Talk:Draining and development of the Everglades

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Draining and development of the Everglades is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Draining and development of the Everglades is part of the Everglades series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 22, 2008.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Draining and development of the Everglades/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article is pretty much there, I think. I do, however, have a few issues that I think ought to be addressed:

  • "Florida quickly formed a committee to consolidate grants to pay for any attempts. However, not until after The Civil War and Reconstruction were over in 1877 did attention turn back to the Everglades." Turn back? When and why did it turn away?
  • "Smith suggested cutting through the rim of the Everglades (what is understood as the Atlantic Coastal Ridge) ...". "... known today as the Atlantic Coastal Ridge"?
  • "A band of hunters, naturalists, and collectors ventured through in 1885, taking along with them the 17-year-old grandson of an early resident of Miami. The landscape unnerved the young man shortly after entering the Shark River: "The place looked wild and lonely. About three o'clock it seemed to get on Henry's nerves ...". Was Henry the young man? What's the purpose of the detail "17-year-old grandson of an early resident of Miami"?
  • "Napoleon Bonaparte Broward promised to drain the Everglades during his race for the governor in 1904 ..." This reads very awkwardly to me on a number of levels. He was going to drain the Everglades during his election campaign? Racing for the governor? What about "campaign to be elected governor". Presumably this was the governorship of Florida?
  • "Two severe hurricanes in 1926 and 1928 ...". That suggests to me that there may have been four hurricanes, two in 1926 and another two in 1928.
  • Shouldn't the long quotation in Exploration start with either "The" or "... the"?
  • "However, an early report by the project reflected local attitudes about the role of the Everglades to the nearby developed areas:" That doesn't seem to make sense.
  • "Adding 100 pounds (45 kg) of the element ...". Manganese sulfate isn't an element.
  • "Fields in the EAA are typically 40 acres ...". Needs a metric conversion.
  • "The canals proposed by Wright were unsuccessful in making the lands south of Lake Okeechobee fulfill their promises to local farmers." Seems strangely written. What promises had the lands made?
  • "Engineers were pressured to regulate the water flow for farmers, but for commercial fishers as well who often requested conflicting water levels in the lake". "... not only for farmers"?
  • "The 1920s presented several favorable conditions that helped the land and population boom, one of which was a 20-year absence of any severe storms". There were 20 years without storms in the 1920s?

This is a fairly long article, which I haven't quite finished reviewing yet, so there may be a few further points to follow, but these are my initial thoughts. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Changes made. I think I need to formulate a Convoluted Sentence Barnstar, which in reality should actually be a Convoluted Sentence Barnparallelogram. If there is anything on Wikipedia that unites my articles, it is my clumsy attempts at saying what I'm trying to say. And stuff. Thanks for the review. I know it's long, and I appreciate the time you're putting into reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with those so quickly, just a few more points:

  • "The scouts returned, reporting not enough land was possible to build through the Everglades ...". Not sure what this means. Not enough land was available?
  • "Some burned off the sawgrass or other vegetation to find the peat a source of fuel that continued to burn". They didn't do it to find the source of peat presumably? Perhaps something like "... only to discover that the underlying peat continued to burn"?
  • "Quickly the focus of government entities homed in on the control of floods rather than drainage." Reads very awkwardly. What's a government entity?
  • "the United States declared legal limits of the lake to be minimum at 14 feet (4.3 m) and maximum at 17 feet (5.2 m)". Not clear what this means. How would passing a law have any effect on the depth of water in the lake?
  • "... the Dade County Port Authority (DCPA) eventually purchased 39 square miles ...". What's the significance of "eventually" in that sentence?
  • I don't know what the current protocols are for referring to American Indians/native Americans, but would it be permissible in the lead where it says: "the U.S. military's mission was to seek out Seminoles ..." to say something like "Seminole Indians" instead of "Seminoles", so that those of us not so well versed in American history don't have to follow the link? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "The DCPA bulldozed it and laid a single runway they declared was for training pilots". What was it the DCPA bulldozed?

That's about it. It's a really nice and informative article that you ought to be proud of. I'll formally put it on hold now, at least for the few minutes before you fix these last few points. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

All fixed except for the point of water levels in Lake Okeechobee. Because all these Everglades articles kind of run together in my mind, I don't know if it's clear that water levels changes drastically within a year or throughout many years. The one constant found in the Everglades, including Lake Okeechobee, is variability. The conflict people continue to run into is our desire and need to ensure the environment of South Florida remains stable, which it will not do anytime soon. When legal limits were set for the lake, it was another step, another notch deeper that affected the ecosystems, ensuring that consequences down the road would somehow come back to bite us in the ass. Does that need to be made clear? If so, how?
Thank you for reading the article. I appreciate your time very much. I don't know if you are part of the FA Team, but I do plan to take this to FA. Do you have any suggestions to prepare it for that? Thanks again, MF. --Moni3 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for so quickly pandering to the few minor points that I brought up; it's great when a nominator responds as quickly and as positively as you've done. I still find the point about the legal limits set on the depth of water in Lake Okeechobee a little opaque, but that may be because I'm unclear on US law. Is it a federal responsibility to maintain the water depth between those limits? What happens if they're breached, who gets punished? But that's not a show-stopper as far as I'm concerned, so I'm very happy to list this article as a GA now.

I'm not a part of the FA Team, for reasons that I won't bore you with. Looking towards an FA nomination though, I wouldn't expect too many problems over the content of the article (perhaps excluding the issue of water depth in Lake Okeechobee), or at least no insurmountable ones. MoS compliance, referencing, images, and sources look pretty good as well. I think the main issue to be addressed is the usual one that comes up at FA; a professional, even brilliant, standard of prose. FA reviewers tend to forget that it's rather easier to write inspiring prose about a work of literature than it is about a geographical area or feature, but nobody ever claimed that life was fair. I wish you luck in your future attempt to secure FA status for this article, but for now congratulations on achieving a GA listing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have to revert one of your copy edits. Prohibition is an era in the US and an amendment to the Constitution, so it should remain capitalized. --Moni3 (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. It isn't capitalised in the prohibition article being linked to though. Should that link be changed to Prohibition in the United States? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I changed the link. Thanks. I think the purpose of legislating the water level in the lake is to determine who should maintain it, and who should be responsible if it does not get followed. Read - who should get sued the next time it floods. --Moni3 (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


This is a very interesting article, but yes the prose does seem convoluted. I'm working my way through it, and I hope my changes are improvements. However, I tripped over this one:

Due to Disston's purchase, state investors were able to sponsor railroad projects, and the opportunity presented itself when oil tycoon Henry Flagler became enchanted with St. Augustine during a vacation.

First, what does "state investors" mean here?

Secondly, why was this due to Disston's purchase? Or was it that Disston's purchase gave investors more of a reason to think they'd get a return on their investment?

Thirdly, I suppose that "the opportunity presented itself" actually means something like "the opportunity was taken up". Right?

And lastly, when did Flagler take his vacation (and how would he have traveled)? Morenoodles (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wrote all four of these articles, including Geography and ecology of the Everglades, Indigenous people of the Everglades region, and Restoration of the Everglades in five weeks. That explains a little bit of the convoluted nature of the writing. The other part is that all my thoughts try to get out of the bottleneck through my fingers or mouth at once, so it kind of ends up like a toll-booth race. That I have no excuse for.
As for your other points, Disston purchased the land directly from the IIF, so they had funds to invest in other projects, once of which was the railroad along the east coast, as well as Henry B. Plant's railroad along the Gulf coast of Florida. Before Flagler and Plant built the rail lines, most of Florida was an undiscovered wildnerness frontier. So it is a bit like the opportunity presented itself. No one was clamoring to develop Florida since it didn't seem like a place people wanted to go. Flagler took a train to Jacksonville and probably rode by carriage rode to St. Augustine. If you think it's really necessary for the article to include how Flagler traveled before the railroad, I can try to verify that with a source. I appreciate your copy edits, by the way. --Moni3 (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, rather than "convoluted" I should have said "convoluted in places". You did an extraordinarily good job in those four months. Even where they're successful, my copyedits are of trivial importance, but thank you for your kind comments all the same.

No, we don't need to know how Flagler traveled, but it would be good to know the year. Morenoodles (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Developers began acquiring land, paying $180 an acre a year before it was announced, - before what was announced? Graham. GrahamColmTalk 15:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It! Changed it. Thanks for the heads up. --Moni3 (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Another one: The governor also joined by refusing to call a special legislative session to appropriate emergency funds for relief.

What did the Governor join? GrahamColmTalk 17:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope I clarified it enough. --Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


I am by no means an image expert, but I think some of these images might need a little more information:

I'm currently copyediting and reading the article - much more my comfort zone. It's very good and quite fascinating! Awadewit (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. See if the changes I made to the image summaries and descriptions are sufficient. The Florida Memory Project, unfortunately, won't link directly to the images, but if you use the call number, you'll get the right one. I'm watching everyone's changes. A little bit scary, but much more interesting. I saw your edits this morning, and I thought, "Doesn't she have a dissertation and papers to write for Wikimania?" I very much appreciate your attention. I know your time is scarce. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I think these are sufficient changes. Like I said, I am no expert in these matters, so I may have missed something. Some day I will have to sit down and learn all of the copyright rules! Awadewit (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I have no illusions that my language is understood by anyone other than me and those with fractured neural pathways. I know my syntax is kind of wonky at times, though I try to do my best. I saw that you changed all instances of South Florida to south Florida. My understanding of that capitalization rule is that regions get capitalized and directions don't. Perhaps it's a colloquial thing, but once you travel south of Orlando, trees change, the landscape changes, the culture changes, the demographics change - it really is a noticeable shift. So, I don't know if there's an official reference that decides what regions are capitalized, like the Pacific Northwest, for instance... I'm ok with it lower case, but I thought it interesting enough to mention. --Moni3 (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh. SO sorry. Awadewit is suitably chastised. I thought the article was just referring to an area. I can change them all back, if you want. Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Moni3, your writing looks very good to me. It just doesn't seem quite as polished as it might be. But this is a fascinating subject for me, because you've made it one. A few little hiccups aside, polishing has been easy and will probably continue that way. (Awadewit has already done a lot of good work.) Certainly the prose is already a lot better than that of some successful FAs I've encountered, and the article is hugely more interesting than many.
My impression was that even if it had no political reality, South Florida had a certain identity that for example south Connecticut or south Jamaica did not. But I see that, no, South Florida also has a very clear political reality, one that I think is often not intended in this article. I note that southern Florida redirects to the same destination as south Florida. Perhaps distinguish between "South Florida" (so capitalized), for the present-day metropolitan meaning, and "the southern part of Florida"? Pity the latter is so long, though. Morenoodles (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I welcome all copy edits. If I think you're compromising accuracy or changing the meaning of a sentence, I'll revert or otherwise reword. Most of what you changed looks good. I have to think about a few other points. I'm very glad you find the article interesting. I am also captivated by this, in a creeping slow train wreck sort of way. --Moni3 (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Stowe wrote the first conservation publication for Florida in 1877. Not attractive, I think, but I can't fix it as I don't know the facts. Stowe "published the first plea to conserve Florida wildlife in 1877", maybe? Morenoodles (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, I'm sorry. I got all excited to answer the question below and neglected this one. I have to check my sources, which I can get to this evening. But I will answer it tonight. Feel free to continue to edit or improve the article. Like some awful, ever-present and ugly staring bird, I'll continue to watch your changes to make sure they reflect the sourced material. --Moni3 (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good working relationship to me! Morenoodles (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

bacteria with and without oxygen[edit]

Scientists who took soil samples before draining had not taken into account that the organic composition of peat and muck in the Everglades was mixed with a bacteria that added to the process of decomposition underwater because it was not mixed with oxygen. As soon as the water was drained and oxygen mixed with the soil, the bacteria began to break down the soil.

I don't understand. Because it lacked oxygen, the bacteria added to the process of decomposition of, uh, something; but with oxygen, it began to break down the soil. Hmm. I can make various guesses, but they're all mere guesses. Could you check the source again please? Morenoodles (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

From Lodge, p. 38: Through the decades, these soils, supporting some of the most productive agricutlure in the world, literally disappeared. The process, called subsidence, has resulted from compactions (by drying), from fire, and from aerobic decay. Like coal, dried peat will burn, and fires have been responsible for substantial soil losses. However, the most persistent factor is aerobic decay by microorganisms that degrade the peat into carbon dioxide and water. In large areas, more than eight feet of soil depth has been lost. Visual evidence has been provided by houses built on pilings, but with their frames originally located on the existing ground surface. Years later these houses stood high in the air, requiring long stairways to reach the doors.
See also: US Geological Survey info page (with image).
Simply put, Everglades peat decomposes slowly underwater, because there's little oxygen. When the water drained, the peat mixed with oxygen and broke down into CO2 and H2O. --Moni3 (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I've changed
a bacteria that added to the process of decomposition underwater because it was not mixed with oxygen
a bacteria that added little to the process of decomposition underwater because it was not mixed with oxygen
and hope that I have got this right.
How about the Stowe question above? Morenoodles (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


Copac and the Library of Congress (LoC) both say that Lodge, ed., The Everglades Handbook, ISBN 1884015069, was published not by CRC but by St Lucie Press.

Douglas, Marjory (1947) The Everglades: River of Grass is said to have ISBN 0912451440. ISBNs didn't exist in 1947. The LoC doesn't have a book with this ISBN. The LoC lists a 1947 edition published by Rhinehart and various editions during the ISBN era from publishers other than the oddly British-sounding "R. Bemis Publishing, Ltd.".

Caufield, Patricia (1970) Everglades, Sierra Club / Ballantine Books. ISBN 345023536395 -- LoC doesn't have anything titled Everglades by any Caufield, and the ISBN looks wrong (Sierra Club is US, "3" is German-language).

Morenoodles (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Caulfield, with an L. I've deleted the bizarre ISBN. Morenoodles (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The Everglades Handbook was published in '94 by St Lucie Press with the ISBN above; its second edition was published in 2005 by CRC with the other ISBN. Are you sure that the references are all to the later edition? (Unfortunately "my" library is very poor for this kind of thing, so I can't look.)
NB the question about the book by Douglas. Morenoodles (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm using the second edition of The Everglades Handbook, and yes, I'm sure all of my citations are from it. I don't think I've ever seen the first one. I changed the ISBN for that book, and I'm not sure how it got to be from the first edition... I bought the book (among many others) and it has been very helpful.
NB? New Brunswick?
On the changing of jetport to airport, the project's name was jetport in the late 60's. Maybe it had a futuristic progressive feel to it, but I think the terminology isn't trivial. If you search for "Everglades jetport", you'd get information pertaining to the 1969 plan to build in the Big Cypress. If you search for "Everglades airport", you'd get all kinds of stuff about aiports in South Florida. --Moni3 (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Nota bene.
I'll go back to "jetport". Morenoodles (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


Let's get serious and dig around where FAC reviewers fear to tread.

The C&SF [...] produced a film, Waters of Destiny, characterized by author Michael Grunwald as propaganda

Well of course. What else would it be? An entity such as C&SF doesn't produce stuff for innocent entertainment or even neutral education. That their film would be propagandistic goes without saying.

Grunwald perhaps means this pejoratively: he perhaps wants to bring to mind Triumph des Willens. But what he actually says could apply to something as innocuous as Night Mail.

Does he say anything more? If there's no convenient phrase such as "pernicious propaganda" or "mendacious propaganda", perhaps there is (much better!) substantive criticism of the film. Morenoodles (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Grunwald actually goes into a pretty vivid explanation of how manipulative the film was, yet still understates it as a "black and white propoganda piece in the style of Cold War newsreels that warned Americans about the communists under their beds". Let me see if I can add more to the explanation. --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, go ahead. Article must comply with MOS. Thanks, Tony. --Moni3 (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Where's the rest of the article?[edit]

Seriously, how does this get featured while lacking the last thirty years? One major issue I expected to read about about is current problem with insuring property in South Florida due to numerous devastating storms and a discussion of the effects this is having on development. --BirgitteSB 02:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The recent history can be found at Restoration of the Everglades. As for your storms, I'm sure you can find that information elsewhere; List of Florida hurricanes? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Too much information when the high end of article volume is around 70k. Restoration of the Everglades continues the time frame from the 1970s to 2008. Insurance, however, was not an issue in the construction of that article. That doesn't mean it can't be included as long as the insurance issues are related to Everglades development/restoration as opposed to beachside living. If it's more about beachside living and insurance rates during storms, Hurricane itself or one of the many related hurricane articles might be better. Of course, I don't think there is an Hurricanes and insurance article. This article didn't exist until I wrote it... might be worth looking into. --Moni3 (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The recent history effecting development should be included here. Summary style if it has more detail elsewhere. Development did not stop in 1970's. Not even close. Right now the article is not a comprehensive treatment on "Draining and development of the Everglades"--BirgitteSB 02:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, have you tried looking in Restoration of the Everglades for such information? If you don't believe the article is up to standards, feel free to help out and do some research. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
My complaint is not that the information does not exist. It is that this article is featured when it is not comprehensive. Rename it to Draining and development of the Everglades (1850-1975) and I have no complaint. Or rename it Draining of the Everglades. You can argue that no new draining of the Everglades occurred after the 70s'. But development did not. But ignore the issue right now if you want. I am confident it a problem that will come up again. I'm done too many edit conflicts right now.--BirgitteSB 02:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm open to a RfC for a name change when this day of carnage is over. During FAC one of the reviewers commented that it was a very dry title for a horror-inducing subject - that it came to a complete surprise to her. It's worth a discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)Also the article could benefit from clearly defining the "Everglades" at the beginning f the article. The article seems to include nearly everything south of Lake Okeechobee. Excluding the northern half of the Gulf Coast I think. But I am not sure. Anyways it nothing near what I would expect to be considered the "Everglades" from growing up in the area. So a more detailed definition than "part of a watershed" would be great.--BirgitteSB 02:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a very brief definition of the Everglades in the lead. Much more detailed information is available in Geography and ecology of the Everglades. This article, Restoration of the Everglades, the geography of the Everglades and Indigenous people of the Everglades region were necessary expansion articles for the volumes of information for the main Everglades article. Though not limited in sources, the structure and length of articles was limiting when I took this endeavor. A single article to encompass everything would have been astonishingly long and likely crash browsers, and therefor not featured. --Moni3 (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry I was unclear. I don't mean define the Everglades so much as define their boundaries. "The Everglades are a part of a massive watershed that originates near Orlando and drains into Lake Okeechobee" does not not define the boundaries of the Everglades. People should know enough from the lead "what" the Everglades are, but it is not clear as the extent of what land being drained and developed is included in the scope of this article.--BirgitteSB 02:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't keep up with the edits and vandalism (for my mental health), but I have an open version of the article before the insanity started. In that versionAs the land from Lake Okeechobee slopes gradually to Florida Bay, water flows at a rate of half a mile (0.8 km) a day. Before human activity in the Everglades, the system comprised a third of the lower Florida peninsula. So the lower third of the Florida Peninsula is the region in question. --Moni3 (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "A third of of the lower peninsula" != "the lower third of the peninsula" I think I know what is meant by the end of the article but clarifying it at the beginning would improve readability. And if what I think is right it includes less of the coast than the interior as you head north and less of the Gulf Coast than the Atlantic coast. But it isn't clear so I could be wrong.--BirgitteSB 03:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeh, I feel like a dork when that is pointed out to me, but it's clarified. I didn't see it until it was pointed out. --Moni3 (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A state of what ?[edit]

The first line ends with, ... before Florida became a state. A state of what ? How many times do American wikipedia editors have to be reminded that not everyone in the whole world is an expert on US Geography ? What makes you think that someone sitting in Russia could make sense of that line ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize because I was born and grew up here that I think it's the center of the universe (I don't really), but since it's the home of the House of Mouse and it kinda sticks out as the only identifiable state in the lower 48, that it's quite recognizable. For some reason, I learned in my research for this article, that the Everglades has fans that are primarily European as well (Scandinavian in particular). However, if you can suggest an alternative to "... before Florida became a U.S. state" (which I though was redundant and clunky prose), anything that isn't too awkward that is still accurate would be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
To be less clunk y you could say "when Florida was only a territory."--BirgitteSB 03:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It was, originally, when I wrote it (or something very similar to that), but in its many edits and reviews I remember it being changed because editors were concerned those unfamiliar with Florida history would be confused about its being a territory. --Moni3 (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How about, The history of .... , goes back to before the region became part of the US state of Florida. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

To me, the problem was not in referring to "becoming a state." The point was accuracy. Florida became a state in 1845, which was before the time during which the draining and development of the Everglades is said to have been under discussion. Now someone has seemingly vandalized the article by changing "Florida" to "Michigan" (though it remains "Florida" in the main-page version) and adding a sentence about the Cherokees (who didn't live in Florida) and the "Marshmallow War." I've deleted these portions of the first paragraph. Anyone who wants to add a correct version back in can do so. Wbkelley (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It is inevitable that the article will remain vandalized in some parts throughout the day. I am unable to measure its changes, and will probably revert most revisions tomorrow or the next day once attention to the article is not so strong. This is normal fare for a main page article. --Moni3 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)