Talk:Everglades

message: I am requesting a geographical map on this page to show WHERE the Everglades is.
Axezz 12/04-2005 00:03 CET
:A map would be great - Marshman 05:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a map using NASA's blue marble imagery and WWF's ecoregion boundaries.  I don't have info on percentages of Florida covered by the Everglades.Pfly 10:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map request

message: Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 129.10.104.142 17:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  noticed vandalism 

message: Someone tried to post "The Florida Everglades-2006.jpg" in the middle of the introduction.  I removed it, as when I corrected the code thingeh, the image was too big.  Does anyone actually want to use this, or was this just the work of some guy that's never going to come back?  >_>  Count DeSheep 20:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everglades Image 

message: I removed the following from the top of the article:
:"'Everglades' comes from the Old English Saxon word "glyde," which means a bright, shimmering place in a forest."
It may be worth adding a note on how the Everglades were named to the History section. I may just take a stab at it. -- Donald Albury 00:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivation of name 

message: During the superfun Featured Article Candidate process for Everglades National Park, I promised in writing to expand this article, and I'm readying myself for this, what I foresee, will be a massive rewrite with additional articles. Individual articles will probably be needed for Geology of the Everglades, Ecosystems of the Everglades, Human History of the Everglades, and Development and Conservation of the Everglades (if not an article devoted to Restoration of the Everglades apart from the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan). Dalbury assisted me with some of the history of the park article. I've purchased over $200 worth of books and I'm considering buying more for this...Yarrr.
However, I think the layout of the article should probably appear as:
*Lead (3-4 paragraphs)
*I. Etymology 
*II. Geology of the Everglades
*III. Climate of the Everglades, tying in to the climate of South Florida
*IV. Ecosystems of the Everglades (greatly expanding the eight ecosystems in the national park article)
*V.  Human History: Native Americans in the Everglades
*VI. Human History: Settlement of South Florida
*VII. Human History: Land Boom and Development
*VIII. Human History: Water Diversion
*IV. Human History: Conservation and Restoration of the Everglades
I'm going to need assistance with visuals as well. Anyone handy with a drawing program for making maps?
Thoughts or comments? Last issue: There is no manual of style address for singular or plural references to Everglades. It is proper to say "The Everglades are" as well as "The Everglades is". But we're probably going to need to be consistent. I prefer the plural myself. --Moni3 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 5000 years age of the Everglades is casually passed by in the article without a twitch. That's a very recent origin. The Everglades are not immemorial. Within human memory the Florida Platform stood high and dry, when the Wisconsinian glaciation dropped sea levels as much as 100 meters. "...the rise of sea levels that occurred approximately 17,000 years ago" is misdated; oceans were at about their lowest stand c 15000bp.  This is essential to the picture, imo.--Wetman (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've read, peat deposits are the indicator scientists are using to determine that widespread regular flooding was taking place in South Florida. My sources say the peat deposits are about 5,000 years old. --Moni3 (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text: ...yes, indeed! and the base of the oldest peat deposits identifies the first widespread flooding, as water tables rose with the rise in sea levels, forming the Florida we recognize... at only ca. 3000 BCE, to use a familiar marker. That is, within human memory. --Wetman (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if you're saying this is an interesting fact, or you're saying I'm misinformed. I'm no expert on what I'm writing about, just someone who thinks this article should be far better than it is, and is trying to do something about it. If you think my information or writing is inaccurate, point me in the right direction. --Moni3 (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I was simply pointing out a very interesting angle that seemed to be missing: the Everglades didn't exist during the glacial period: they came into being only 5000 years ago. Here's a map of the estimated Florida coastline during the recent glacial maximum: with sea level estimated 100m lower, the area was high and dry. I googled "glacial Florida" and brought up samples of Gleason and Stone, "Age, origin and landscape evolution of the Everglades peatland: environmental changes leading to the formation of the Everglades", in Steven M. Davis, John C. Ogden, eds. Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration (pp 156ff), which support my amateurish understanding. Try it yourself. Very interesting.--Wetman (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article expansion 

message: There's a sign in Gatorland saying that the headwaters of the Everglades is in Gatorland up near Orlando.  A look at the maps in this article show that it might be possible.  If you think this might be true.  I will post the photo. Americasroof (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Headwaters...in my opinion, by a very narrow definition. Not one that the USGS might recognize. --Moni3 (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing a google for everglades headwaters produces all sorts of interesting claims around southern Orange County and Kissemmee.  I may add a section.  My photo is kinda cool. Americasroof (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're going to need a better source than Gatorland's website. Print source, preferably, if it's about hydrology. --Moni3 (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and I don't think it'd be that difficult to find either.--Karl Svensson (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Headwaters in [[Gatorland]]?

message: *"Glacial activity during the Pliocene Epoch created a limestone formation..." There's no telling what the thought behind this was. Can this be fixed? --Wetman (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Wetman. Sorry it took me so long to respond to this. I need you to be more specific about what it is you think needs fixing. I don't mind at all direction to be as accurate as possible, but I can't fix for accuracy when the complaint is vague. Help me out. --Moni3 (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

text: In what way did Pliocene glaciers in Florida lay down a limestone foundation? Limestone foundations are laid down in shallow seas. Limestone is the product of calcium carbonate in shells and tests, sinking to the sea floor over long periods. Pliocene glaciers (and Pleistocene ones too) were nowhere near Florida. The sentence "Glacial activity during the Pliocene Epoch created a limestone formation... is not susceptible to re-editing to make sense of it. --Wetman (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My book says there were four major periods of Pleistocene glaciation. --Moni3 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Pliocene is not a variant spelling of Pleistocene. The Pleistocene glaciations didn't reach Florida: you can forget them, except that glaciations lower sea levels, exposing additional facies of the limestone platform to erosion, the opposite of deposition. I am doing some corrective editing, as little as possible, with a link to Florida Geological Survey: Tamiami Formation. --Wetman (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I didn't make it clear before, let me do so now - I have no authority to be writing on geology. The only reason I'm doing so now is that nobody has done it yet, and this article is painful as a representative of the Everglades. I understand Pleistocene and Pliocene are two different periods, and more often than not I have to re-read my sources on geology many times. I would appreciate your assistance with geological issues and anything else in the article you think needs to be more accurate. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: How would one explain "Pliocene marine unit" to folks who have no geological background? --Moni3 (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. A more reader-friendly version might be "a unified series of limestone strata laid down on the floor of the shallow epicontinental sea  during the Pliocene". Would that be good? I'm not a geologist either: I merely read it as one might read poetry without being a poet. --Wetman (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pliocene glaciers in Florida?

message: Do you think it would make the article a little more accessible to shorten the lead? For example, the first sentence is now "The Florida Everglades are a subtropical marshland located in the southern portion of the U.S. state of Florida, specifically in parts of Monroe, Collier, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Broward counties." 
How about, for example, "The Florida Everglades is a vast system of fresh water marshes located in the southern portion of Florida? You can go into more explanation and detail  in the body of the article.  –Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, Matisse. I like the pic on your userpage. Ok...I expanded this article by 5x within the past month. I hope to bring it to FA soon, once the satellites I created for this article go through. This article needs 20 copy edits, and I admit it, but it still contains much more material than it did in March. Yes, it would be easier to shorten the lead. I would like to bring this to PR to get input from many folks on it. Right now I'm copy editing Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Geography and ecology of the Everglades (on hold at GA), Draining and development of the Everglades, and Restoration of the Everglades. Once the issues with these articles are tackled, I'll probably rewrite this one a bit since I lifted chunks of info from the satellites into this one. But if you have an earnest interest in improving this one, feel free to edit where you see problems, or list them here. I'll get to it, I promise. And I need all the help I can get. --Moni3 (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. My interest at this point is principally in the geology. I'm a minimalism when it comes to copy editing articles, especially those aiming to FA status. I won't do anything traumatic, hopefully, or you can just revert it. It sounds like there is plenty of time (with your work load outlined above!) –Mattisse (Talk) 17:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I need help with geology. Not my strongest suit. I would like it to be clear and comprehensive, but not overwhelming. Please make suggestions or edits where you see fit. --Moni3 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead question 

message: Why not put most of the information from the CERP section into the CERP main article? --Jagz (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I took on this article, I wanted to give a more comprehensive idea of what restoring the Everglades has been about. So I created Restoration of the Everglades to address that, and used the information from that article to include in this one. I don't think I've actually edited the CERP article, but I don't have a good reason why. I think it does deserve its own article, but if you're suggesting the information about CERP be taken out of this one to be used in CERP, I disagree. CERP information must be included in the Everglades article. --Moni3 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's odd looking having article sections much larger than the main article. --Jagz (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh, but I don't know who took on the CERP article (see also Children's Crusade (civil rights) that I have not edited vs. Birmingham campaign that I edited extensively). With all the spare time I have, I should crack on CERP, but it seems to be a neglected project that may never come to full fruition, tragically. People should know what's going to happen to the Everglades when CERP is long forgotten. --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) 

message: I am no image expert, but I have tried to give the images a once-over:
*:Image:Everglades ecoregion.jpg - Does this need an additional license, since an editor altered the image?
*:Image:1857 Everglades map.jpg - Filling out the full summary for this and moving it to commons (since it is PD) would probably be a good idea.
*:Image:Everglades Geology.png - Filling out the full summary for this and moving it to the commons would probably be a good idea.
*:Image:Florida Everglades Hydrology.gif - Filling out the full summary for this and moving it to the commons would probably be a good idea.
*:Image:Storm at Shark River in Everglades.jpg - Moving this to the commons would probably be a good idea.
*:Image:Historic Everglades Regions.jpg - Shouldn't this have a USGS license?
The only reason I mention the commons moves is because I once had an FAC reviewer demand that I move everything in the PD to commons and, after all, it is a nice thing to do! Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, could we consider making them bigger? RC-0722 361.0/1 03:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: "Sloughs are about 3 feet (0.91 m) deeper than sawgrass marshes, and may stay flooded for at least 11 months out of the year if not multiple years in a row.[41]" Do we really need to describe what a slough is? RC-0722 361.0/1 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. For the folks who grow up in New Mexico, or Hawai'i. --Moni3 (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But if they want to know what a slough is they can click on the link can't they? I mean, that's what it's there for, isn't it? RC-0722 361.0/1 14:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles that go through the featured article candidate process are often cited for WP:Jargon. As I intend to take this to FAC, I'm trying to make sure that even though there are links to technical terms, the terms are briefly explained here to make this article comprehensive and independent from others. --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty then. Just checking. RC-0722 361.0/1 14:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

message: Should we have an intro paragraph for the Ecosystems section? RC-0722 361.0/1 04:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecosystems 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7472577.stm - rst20xx (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added to the article within minutes of it appearing on the front page of The New York Times yesterday. Not by me, either. I was so stunned by the news I had to read the article several times to understand it. Apparently, the news attracted a few new readers as well. --Moni3 (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Landmark Florida Everglades deal" 

message: *If something is in a WP style guideline, then I'll just go ahead and make the change...but of course, if you'd rather I just make a note here rather than making a change, that's fine. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Go and do. I'll watch. --Moni3 (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *This was our attempt at taming the massive lead. Something about the climate should be introduced, as well as the forming processes of weather. If you can come up with a substitute that mentions wet and dry seasons, storms, fire, and drought that are all natural and normal phases and processes, by all means...if not, I'll try to write a better sentence.--Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess my only input here is that you just said that there's a wet season, which implies that there's a dry season, and you also don't want to say things implied by the following sentence.  There are many options, but one sentence I'd be happy with is just what you said, plus "also", minus the first part: "Flooding and drought have also shaped the natural environment." (with or without "frequent") - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *Sounds great. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *Changed it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *Fixed it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Keep racking them up. I'll knock 'em down at once. I'll start tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe not as explicit as you might want, but I have found this, "Despite efforts by Spaniards to proselytize and to forge political alliances, the Indians of central and south Florida shunned those attempts and retained their vital and complex socioreligious systems, inter-regional relations, and independence. Consequently, many of their pre-contact traditions remained unaltered throughout the early historic period, largely unaffected by Spanish influence and disease." Matthews, Janet Snyder. (2003) "Foreword". in Hahn, John H. Indians of Central and South Florida:1513-1763. University Press of Florida. P. xii. From other sources it is clear that the tribes of central and south Florida remained intact until the raids by the Province of Carolina and their Indian allies began at the end of the 17th century. We have no population data for those tribes, so we can only speculate about population declines due to disease. In any case, I think it is clear that those tribes did not suffer anything like what happened the the Timucua during the 17th century. -- Donald Albury 12:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *Hey there, Dalbury. Welcome back. In your absence I wrote four satellite articles for this one. I hope they meet your standards, especially since three of them are featured and another is at FAC right now. But check them out, please: Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades, Restoration of the Everglades, and at FAC: Geography and ecology of the Everglades. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Donald, thanks, that's helpful. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *They also live throughout Florida, near Tampa, and north of Lake Okeechobee. Do you think that's something the lead should say? That might be too much detail for the lead that ate Detroit. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you feel about "Some Seminoles live..." or "There are Seminole communities in..."?  I see you changed it to "Seminoles", that should work. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *Sounds good. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *Fixed it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 

message: *"as did the indication that the deterioration of the environment was harming quality of life in South Florida's urban areas": not clear on this.  Does the source support the position that there was an actual decline in quality of life, or that people were worried there might be?  If the former, then I'd suggest: "as did the decline in quality of life in South Florida's urban areas due to deterioration of the environment".  (P.S.: also, you haven't responded to the "impact" sentence above...is it okay?) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All addressed. Double check to make sure, particularly the Geology section. Making geology interesting tests the limits of English. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work!  Now I'll go up and peek in on Brian's comments.  I notice that he would like for the article to be shorter, and I think you'll hear some of the same at FAC.  After some wrestling has occurred over what goes and what stays, I'll come back and finish up the copyedit starting at "Ecology", if you'll have me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to keep track here, during my normal work day in between bouts of actual work. I'll go through and check all edits up to History. Then I think I'm going to write an abbreviated interim sandbox history and ask Brian to take a look at it before chopping this one up. Muck, by the way, is the actual ecological term. There are several types of muck, too. --Moni3 (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure thing.  I should be ready after supper to start where I left off; would you prefer I copy to my sandbox, or make edits directly in the article?  Btw, in one edit summary I meant WP:MOS when I said WP:LEAD (the one about not repeating the article title in headings). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyediting 2

message: *Pineland: "transitioned" seems fine to me.  It's also in MWOS, and it's not a word that NYTM warns against.
*Calusa: WP:MOS says both "seventeen years" and "17 years" are okay.
*I'm going through making the changes Brian recommended and some of my own, but I'm not making changes where the objection was  "too much detail" or "interrupts the flow"; these are judgment calls, and if you do make changes, you might shift material between this article and the "main" articles rather than just deleting it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 3 

message: There are notes that refer to Grunwald and others to Whitney, but they are not listed in the bibliography section. Halgin (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have absolutely no explanation for that... Puzzling, but it's fixed. Thanks for the heads-up. --Moni3 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grunwald and Whitney not on in the bibliography section.  

message: This is the last of the Everglades articles and I was wondering how it was going. What do we need to do to get it to FAC? Awadewit (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I need to take a well-needed rest from the material in the article, because must like a word that is repeated, it's lost its meaning. I'm involved in another article for now. I would like to get this to FA, but I think I will do that after I've worked on another. If you would like, you can close the FA Team Mission 4 as successful. The last bits to do in this article are mine, and my brain just cannot function without a topic break. It will be mysteriously re-energized at some point in the near future, I'll edit like a fiend, seeing all the problems, and bring it to FA. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can just put it on the back burner for now. It will be like a lovely, long-simmering stew. :) Awadewit (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything I can help with? I'm aware I signed up for this, but I've made about one edit in total so far (I find the drawback - if one can call it that - of having so many top-notch editors on an article is that I can't spot anything that's not already being well attended to :P). EyeSerenetalk 18:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA-Team update 

message: Moni, I see you're moving some image links to just above the relevant headings instead of just after.  As argued recently at WT:MOS, I will fight to the death to have images that appear to be entirely contained in one section be considered a part of that section rather than the section above; however, WP:ACCESS currently says that the image link has to follow the heading, because screen readers aren't currently smart enough to read the heading before the image, and the devs in their wisdom store such an image in the database record of the preceding section or subsection.  Not sure what to say, except that I'm slack and I haven't fought this battle with the devs yet, but I should. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, do you hate me personally or is this just poke Moni in the eye with a stick day? --Moni3 (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Check Moni3's contribs.  2. Apply encyclopedic knowledge of guidelines to point out why your edits are crap. 3. Smile and pretend to have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, if you're in the mood for a little civil disobedience, keep those images right where they are, and I'll fight this out with the devs (and win, policy is on my side). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just not possible to keep track of the many changes and interpretations guidelines and policies go through. For Geography and ecology of the Everglades, Scartol asked me to place all images above headers, and I admit it looks crisper. As I'm unfamiliar with screen readers, I can't really visualize what might be read to someone with limited sight. Shall we wait a week until this guideline is changed? Eesh. --Moni3 (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem. WP:Update.  I've covered the 25 core style guidelines for September, and I'll get to work on content policy as soon as I'm finished making trouble at Harvey Milk. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image placement 

message: Maybe I missed it somewhere in that rather large article, but I failed to see a section on the animal life in the Everglades.  In the ecology section, there are a dozen or so specific species links for plants, and only vague references to sea turtles, reptiles, turtles, crustaceans, etc with no specific species mentioned.  most people can figure out what kind of alligators live there, but animals such as the snail kite (and others i can't think of at the moment) probably deserve a mentiona and a wiki link.  Just something to consider.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Geography and ecology of the Everglades article might yield further details. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, yes, that's much better, thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fauna 

message: It looks like references 12 and 13 need additional "p"s. Could someone confirm this and fix it, as I'm not sure if there's some weird rule regarding it. Mm40 (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw this. Cartographers is linked so people can click on it if they wish. I recall learning this word in 7th grade. I understand offering a brief explanation for words that are regional or otherwise specialized, but I don't think this one is it. --Moni3 (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: I've removed the sentence about an asteroid impact: 
:The basin formation is so neatly rounded and so unlike the rest of the topography of Florida that one scientist hypothesized that it was created by an asteroid strike in South Florida approximately 36 million years ago.

Seems a geologist proposed this at a GSA meeting in 1985, it was picked up by Science news, then nothing until the proposer co-authors a book in 2007 and ties it in to the Chesapeake Bay impact. Don't see anything else relevant in google scholar 1st 5 pages of cites. I also note that Gene Shoemaker didn't think much of the idea at the GSA meeting. An interesting idea and "headline grabbing" hypothesis, but seems nothing came of it. So ... seems perhaps a bit of undue weight. Vsmith (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to disagree with this. I put it in when I first began constructing the article, and now that I've read everything I've read on the Everglades, it does seem to be a bit far out. --Moni3 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asteroid 

message: Hmm... changed this aquifer lies beneath thousands of feet of impenetrable sedimentary rock to this aquifer lies beneath thousands of feet of impermeable sedimentary rock and it was promptly reverted with the summary: undo; this refers to well-digging more than liquid percolation. Now it seems unlikely anyone is going to dig a well thousands of feet deep, and well drilling equipment does not find sedimentary rock impenetrable, so I would assume impermeable was preferred as a cap to an artesian aquifer. Don't have access to the book ref'd but doesn't seem likely. Please explain what I may be missing here. Vsmith (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the source. The author uses impervious and impermeable. I'll change it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Vsmith (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Impenetrable vs impermeable

message: I've been looking over the article, and imagine that I will several questions about it (though only two at the moment). Each is signed by me to compartmentalize discussion. Awickert (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology and hydrology questions 

message: Hi,
I'd like to add some text about a series of U.S. National Research Council reports that review the progress of CERP. I think this could be added at the end of the current text on CERP, within the Restoration section (section 8.4).
:A series of biennial reports from the U.S. National Research Council have reviewed the progress of CERP. The fourth report in the series, released in 2012, found that little progress has been made in restoring the core of the remaining Everglades ecosystem; instead, most project construction so far has occurred along its periphery.(http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Progress-Toward-Restoring-Everglades/13422) The report noted that to reverse ongoing ecosystem declines, it will be necessary to expedite restoration projects that target the central Everglades, and to improve both the quality and quantity of the water in the ecosystem.(http://dels.nas.edu/Materials/Report-In-Brief/4296-Everglades) 
:To better understand the potential implications of the current slow pace of progress, the report assessed the current status of ten Everglades ecosystem attributes, including phosphorus loads, peat depth, and populations of snail kites, birds of prey that are endangered in South Florida. Most attributes received grades ranging from C (degraded) to D (significantly degraded), but the snail kite received a grade of F (near irreversible damage). The report also assessed the future trajectory of each ecosystem attribute under three restoration scenarios: improved water quality, improved hydrology, and improvements to both water quality and hydrology, which helped highlight the urgency of restoration actions to benefit a wide range of ecosystem attributes and demonstrate the cost of inaction.(http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Everglades2-Report-Brief-Final.pdf) 
:Overall, the report concluded that substantial near-term progress to address both water quality and hydrology in the central Everglades is needed to reverse ongoing degradation before it’s too late. 
I'd appreciate any feedback. Best wishes, Earlgrey101 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose adding text on U.S. National Research Council review on CERP

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Everglades. 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/20080529070017/http://www.evergladesplan.org/docs/comp_plan_apr99/summary.pdf to http://www.evergladesplan.org/docs/comp_plan_apr99/summary.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051214102114/http://www.evergladesplan.org/ to http://www.evergladesplan.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710101132/http://www.floridamemory.com/PhotographicCollection/photo_exhibits/everglades.cfm to http://www.floridamemory.com/PhotographicCollection/photo_exhibits/everglades.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The map under is confusing.--Ezzex (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where exactly is Everglades ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Everglades. 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/20081028150828/http://exchange.law.miami.edu/everglades/statutes/state/florida/E_forever.htm to http://exchange.law.miami.edu/everglades/statutes/state/florida/E_forever.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529070046/http://www.evergladesplan.org/docs/fs_psta_hires.pdf to http://www.evergladesplan.org/docs/fs_psta_hires.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090516153453/http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/fgils/agencies/sust/tocs.html to http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/fgils/agencies/sust/tocs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720075749/http://www.evergladesplan.org/wrda2000/wrda.aspx to http://www.evergladesplan.org/wrda2000/wrda.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725192029/http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Divisions/Executive/Branches/CCO/DOCS/JaxStrong/v1-4_JaxStrong_Dec2009.pdf to http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Divisions/Executive/Branches/CCO/DOCS/JaxStrong/v1-4_JaxStrong_Dec2009.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think there is a water problem for everglades can you help clarify it and can you use the info in your artical  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicspy (talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  problems with everglades 

message: :Greetings: I am an editor that has been working with and on the "External links" sections of articles for some time patrolling "External links". I became involved before and assisted in discussions that resulted in Wikipedia: External links/Perennial websites and actively work to ensure "External links" sections conforms to policies and guidelines. My goal is to maintain quality standards provided by the broad consensus of policies, guidelines, and even community accepted essays.
:The issue: This article, listed as a good article by six WikiProjects ranging from mid, high, to top importance, has four sub-sections with a total of twenty external links listed. Community consensus has consistently shown that an acceptable number of links has been three to four, and I have not bothered with any longer articles with five. I can even see stretching the criteria to six on such a large and comprehensive article such as this. 
: Concern: Twenty external links means there either needs to be an "exception to the rule" such as WP:IGNORE (requiring more than local article consensus) or a discussion as to how many of these links can be incorporated into the body of the article. A cursory glance saw all but a couple acceptable for inclusion or as references.
: I have no intentions of wanting to be in some "battle". I lived in Homestead, Florida, and went to school at both Naranja Elementary School and Redland Junior High. We were either in the Everglades or the ocean every weekend for two years and I am glad there is a plan to help restore the area. My family lost everything when hurricane Andrew raged through. With all this stated I would like a review of the contents of the "External links" with collaboration, or protecting editors help, to correct the over-use of links in the section, without degrading the article status, or hitting a wall and having to go to dispute resolution. 
:* Relevant policies and guidelines:
*Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember (#3): "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.".
*Wikipedia:External links#Links to be considered: "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page.", with #2 providing exceptions for a possible increase on a case-by-case basis.  Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Everglades. 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/20060702054432/http://www.sfwmd.gov/sfer/ to http://www.sfwmd.gov/sfer/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Okeechobee means “big water” in the Seminole or Creek Language (perhaps the writer means “Pay-hay-okee”). Rahiim03 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Since there is not mention later in the article of the meaning of the name "Okeechobee", I removed the sentence. After all, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. - Donald Albury 00:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name meaning for Okeechobee is incorrect