Jump to content

Talk:Drainage in New Orleans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Points need more info on

[edit]
  • Colonial era drainage projects
  • Effects of 18th, 19th century hurricanes and floods
  • Pre-Baldwin Wood pumping systems
  • Great flood of 1816: cause, effects
  • Lake side levees before '27

After Katrina

[edit]

I was wondering about the following sentence:

In most parts of town, residents who did not evacuate before the storm reported that the morning after they were relieved to see their streets dry, the precipitation from the storm successfully pumped out.

Where is this from? Also, it seems like many of the newer facts about Hurricane Katrina have not been referenced properly. Atellus 01:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was from very similar accounts I've heard from friends and aquaintances from neighborhoods ranging from Esplanade Ridge, Broadmoor, Uptown, Fountainbleau, to Carrollton. Hm, I'll reword; "most" is perhaps unwarrented. However there is a wealth of accounts of streets being dry as late as Tuesday morning in areas which would shortly thereafter be catestrophically flooded. -- Infrogmation 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Word of mouth or personal experience is not reliable sourcing according to Wikipedia policy. The policies referenced below clarify this.
* See Wikipedia:Verifiability for very important information on this issue.
* See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources for definition of what a reliable source is. KarenAnn 03:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the previous wording of "most" was an overstatement that has since been changed (for example, most of Eastern New Orleans flooded during the storm). Studies and researches are getting an ever better handle on it. One study has been building a timeline in part with block by block check of stopped clocks. The Picayune's website had a very good set of graphics up on nola.com about 10 days ago that was well done-- I found out some things I hadn't known, but as I know of at least three sites of overtopping or lesser levee breaches not shown or mentioned there, the final history still seems a work in progress. BTW, as someone who has worked with oral history, I am quite familiar with the difference between individual anecdotal accounts and data generated from a good number of independent seperate interviews. Detailed accademic sources are something very important which is needed in the expansion of the article. Some of the early Katrina publications, however, suffer from rush job sloppiness-- for example the Brinkley book is just chock-full of easily checked errors of geography, history, names, etc-- I hope for his sake he plans a massively corrected second edition. -- Infrogmation 16:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Copy-editing

[edit]

Reworded sentences, corrected a few grammatical mistakes here and there. Most likely still needs work. Atellus 01:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, the other day I changed more rare to rarer ("... flooding from the lake side was rarer and less severe..."), but an anonymous editor changed it back to more rare. Rather than repeatedly revert, I'll post it here to see if it's just me or what. According to Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster, and the Oxford English Dictionary, the comparative is rarer. Is there some Manual of Style preference to the contrary? Thanks. — Muffuletta 17:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

Is the "Cleanup" notice still necessary on the article? If so, what are the major issues? -- Infrogmation 21:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about floods before Katrina

[edit]

This article should be called New Orleans Drainage and Katrina, or something. There are so many historical floodings of New Orleans that are never or barely mentioned.

New Orleans has a rich history in this area before Katrina. Katrina is only one incident. So much else is let out that could help us put in perspective what is happening today. KarenAnn 23:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this should be turned into a Katrina article. Possibly a change into history of flooding and drainage. Much of the article is still very stubby; I hope you will help expand points. Perhaps we have a "C" grade summary of the 20th century at present, and much worse for earlier periods-- I made a start on Sauvé's Crevasse. Certainly the levee failures in the wake of Katrina were the worst the city experienced in terms of disruption-- while other floods were comparable in area, back when most of the city was concentrated on the old high ground, the effect on the population was not as drastic. Your help in building this article is much appreciated. -- Infrogmation 03:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge for a Wikipedia article dealing with a major structure (the bridge) that also suffered a major disaster (earthquake). Notice that the body of the article deals with the history of the bridge itself (which is not nearly as rich as the New Orleans drainage/flooding history) yet comprises most of the article. That should be the case in this article also, unless Katrina is to be the main focus. In that case, the title of the article should be changed to reflect this.KarenAnn 12:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

References, verification

[edit]

Could folks who put tags requesting reference and verification please note what points they would prioritize wanting reference or confirmation on? "Unnatural Metropolis" is probably as good an overview as I'm familiar with, but some points are treated better elsewhere. -- Infrogmation 03:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is most of the information is not referenced at all. For example, the article mentions information from a piece in the New Orleans Times-Picayune on November 30, 2005, but there is no link to that article. The link is only to an internal Wikipedia article with information about the New Orleans Times-Picayune itself. This is not a reference. References are to outside credible sources that can be accessed by the reader. In this case, the reference must be to the newspaper article itself. The method I use is the new one Wikipedia is implementing and you don't see it in all articles (even featured ones). Just have a look at the citation templates and Footnotes, if you want to know more. A good example of the new reference method is today's Wikipedia featured article Sanssouci -- check the References section of the article for what is needed.
* See also Wikipedia:Verifiability for very important information on this issue.
* See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources for definition of what a reliable source is.
* See also Wikipedia:Citing sources
KarenAnn 12:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

January 2009

[edit]

I'm not sure of the reason for the removal of much of the material removed from the article with this edit. I'd like an explanation; a good amount of it seems relevent and appropriate to me. -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serious multiple issues

[edit]
  • Problems:
  1. - 5 out of 5 references are either dead or a wild-goose chase which still leads to no references. The reference problem has been an issue for several years. On the talk page as far back as 14 May 2006, under References, verification. References! From the talk page, "It has several books worth of references at present", means what? There is no reference listed in the bibliography, just a list of books.
  2. - The first picture has been labeled as inaccurate and a possible replacement ignored. There is reference to the picture being inaccurate (see picture caption) as far back as 2012-08-04.
  3. - The article has WP:OR written all over it. This is also verifiable on the talk pages by at least one contributor.
  4. - There are now 50 articles that link to this one. That is amazing considering, as far as anyone can actually tell, it is only a lot of original research.
  5. - The article has somehow reached a B rating. The article rating should not have made it past start without reliable references. I will change the rating back to start.
  6. - An external link, that possibly could have been used inappropriately as a source (History of New Orleans Drainage, 1718-1893 PDF) is a dead link.
  • If anyone is watching this page, and certainly the contributing editor, please let me know. I can see where an article with this title can be important but any article has to abide by a set of Wikipedia standards to remain and in that regard this article, at this point, is a dismal failure. I would not mind performing edits but since I wasn't involved in the original research that apparently led to the creation I would not know where to begin. The whole article would have to be rewritten. Otr500 (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Drainage in New Orleans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Drainage in New Orleans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Drainage in New Orleans. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drainage_in_New_Orleans&oldid=1201647765"