding my breath.
The Reef Ball Foundation may or may not be sufficiently notable to warrant an article, so I left the redlink alone for others to hash out.
I've removed the redlinked "minortoxin" as it (a) isn't a real word and thusly unlikely to gain an article, and (b) may be a misspelling of the writer quoting the interviewee in the referenced article (further point though, the "minortoxin" bit is sourced, why the WP:OR warning?).
I also removed the wiki from "International Coastal Cleanup"; as a part of The Ocean Conservancy, it probably wouldn't prove to be sufficiently notable for its own article.
Coastal America may prove to only be notable with reference to this article, but I'm not so sure and left that redlink in for the possibility.
Based on derek.cashman (talk · contribs)'s recommendations I've tweaked the article as above (and more); but ultimately, I don't think it really changed that much.  What further improvements and/or changes could and should be made to the article to make it the best it can be?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though Fort Lauderdale tire reef and Osborne Reef are different names for the same artificial reef. I know little about it, so I won't take the initiative to merge Fort Lauderdale tire reef into Osborne Reef, deleting the former. But this should be a simple matter for soemone better informed than I am about this reef. --Zantastik talk 04:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Maralia 05:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Support the merger into Osborne Reef.  I won't mind being bold and making the merge myself; while the other article may have some information this one doesn't, we need to ensure proper and accurate sourcing before merging any of it into here.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, upon further study, Fort Lauderdale tire reef only has the one source and it's already in this article.  I'm inclined just to make the redirection of that article into this one, barring any objections.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 07:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
And ... done.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed this article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. There are several issues that need to be addressed before I will pass the article:

Expand the lead a little more, there is no mention of the cleanup at all. The lead should adequately summarize the article while meeting the requirements of WP:LEAD.
Go through the article and make sure that all of the inline citations go directly after the punctuation. I saw at least two occurrences.
"Gregory McIntosh, an employee with BARINC, would laud the project to the attendees of a 1974 conference on artificial reefs: "Tires, which were an esthetic pollutant ashore, could be recycled, so to speak, to build a fishing reef at sea,"[3]" The comma should be a period.
"The culmination of the project was the deposit of over two million tires bound with steel clips over 36 acres of the ocean floor, approximately 7000 feet offshore and at a depth of 65 feet." The single sentence shouldn't stand alone, so either expand on it or incorporate it into another paragraph.
"Unfortunately, no exceptional efforts were made to ensure the non-corrosivity of the steel restraints and they summarily failed" Don't use "unfortunately", this doesn't sound NPOV (even though it makes sense to use the word). Use something else that is more factual
The — is used twice in the article, but there is a space before it in one occurrence, but in another it is touching the word. Make sure they are fixed so that they are uniform.
"Furthermore, the tires were now easily subject to the tropical winds and storms that frequent the eastern Floridian seaboard and are found to collide". Reword "and are found to collide" to "were found to have collided".
"An original estimate of between $40 and $100 million led the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to plan to arrange a deal with those companies whose construction damages the seabed and reefs." Add an inline citation for this.
"This plan faced criticism on the part of environmental groups who felt that this would only hasten the destruction of more marine habitats." Change to "faced criticism by environmental groups".
"CWO Donovan Motley said that the cleanup of Osborne Reef easily met those requirements: "This project allows these military divers and Army LCU crew members' real-world training in 'wartime' salvage ops. And perhaps, more importantly, it exercises interoperability with federal, state and county agencies and these skill sets could have the most significance in the aftermath of a Katrina-type natural disaster,"" Add a source, and change the comma to a period.
"Barring unforeseen operational commitments and engagements, military divers hope to use this project as a training platform for the following several years and "recover the maximum number of tires possible from day one,"" Reword "following several years" it sounds awkward; again, change the comma to a period.
Also, if you can, mention what type of fish the project hoped to attract. See if you can find another picture, either of a tire(s) or maybe of several of the fish.
I am going to leave this article on hold for seven days and if the issues above are addressed, I will pass the article. If you have any questions or when you are finished, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 05:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, awesome, thanks for the input!  I've edited the article and have addressed most of your points.  If I may:
I worked on the WP:LEAD, and I think it's pretty sufficiently comprehensive.  Let me know what you think.
I moved some in-line citations around, but would appreciate a once-over again if you wouldn't mind.
I changed the comma to a period.  The commas that you wanted changed to periods I originally left in there because they were direct from the original source.  Grammatically, I would have changed them, but since they were part of the original quote I pulled, I was wary.
I just merged this sentance into the previous paragraph where I think it still sounds appropriate.  I initially left it alone because I felt it summed up the entire section well, but thinking on it, I didn't do that with the other sections, and it is ultimately unnecessary to stand alone.
I'd thought about that before, and wasn't sure what others would think.  I changed it to read "As there were no exceptional efforts made to ensure the ..."
Fixed the —s.
I didn't change this to the past tense as you requested because in my reading it seems that this is a continuing, ongoing problem.  I reworded it to say: "... eastern Floridian seaboard and continue to collide ..."
The citation you requested for this is the same that appears about a sentence or two later.  I've duplicated it where you wanted it, let me know if that's what you intended.
Done, no problem.
That entire paragraph is all cited to the same citation at the end, do you want it placed throughout the paragraph as well?  Took care of the comma>period.
I reworded that blip to read: "military divers hope to use this project as a training platform for several years and ..."  Took care of the comma>period.
Nothing I've read yet says anything about specific types of fish expected, except to say: "game fish".I originally had two pictures that I had sourced to Broward County and were not listed as being copyrighted.  However, the County's website later changed and now sources those pictures to the Sun-Sentinel; being copyrighted now, they failed the non-free content criteria (#1) and I requested they be deleted (Image:Divers distance.jpg, Image:Fishprofile.jpg).
Thanks again for taking the time to look over all this, I really appreciate your input; if you have any other questions or comments, lemme know.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have passed this article according to the requirements of the GA critera. I made a few minor corrections, but other than that the article looks fine. Considering the inline citations, I usually recommend adding one to each statement, even if the next sentence uses the same source. If there is only a cite at the end of the paragraph, when another editor/anon who doesn't know about the sourcing, they may stick more relevant information into the paragraph from a different source. But if there is no inline citation after the prior statement, then readers will think that all of the information is from the same source. It may seem redundant at times, but it doesn't do any harm. Keep searching for more sources so you can continue to expand the article and make sure that all new information that is added continues to have sources. Keep up the good work, and I hope you continue to bring articles up to GA quality. If you have any further questions about the review, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 22:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
The script has spotted the following contractions: didn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions and User:BQZip01/FA Tips for further ideas. 
I also recommend adding a free image of the area as an image in the intro. Once you tackle these, I'll be happy to re-review and see where we can go next. — BQZip01 — talk 06:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that; a point-by-point reply, if I may.
I can't really think of any way to expand the lede w/o superfluously duplicating information.  It duly summarizes all the pertinent article points.  I separated it into paragraphs, each the separate important points.  Should I draw more information from the article proper into the lede to "flesh it out"?
I removed some of the wikilinks from whence I felt they might not be contextually necessary.
Well, I do have a free use image, but it's awfully pertinent where it is now.  I would like to have one of the reef as a whole, either from above- or underwater, but I haven't found any thusly, and I don't live in (or have cause to go to) Florida.
Unless I completely missed it, there is no appropriate infobox for this article.
Comprehensiveness, it has.  It may not be as long as expected, but I assure you, it's using every iota of reliable information I've been able to wring out of my sources.
Ironically, it is a quotation.  I'd never given any thought to my writing style; it's nice to see it meets muster with regards to contractions and this script.
Whaddya think?  I'll look more at the two linked recommendation pages soon, but thus ends my editing tonight.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 07:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A map of the reef would be nice. I can't find the reef neither on OpenStreetMap nor on OpenSeaMap nor on Google Maps. Google Earth has a feature to show Wikipedia articles but I don't have that program at the moment on my system. User:ScotXWt@lk 18:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This article mentions, that the project mainly miscarried because the tires are too mobile. But how well is the material of a tire actually suited for marine critters (e.g. corral planulae) to attach themselves on it anyway? At the first glance the whole idea seems totally brain dead to me, but I am always willing to educate myself, e.g. artificial reef User:ScotXWt@lk 18:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted Epicgenius (talk · contribs)'s edits.  I cannot ascertain what Epicgenius was trying to accomplish (though this user claims the GA-rated article looked "messy and shitty" before), but the image accompanying this section is what it looks like after this user's edits.  To alleviate these numerous errors I've reverted the article again and directed Epicgenius to discuss their edits here.  —  fourthords | =Λ= | 04:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Fourthords: That wasn't what I was intending. I was simply trying to clean up the ref names in the prose, but apparently I fucked it up. Sorry. :( Epic Genius (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Fourthords: See? Only two brackets needed to be removed, then almost everything would be fixed. I am working on fixing 2 refs. Epic Genius (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Everything is fixed. Epic Genius (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing was broken before.  It is apparently your unilateral decision that citations need to be in a specific place and look a certain way, but why you chose this article to enforce your personal aesthetic I don't know.  I'm not interested in edit warring, but I'll point out that your edits are in contravention of WP:CITEVAR which says: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change."  You sought no consensus.  —  fourthords | =Λ= | 19:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I neither thought consensus was needed to de-clutter the article prose of distracting references, nor did I care one bit about WP:CITEVAR before now. Epic Genius (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, WP:CITEVAR mentions absolutely nothing about moving references to the reflist. It says that things considered unhelpful are "Switching between major citation styles, e.g., switching between parenthetical and <ref> tags, or between the style preferred by one academic discipline vs. another" and "Adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently." Neither of these options mentions moving references to the reflist. Although I did improve the ref markup (albeit by fixing my own fuck-ups), which is helpful per WP:CITEVAR. Epic Genius (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I dispute your evaluation of the references as clutter or distracting; I find the expanded and in-line citations more intuitive and easier to edit later.As for whether CITEVAR applies, I inquired at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#CITEVAR before speaking here, and editors there agree that collapsing and moving all the citation templates to the bottom of the article falls under the CITEVAR content guideline.  Like I said though, I'm not interested in edit warring over your ownership of the article, but wanted you to know that what you did isn't commonly accepted practice IAW guidelines.  —  fourthords | =Λ= | 03:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I find it interesting that this isn't covered in WP:CITEVAR, but OK, if you say so. Epic Genius (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Even four years later. Lots42 (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed it is, though it's due to edits by 66.27.46.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) almost two months ago.  I've reverted the edits, and it again functions as I suppose Epicgenius (talk · contribs) intends it to.  —  fourthords | =Λ= |  16:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)