Home  

Random  

Nearby  



Log in  



Settings  



Donate  



About Wikipedia  

Disclaimers  



Wikipedia





Talk:Tellico Dam





Article  

Talk  



Language  

Watch  

Edit  


Latest comment: 11 months ago by Jonathanischoice in topic GA Review
 


Learn more about this page
Good articleTellico Dam has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassessit.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 5, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
May 15, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
August 11, 2023Good article nomineeListed

Did You KnowAfact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 17, 2022.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Tellico Dam project was controversial for its acquisition of farmland for real estate development, loss of Native American sites, and damaging an endangered fish habitat?
Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination

edit
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk pageorWikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promotedbyRoySmith (talk15:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

)
 
Tennessee Valley Authority civil engineers monitoring hydraulics of a Tellico Dam prototype.

5x expanded by AppalachianCentrist (talk). Self-nominated at 20:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC).Reply

  Detailed article, fine expansion on plenty of sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. I like ALT2 best. It's not clear how the image is related to the hook, and you don't see well what it shows in small size. No qpq needed yet. Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Further review

edit

@AppalachianCentrist:. I have done as much as I can to improve the article, and I suggest you could consider resubmitting for Good Article review. My only remaining suggestion is to consider the "See also" section. Bussell Island could be mentioned in the body of the article, rather than just a listing in "See also". The other entry could potentially be removed, allowing the "See also" section to be deleted. Marshelec (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tellico Dam/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Larataguera (talk · contribs) 10:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


I am reviewing this article and will leave comments in the next few days. Larataguera (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

AppalachianCentrist, I think you've probably done a good job with this article overall, and it seems to be relatively complete (although I haven't researched it in depth to be sure). I have noted concerns about the prose below, which echo concerns from the previous review. My standards for concise prose are fairly high, so you may have better luck from another reviewer on this, but I think the article would be a lot better if it were more concise. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Larataguera (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Failed until prose can be made more concise. Larataguera (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    The article still needs substantial copyediting for concise style. Just in the first paragraphs of the background section we would need the following changes:

Taken individually, none of these changes are super important, but such revisions are necessary throughout the article. I estimate that the length of the article could be reduced by 20%-25% with concise style and without losing any information. I will hold the review for two weeks to see if someone can complete these revisions throughout the article, and if not I will have to fail without further investigation.

  1. b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):  
    b. (citations to reliable sources):  
    c. (OR):  
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):  
    b. (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:  

(Criteria marked   are unassessed)

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Tellico Dam/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonathanischoice (talk · contribs) 23:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply


Hi, I'm happy to review this over the next few days, I will build up comments below as I go. Please note I'm also reviewing Matiu / Somes Island as well, so I will have my hands full! Cheers — Jon (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've added some comments below, and passed some of the critera as satisfactory. I think the article is otherwise in great shape, and I think the remaining issues are relatively minor. I've put the review on hold for a few days so we can address them, and hopefully at the end of that I can reassess and pass the article! Please feel free to comment under each bullet-point below if you need to discuss them (with a *: at the start of the line). Cheers — Jon (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@AppalachianCentrist: we're so close! There's only three really minor things left to do, I think: use of the word "seized" (maybe that's a reasonable use in the US? I don't know), a sentence or two somewhere in the text that summarises the dimensions of the finished dam and reservoir so that their appearance in the infobox can be supported by the text, and optionally collapsing the refs for the three chapters of TVA and the Tellico Dam, 1936-1979 into one reference with either {{sfn}}or{{rp}}. — Jon (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Jonathanischoice
Regarding the usage of the word "seizure/seize," several sources in the article refer to TVA's methods of property acquisition as an act of seizure.
- Dam Greed (ref 24) page 262: "Wildlife, and Fisheries says these land deals betray the farmers whose land was seized years ago."
- The Snail Darter and the Dam: How Pork-Barrel Politics Endangered a Little Fish and Killed a River: "and around the Little T valley might need to be persuaded because a substantial majority of the land that would be seized —almost two-thirds of the sixty square miles,"
That should provide a justification into the usage of that terminology.
The inclusion of information regarding the dimensions of the reservoir have been added to the Construction and engineering section. Additionally, information regarding the property for development is added to the section.
I will work on your last requested revision right now.
Thanks, AppalachianCentrist (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Fair, and supported by the added Knoxville News-Sentinel ref.—Jon (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Jonathanischoice,
The TVA and the Tellico Dam, 1936-1979, multi-sourcing has been revised with the "{rp}" template.
Thanks, AppalachianCentrist (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Great news, I'm passing the article now. Super effort, and well done!—Jon (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. This is a well-written article with good style and maint-templates, categories and auth-control.
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. lead ok; layout ok; watch words ok; fiction n/a; lists n/a.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. References are used in a consistent style with correct layout.
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Sources are good. It might be nice to link to Open Library or Internet Archive instances of books sourced, rather than (or in addition to) Google Books, but this is a suggestion only.
  2c. it contains no original research. I'm satisfied that there's no unreasonable or overreaching use of references or undue synthesis.
  2d. it contains no copyright violationsorplagiarism. The Copyvio report on this article currently returns an alarming score of 93.9% which indicates a fair amount of verbatim copying from sources in ways that are not obvious quotes. Update: it turns out it was some junk SEO website that I think we can safely ignore. It may still be worth looking through the report to either quote-and-cite, summarise, or otherwise eliminate any verbatim patches, but I think they are mostly coincidental (place or organisation names, etc.)
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Passing, infobox dimensions now covered in the text.
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). I think this is satisfied; good use of {{redirect}}, {{main}}, and {{see also}} to delegate to details in related articles.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Satisfied
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. I'm satisfied that there is no edit-warring or other controversies in the talk page and edit history.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Image tags are sufficient and valid.
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Good and meaningful use of images throughout.
  7. Overall assessment. I'm passing this now, after a long effort and extensive improvements by User:AppalachianCentrist through three reviews. Well done!

Comments below, by section.

Review comments

edit

Overall I think this is a very good article, just a few things to note so far. Firstly, the good things are the prose, grammar and spelling, use of illustrative images, and good linking throughout.

Lead/introduction

  • I'm not a Tennessean, but I wonder if seized is too strong or emotive a word for Wikipedia, appearing five times throughout the article. Maybe "acquired" or "forfeited" or some more NPOV wording? I'm happy to be convinced.
    see discussion, above.—Jon (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • This is good, but I think the completed in 1979 fact should be nearer the start, in the first sentence or two.
  • Not required for GA, but an easy quick-win would be to use the coordinates from Wikidata to add a map to the infobox, e.g. location = {{infobox mapframe|id=Q7697601|zoom=8}}

Background

  • Introduce the Tennessee Valley Authority; to anyone outside the US, it may not immediately be clear they are a public electricity utility.
  • The wartime issues link is odd, there's no need to hide it, and it may not be clear to some readers which war; maybe something like "financial constraints imposed by US involvement in World War II" (maintaining the link to the home front article).
  • Introduce Boeing. Is there anything interesting about what Boeing's interest in the project was (and later withdrawal)?

Engineering and construction

  • Units in feet should provide metric equivalents; ideally, use the {{convert}} template.
    I see this was done while I was writing comments :)
  • The dam's current physical aspects, its displacement of water, volume, reservoir area, etc. are listed in the infobox, but the infobox is supposed to summarise information in the article; so we need a description in the prose. It should be easy to just re-use the figures and the reference (5).

Environmental impacts, controversies, and legal action

  • passing an amendment in a seemingly unrelated public works bill - "seemingly" is editorialising, and moreover not needed, assuming it was a rider clause. Suggest something like "adding a rider clause to an unrelated public works bill"
  • Ref 32 (Gilmer, 2011) should use the {{Cite thesis}} template and indicate that it is a PhD dissertation.

References

Marshelec's comments

edit

Flood control storage

edit

The source: [1] claims that『Tellico’s reservoir also provides 120,000 acre-feet of flood storage above Chattanooga, formerly one of the most flood-prone cities in the nation.』(Note: I have had to correct sloppy work on the website that trims acre-feet down to acres in the main text. See the side-bar for the correct units.). Although it is a primary source, the flood control capacity, and the benefits for downstream communities is a relevant factual statement (presuming it is correct). If supported by secondary sources, this should perhaps be included into the lead and the body of the article. (However, I am not aware of whether 120,000 acre-feet of flood storage is substantial or relatively insignificant compared with the prospective flood hazard.) The 120,000 acre-feet is approx 148 million cubic metres, or 0.148 cubic km. Marshelec (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  1. ^ "Telling the Story of Tellico: It's Complicated". Tennessee Valley Authority. Archived from the original on June 16, 2022. Retrieved July 24, 2022.

Property acquisition and eminent domain

edit

These sentences are a bit hard to follow:

I can't access the book that is the cited source for this content, but I suggest a possible alternative to these sentences that is more concise: "The proposed project affected diverse communities with widely varying levels of awareness of large government initiatives. Historians of the project have suggested that most TVA personnel did not understand the complexity of the communities that were affected by the Tellico project, and that this led to more heated opposition." Marshelec (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The book is available on the Internet Archive, here.[1]Jon (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Notes

edit

References

  1. ^ William Bruce Wheeler; Michael J. McDonald (1986). TVA and the Tellico Dam 1936-1979: A bureaucratic crisis in post-industrial America. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. ISBN 0-87049-492-9. LCCN 85022224. OL 2540939M. Wikidata Q121288397.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Add topic

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tellico_Dam&oldid=1208985749"
 



Last edited on 19 February 2024, at 19:59  


Languages

 



This page is not available in other languages.
 

Wikipedia


This page was last edited on 19 February 2024, at 19:59 (UTC).

Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Terms of Use

Desktop