|WikiProject Kansas||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Protected areas||(Rated Stub-class)|
I welcome any edits to this article. I found some conflicting information as to the exact size of the wetlands. So, if anyone has concrete information, or a source that you really trust, please correct this info. CharacterZero 14:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the NPOV tag added a few days ago (06:25, 23 May 2007 220.127.116.11). 18.104.22.168 did not say why the tag was added or do anything else on the page that I can see. I am interested to know what in the article might strike anyone as NPOV, but until we can have a discussion about it I'm removing the tag. I don't see the NPOV issue, in other words. Cyrusc 21:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I had also been wondering about the NPOV tag. I didn't want to remove it, being the article's creator, but I wasn't entirely sure of the reasoning either. My best guess has to do with the Controversy section. There isn't really much in there supporting the government's side of the issue. I'm going to poke around some, and see if I can come up with any official statements of their position. I'm also going to leave a message for the guy who put up the tag, and see if he cares to come back by and discuss it. Anyway, thanks for the help. CharacterZero | Speak 04:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm the one who added the NPOV tag. I meant to add something here to support it, but then I kinda forgot about it. Basically, CharacterZero said it already - there's nothing supporting the other side. There's plenty of stuff out there disputing the environmental impact of the SLT and even some stuff disputing the significance of the lands to the tribes. PeteJayhawk 13:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input PJ--I replaced the tag and will see if we can come up with some more representation for SLT. Cyrusc 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I actually went ahead and moved the tag under the Controversy heading, so that it will be a little clearer as to what is in dispute for people who happen to stumble by. If anyone disagrees with this move, feel free to put it back - but I didn't think it would hurt. CharacterZero | Speak 17:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
NPOV on SLT
We have a small WP:NPOV problem on the topic of the SLT. I say "small" problem, because I think it can be passively fixed and doesn't warrant me slapping a POV tag on the article. I see the following problems:
- There are only anti-SLT sentences. Balance it out. We don't necessarily need pro-SLT arguments, but at least give reasons why people want the SLT. For example, "While some people want to see the South Lawrence Trafficway completed, others fear a negative impact on the wetlands."
- It's not an "extension" of K-10; it's a "completion" of the original project planned in the early 90s. K-10 currently follows 23rd Street and then Iowa Street while completion is awaited, at which point a "realignment" will occur. Don't believe me? Go look at the decade-old and never-used bridge over Iowa Street. So please, use "completion", "realignment", or even "rerouting" instead of "extension".
- Please stick to information about the wetlands. Only mention the SLT debate as it pertains to the wetlands. I deleted the following completely irrelevant sentence:
- Watch out for weasel words. I've already removed the word "unique" in "...a unique and sensitive ecosystem." By that standard, every wetlands is unique. The use of the word would be alright with me if the wetlands had, say, a species that exists nowhere else.
- The Sierra Club reference is extremely biased. It takes sides in the first paragraph. If somebody can find another reference, please replace it.
- Finally, the SLT completion has been proposed using other alignments, like the existing 31st Street or going south of the Wakarusa River. Maybe this should be mentioned in the article to make pro-SLT people seem less evil than the article currently does. Of course, wetlands-conscience compromises like this aren't acceptable to the anti-SLT people either.