This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles
This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
However, this statement: "All of South Florida's fresh water, which is stored in the Biscayne Aquifer, is recharged in the park.[6]" is not true.
At least one municipality (Highland Beach) filters water from the Floridan
aquifer. To wit: "The Highland Beach public water supply system relies on the very deep Floridan Aquifer as its source of raw water." from:
http://www.ci.highland-beach.fl.us/index.aspx?NID=101
Please change this erroneous statement to "Much of..." or some factually consistent form.
Ok. I'm searching my sources here. Four excellent sources state that all South Florida's drinking water is culled from the Biscayne Aquifer because the Floridan Aquifer from just north of Lake Okeechobee all the way to Florida Bay is non-potable, too mineralized, and too high in salinity. The website for Highlands Beach mentions quite simply a reverse osmosis process to make Floridan Aquifer water potable, but I'm searching the website for the South Florida Water Management District to get a better explanation of why Highlands Beach does not tap into the Biscayne Aquifer. In short, I need a better source than the too-simple Highland Beach website. I'd like to learn more about this to figure out how to address it in the article. If anyone can find an academic treatment of this, please link. I'll be searching. --Moni3 (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This document outlines water restrictions under the SFWMD, excluding Highland Beach. But it does not explain why and how Highland Beach gets its water from the Floridan Aquifer.
This report from 1987 (I know, dated), says on p. 1-36 that Highland Park's water comes from the Biscayne Aquifer.
This water quality brochure for Palm Beach County, although simplified not mentioning any aquifer, does say that Palm Beach County gets its water from a source 150 ft down, which would be the Biscayne Aquifer. Highland Beach isn't mentioned.
This brochure discussing Highland Beach's water quality states its wells are drilled 1500 feet down, which would be the Floridan Aquifer. One of these documents, and now I can't find which one, stated Highland Beach switched over to the Floridan Aquifer in 2004.
So...what I'm thinking would be most appropriate here would be to insert a footnote explaining that a few locations in Palm Beach County have recently tapped into the Floridan Aquifer, including the town of Highland Beach, but for the most part the water from the Floridan Aquifer is considered non-potable. Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got a spam filter warning when I tried to save this. I had to play with the links in order to save the page...not all the links may work. Sorry. I don't know why the spam filter was triggered. --Moni3 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the late 19th century, the City of West Palm Beach has drawn its water supply from Clear Lake, ultimately flowing from Lake Okeechobee through canals and a large reservoir, the Water Catchment Area. It has recently added some wells to supplement that.[1][2] -- Donald Albury23:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Lodge (p. 6), the Biscayne Aquifer from Ft. Lauderdale southward appears in many places at the surface. A confined layer of water exists below the surface between Orlando and Ft. Lauderdale, where Palm Beach County has dug wells in the past. These shallow wells began to be filled with salt water in the 1980s and 1990s as they were overtaxed to provide water for the growing urban areas in South Florida. I wish I could find a source to say this is why Highland Beach decided to drill into the Floridan Aquifer, but I haven't been able to yet. Nor any reason why these deeper wells were dug. At any rate, I put a footnote at the end of the sentence and changed "All of" to "The majority of". Let me know if you think something else should be done. --Moni3 (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not Palm Beach County, the City of West Palm Beach. The City of West Palm Beach used to get all of its water from intakes in Clear Lake. It seems that low water levels in Lake Okeechobee reduced the amount of water that could flow through canals to the Water Catchment Area and then into Clear Lake, causing the city to drill wells as an emergency supplement to the water supply from Clear Lake. IIRC, the Town of Palm Beach and the Town of South Palm Beach, at least until recently, got their water from West Palm Beach, as well. Also, Belle Glade and Pahokee draw their water directly out of Lake Okeechobee. Ah, and here is a site that says, "The Biscayne Aquifer is a major source of water of Key West, Dade, Broward, and the southeastern part of Palm Beach County," and "The Biscayne Aquifer is the sole source of water for more than half of the population in southeast Florida." I would also note that recharge areas for the Biscayne Aquifer include the Water Management Areas, which, while part of the original Everglades, are not in the Park. -- Donald Albury01:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Donald. I read this a couple days ago and didn't understand what you want changed in the article, if anything. I thought coming back to it would overcome my temporary density, but I'm still not sure what you think the article should say about this. --Moni3 (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, now. I was still reacting to when the article said, "All of South Florida's fresh water, which is stored in the Biscayne Aquifer, is recharged in the park." -- Donald Albury00:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox picture for this article is really terrible--the compression artifacts are very visible. I didn't see anything much better at Commons, but is there anyone out there with something better? Otherwise I'll put in a request W:Requested pictures. Cheers! Scientific29 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who keeps deleting my reference building on the length of time people have lived around the park, noting the point at which human activity began to significantly change the ecosystem through drainage? This is documentable fact. Whether you want to make money draining wetlands, or see them preserved, you shouldn't be deleting facts from an encyclopedia to support your point of view. There is absolutely no evidence that humans altered the park before the 1800's, there is plenty of evidence that drainage has altered the ecosystem, and the drainage started then.
Also - the Park website homepage lists 20% of the "historical" park as preserved. There can't be a more informed source on an article about a park than the park itself. Dig deeper for their source if you want, but who are you to disagree with a National Park on it's own size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.253.59 (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes for "1st Park to protect an ecosystem".. which is taken from the article below. I'm not adding or deleting facts, I'm just polishing up the writing. The 1st national park to protect an ecosystem is a significant element for the summary, as is the 20% feature, and the date where ecosystem change began, (however slowly at first, the plans were the turning point). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.253.59 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's me. I wrote the majority of this article and appreciate the copy edits. However, some of your changes aren't accurate.
If you click at the top of the page on a tab named "History", you can see the entire history of the article, including your changes and the ones I made after yours. Clicking on "prev" on the "History" page allows you to see individual edits.
When I wrote the article in 2008, whatever source I used and I can't remember it now, stated that the park protects the last 25% of the original Everglades. I need to ascertain if that has changed since I wrote the article.
Per the guidelines at WP:LEAD, if information is cited in the body of the article, it's not necessary to cite it in the lead. The fact about ENP being the first park to protect a fragile ecosystem is well sourced in the body of the article and does not require a citation in the lead. Furthermore, citations[1] that appear[2] in the middle[3] of sentences[4] make more difficult reading. I try whenever possible to shift them to the end of the sentence. Attention to detail in Featured Articles, which this is, is extreme, often bordering on obsessive compulsive. That's the way Featured Articles go. The work that goes into building an article where it can be featured on Wikipedia's main page is quite a lot.
The Calusa built vast earthworks and shellworks in parts of the Everglades, as well as outside them, including the massive shellworks at Marco Island. So it's not accurate to say that humans lived in the Everglades "without significantly altering the ecology". The previous wording Humans lived for thousands of years in or around the Everglades until plans arose... is accurate. <It is "accurate", but it puts two subjects into one sentence, unless they are linked by the "turning point" thesis>
Welcome to Wikipedia, 99.224.253.59. I'm serious about this article. I wrote most of the articles about the Everglades on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean I own them of course. Anyone can make changes to them, and I encourage you to help me keep this article at the highest standards of accuracy, writing and style.
You can reply by placing a colon (:) in front of your comment, which will indent it. That's how conversations take place here. To indent further, place two colons (::) before your comment and so on. Please sign your comments to this page with four tildes that look like this ~~~~, so other editors know who made your comments. If you have any questions, please ask. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the reply, wish more people would add their reasons for editing to Wikipedia. History is a nice tip, and I should really create an account, I'm just not very tech savvy, more into writing.
I agree with un-referenced summaries, I just added that so you could see it, I'll avoid in future.
I still think you should think deeper about consistently deleting my human effects reference, as it feels like you are exercising "ownership" to me. Building a few shell middens leaves a trace of being there, but it does not "alter the ecology of the everglades". Draining the everglades and building houses and factories on them totally alters the ecology. The Everglades is a stirring example of how modern humans cannot live in harmony with other life forms. Whether you wish to focus on that or not, I don't think you should be silencing people who want to raise the issue, and the issue is most worthy of an encyclopedia. For instance, a student doing a research paper on human effects on ecology should be able to pin-point the date of 1880 as a turning point in the ecosystem degradation. Anyways, my name is Ben - have a nice day.
Hi, Ben. I changed the sentence about humans living in the Everglades because you're right; it was clunky. I wrote the article for Draining and development of the Everglades, explaining in full detail how the land was so altered by 20th century construction projects. I agree that in comparison what the Calusa did to alter ecology was not as significant, but it's still not accurate to use such absolutes. As for owning articles, Wikipedia is here for us to collaborate together. But that means equally sharing responsibilities of accessing sources and summarizing them. For the amount of work and detail that goes into Featured Articles, some leeway is given to the few editors who focus on writing these articles. (See Wikipedia:OWN#Ownership_and_stewardship.) It's too few editors in my opinion, but it seems the majority of Wikipedia's participants aren't compelled to get so involved in topics, leaving decisions about what to put in article up to a minority. It's the way it works for now. I shouldn't be the only person making decisions about what to put in these articles, which I recognize, and I welcome ideas from anyone who is willing to improve the article by accessing the best sources available on the Everglades. --Moni3 (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A new user has added an unsourced bit to the geology section. I've marked it as needing a citation and added a welcome note and request on their talk. Hopefully they'll respond and help us out, see User talk:IEPRhodes. :) Vsmith (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Misinterpretation of climate data, likely WP:Synth but accidental
"During the wet season, from May to November, temperatures are consistently above 90 °F (33 °C) and humidity over 90 percent."
Sorry but while the humidity can be over 90% at night or during cooling rains, it is not an likely has never been 90% during the day when it's 90 degrees out. This goes for Miami and the rest of South Florida as well. While the high humidity is a cliche, 90% humidity at 90 degrees would be a record high almost 87 degree dew point, a number rarely achieved at ground level after a rain with just the right conditions. Dew points rarely crack 80 in South Florida, and when the temp is above 90, 50 or 60% humidity is more common (dew point between 70 and 80).
Honestly, this is basically a WP:Synth of two data points, one the daytime high temps of around 90 in summer, with the nighttime high humidity that can exceed 90 with temps in the 70s and dew points above 70. Why not just say the humidity can hit 100% at night, which it often does and there is fog. I don't think this was a purposeful mistake, just a casual placement of the two most dramatic data points together. B137 (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sea level rise bit way outdated and lacking in both pages
Given the major amount of mainstream attention to the sea level rise issue in South Florida recently, these articles (Everglades and Everglades National Park) are badly lacking. The Everglades article doesn't even mention the phenomenon, despite the fact that a few inches of peat takes centuries, meaning even at mid 20th century rates, the beginning of it's demise in the 21st century was already nearly inevitable, and with recent accelerations, trends, and predictions, the full shebang up to the northernmost parts, is likely in this century, not in 500 years, as this article states. B137 (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I've added a tag to encourage an update. Honestly, there are quite a few problems with this article. It should have had a once-over before appearing on the Main Page. --John (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Everglades National Park. 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.
I have just modified one external link on Everglades National Park. 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.
The statement "Water levels may fluctuate dramatically around cypress domes and strands, so cypresses develop "knees" that protrude from the water at high levels to provide oxygen for the root systems." is in contrast with the article Cypress knee, in which it is written: "in fact, swamp-dwelling specimens whose knees are removed continue to thrive, and laboratory tests demonstrate that the knees are not effective at depleting oxygen in a sealed chamber. Even though there is no expert consensus on their role, the supposition that they are pneumatophores is repeated without note in several introductory botany textbooks". אביהו (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a photo of a cypress dome is the best choice for the lead image in the article. Cypress domes are neither unique to the Everglades, nor particularly representative of the Everglades. My mind's image of the Everglades is expanses of saw grass interspersed with tree islands. - Donald Albury11:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Can you suggest a better wide-angle image with representative wildlife and flora, either ground-based or aerial, from the current Commons collection? I'll take another look there myself soon. If nothing looks really good, I'll upload a modified version of the previous image, with a level horizon and some brightening of the gator and the darkest areas at bottom, saved as a PNG (already done knowing someone might object to the choice;) Brian W. Schaller (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, it's hard finding a photo of what I think of as the Glades without people and/or structures in it. This comes close, as does this, and this, but none of them show animals. This has gators and a heron, but doesn't show the horizon. I'm in no position to go take a photo myself. I haven't been in the park in something like 15 years, and have no reason to drive down there. - Donald Albury01:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's tough. I just spent hours looking again. I'd considered that 3rd choice yesterday, but it's a 2:1 panorama which looks rather small confined in an infobox at 284px wide. Might be able to crop it but it's somewhat low res which makes cropping difficult. Found a nice sunrise (might need a bit of cropping), a nice sunset, a wild sunset(A), and another wild sunset(B), plus more panoramas: pan1, pan2, pan3, pan4. Those are the best candidates I could find, among all the categories, and unfortunately none have any animals visible. There are many great animal images, especially birds, but none with a wide view of a good background, along with a close enough view of the animals in the foreground. I'm going to upload the enhanced version of the old lead image, and link it here. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the rotated/cropped version of the previous lead image (though the slanted original has been in the article for 4 years now; maybe it's time for a change?)
a cropped version of the nice sunrise listed above (which unfortunately has out-of-focus plants in the foreground & corner)
Any opinions? Unless there's an objection, I'll swap for one of those three soon, & move the cypress dome image down into the article by related text (with some image rearranging necessary, I'm sure). An alligator & a croc appear later in the text, besides 3 birds, a panther & a manatee, so an animal in the lead image is not really necessary (only one animal appears in any of the 59 other national park lead images-Glacier NP's mountain goat). ~BWS/Maps and stuff (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A possible solution for panoramas is to move the image up out of the infobox, using the frameless & upright options to enlarge w/o taking up too much space. Here's an example w/alt text & a hidden, hover caption: [[File:River of Grass (3), NPSPhoto, Brian Call (9101713912).jpg|frameless|right|upright=2|alt=Panorama of the Everglades river of grass, with small trees to the left and tree islands in the distance|Everglades river of grass]]Everglades river of grassBrian W. Schaller (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
,_NPSPhoto,_Brian_Call_(9101713912).jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_NPSPhoto,_Brian_Call_(9101713912).jpg){kind=link}
,_NPSPhoto,_Brian_Call_(9101714682).jpg){kind=link}
,_NPSPhoto,_Brian_Call_(9101714354).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}