Talk:Petitcodiac River

message: 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. .
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That sounds fine. I think we are basically in agreement. Finetooth (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Rivers of North America''

message: *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)
replies: text: OK. Thanks. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Two dates

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: I've done this myself. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Other concerns?

message: 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"
** 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: As does Geographical Names of Canada, for what it's worth:  () and  (). I'll keep my eye on this page in the future. Great names--Petitcodiac, Memramcook... Pfly (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

text: New note: The explanation for the second concern is illogical. Finetooth (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Getting the rest done tonight. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ruhrfisch comments