Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Petitcodiac River/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:47, 21 September 2010 [1].

Petitcodiac River

edit

Petitcodiac River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Petitcodiac River is located in south-east New Brunswick, Canada, and was once home to one of the largest tidal bores in the world (from one to two metres high). The area around it was inhabited solely by the Mi'kmaq people before 1698, when Acadians from Pont Royal, Nova Scotia arrived to claim it. The river also went through the Great Upheaval, various industrial booms, and is currently the subject of a controversy regarding the construction of a causeway in 1968 (which is currently in the midst of being removed). I've nominated this article after an extensive revamp, and now believe it to be fit for an FAC. Thank you in advance for your time to review this. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments This was an interesting read for someone who has only visited the area. I take some issue with the history, which whitewashes the Acadian role leading up to the expulsion. The Acadians were asked to take a variety of oaths after the fall of Port Royal in 1710; a number of them took oaths of neutrality (essentially pledging non-participation in French-English conflict) in the years afterward. Others continued to resist British rule (or were perceived to be doing so) after Utrecht; see in particular Jean-Louis Le Loutre. Some individuals known to have sworn oaths of neutrality were in the garrison at the fall of Beausejour. These facts contributed to the British decision to order the expulsion. (None of this, of course, minimizes or excuses the brutality of what the British did; it does point out that the decision was not as arbitrary or capricious as presented here.) I know this is an article about a river, not history; please find a way to include a little more balance in this section. Magic♪piano 17:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the comments. I will tend to the neutrality issue with the Acadian history section, but I want you to know that I was just trying my best to stick by the information presented in my sources. I'm also not very knowledgeable with our early modern history, so most of this was new (albeit fascinating) for me. I'll gladly research a little more to give better insight on the events and reasons for which the deportation was initiated. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've completed a bit of research, but other than what I've rewritten to form the current version of the section, nothing extremely significant seems to have come from the Acadian side. Searching and adding anything else would give undue weight (primarily since my sources do not indicate any role other than Le Loutre's), something which is nonsensical in, as you noted, an article about a river. Besides, it only serves as background context for the more relevant exportation.
    Another note: the Acadians were deported because of the reluctance by some to sign the 1755 oath, which was ultimately accepted. Charles Lawrence was the one to order the deportation under this basis, and it was not based on anything other than that reluctance (all sourced). I think it would be just to say that the decision was somewhat arbitrary. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your changes in this are fine. My knowledge of the details is somewhat imperfect, but I knew there was nuance missing that is now more visible. Magic♪piano 03:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Imperfect knowledge or not, I found a grave error in my wording that led the paragraph to be inaccurate to its references. I would not have found it if you had not questioned its neutrality, so among other things (including the support vote), thank you. =) EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 03:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I couldn't find anything at fault. Good article, congrats. Sandman888 (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose by Karanacs. I was very excited to see this article go up, as the Wikipedia coverage of Acadian topics is very poor. I found the first half of the article to be engaging. However, I have concerns about the sourcing in the latter half of the article, and there are a few MOS issues to clear up.
  • Easy stuff first - cquotes are not generally accepted in FAs (see previous discussion at WT:FAC from earlier this summer). The second one in the article should likely be incorporated inline. The first one is a little more tricky. While this could be converted to a quote box, the placement would need to be changed. A quote box is usually placed, like an image, to one side of the text, and there is already an image in this section. I recommend that you find a way to incorporate this as a blockquote into the regular text, or just drop it - to me, this doesn't add a lot to my understanding of the topic.
    • I removed the second quote, as it was more of a way to cut into the large block of information present (which can obviously be depressing for a reader). The first one has been problematic since the day I placed it, since it simply seemed out of place. I eventually took it out, since I ultimately shared your point of view. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard stuff next - the sourcing in the history section does not meet the FA criteria of "high quality reliable source". Much of the section is sourced to the website of the Petitcodiac Riverkeeper Inc. I would not consider this to be a reliable source at all for history (just as I would not consider a city website to be a reliable source for the history of that city). We have no idea who wrote that information or where they got it, and there's always the possibility of whitewashing when those in charge now relate their history. Same thing for KnowMoncton.com. Same for the National Parks Service. The Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage website is marginally better, but it's nowhere near a "high quality" source. The edited works of Samuel de Champlain are not acceptable because that's a primary source. The section should be using secondary sources, preferably those published in scholarly works. For example, Bona Arsenault's Historie et genealogie des Acadiens. There are lots more works on Acadia and specifically on New Brunswick that would be useful for the pre-expulsion information. Using inferior sources is problematic because you might miss something interesting and useful that the lesser sources don't cover, or because you end up with an incomplete perspective/pov.
    • I don't want to sound like I'm going to rush this point, but I'm scared that if I withdraw this now, I won't have much time for Wikipedia at all due to school in the coming weeks. For some reason, the information feels right. I'm very well aware, however, that it needs to be verifiable. So if you give me until Sunday, I'll be glad to head out to my local library to find some sources for the claims (I live in Moncton, so that's a big plus -- surely there will be ample amounts of available information). A few paragraphs won't be very hard to cover, and I'll try to get Arsenault's book (as it sounds interesting to read). Stay tuned EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some suitable secondary sources for the early material: Fischer, Champlain's Dream addresses the early settlement of Acadia (but probably not the Petitcodiac River). For events and background on the expulsion, Faragher's A Great and Noble Scheme. Magic♪piano 22:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much; I found Faragher's work on Google Books, and Fischer's both on my library's database. I'll be checking those out. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can redo the history section from scholarly sources and clear up any MOS issues, I think the article should easily pass next time. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, I very much appreciate your willingness to keep working on this nomination and to search out better sources. I would like to caution you, however, that the solution is not as simple as swapping out each of the unreliable sources with a book source. The point I was trying to make is that scholarly works may present the information differently, so it's important to keep an open mind and read all that you can to see whether the text needs to be changed - either to change emphasis on certain facts, add new facts, remove some. I agree that this summary is probably pretty close, but you never know what you'll find in those scholarly works! Karanacs (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I thought I had pointed that out in my original comment. I suppose not. Anyway, I'm well aware it could be wrong, and I'm going to take the weekend to verify it. I wasn't sure how to word my comment to assure you of that bit, but I'm well aware of it. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I knew the explanation might be overkill, but I wanted to be sure we were on the same page. Karanacs (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up: the library unexpectedly shut down until the 13th, so I'm going to have to push this back until Wednesday at least. Two of the books I'm planning to consult are references only, and as a result, I'll only have a few hours with them (I'll check out the rest, of course). If there are any other comments or concerns people would like to address other than this specific sourcing issue, feel free to do so. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Progress check? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it by a half-hour. =P I've sourced most of the History section with quality sources from the library. Some of the information was changed to comply with the new sources. (@Karanacs: A substantial amount of info was changed, you can check that in the description if you want. Seems it wasn't as accurate as I believed.) The colonisation section will be merged with the first paragraph of the Acadian history section, due to the fact that I cannot find sources for the Micmac claims (other than the fact that they colonised it and that they live at Fort Folly). The final paragraph of the Recolonisation section will be sourced either tonight or (if I cannot find information) on Saturday. The History section's layout will be shifted tonight as well. That's what I've done so far. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 20:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is done. Larracey's book is quite informative, and I was able to complete everything asked. A bit of the layout was shifted, but not as much as I thought. Just waiting for Karanacs' opinion now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 02:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the history section. Kudos for your hard work! Unfortunately, I still see some issues.

  • Assumes knowledge - we don't ever define what Acadia is in the history section.
  • Did Champlain map the Petitcodiac River area during the 1604 expedition? If so, that is important information.
    • He did not. He, Dugua, and Poutrincourt later backtracked their ships (after their infamous stay on Île Saint-Croix) to colonise the settlement of Port Royal in eastern Nova Scotia, but they never touched it. They are often mentioned in works related to the region because Thibodeau, from Port Royal, would colonise the Petitcodiac area 94 years later. Would removing the detail that he was a cartographer help rectify doubts of that sort in the future? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any idea what the population of the area was - either the Mi'kmaq population before/after Europeans arrived, or the Acadian population prior to the expulsion (165 families is a bit misleading, as a few of my ancestors in the area had 13+ kids and some had a lot fewer)?
    • Aha! Found an accurate representation of the Three Rivers' population in 1755. Griffiths cites a book by Paul Surette for this, so I might check it out on Wednesday. Maybe more info lies there. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information on how the Acadians or the Mi'kmaq used the river in these earlier times? Fishing - any for export or just for home use? Any attempts to harness the water?
    • If you look at the earlier versions of the article, the colonisation section was primarily on how the Mi'kmaq used the tidal bore to travel from Chipoudy to Salisbury, and from Salisbury to the Saint John River -> Saint Lawrence River. I had to take it out when asked to change the source from the Riverkeeper as I found absolutely nothing on it when researching. But yes, they *did* use it... but I can't prove it as of now. (Maybe Surette's book mentioned above could help.) EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any impact to the change in ownership of Acadia between 1713 and 1754?
    • Not very much. The change ended with peace and the Acadians remained neutral between the English and French. I mention the oaths of allegiance they were asked to take, which is probably the only indication of a change in how their land was governed. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information on English families brought in after the expulsion? I've read (but can't remember if it was just Port Royal/Beaubassin or also here) previously that many Acadians were forced to leave behind almost all of their household goods, and English families often moved into the homes with all the stuff. It would be interesting to see how the population shifted, if you can find numbers to demonstrate. I see that there is more info in Resettlement, but did no English really move in between 1754 and 1766?
  • The history section needs to be copyedited. I did the first section, but there's room for improvement in the other sections.
  • This sentence The victory was thought to have positively impacted the survival of the evacuated Acadians in the region cannot be attributed to the Petitcodiac riverkeeper. That's the kind of assertion that needs to come from a scholar.
    • I was hoping that, since it was related to the memorial mentioned in the source, it could have been accepted. Especially since it's a minor detail. I've removed it from the prose. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Several image issues:

  • File:Dentonshad1904.jpg: Where can we verify that this was published (distribution of copies to the public) or registered for copyright in 1904?
    • I did not upload the image (it was uploaded in 2006), but it clearly says that it comes from a work by Denton. This site specifies the work to be New York State's Annual Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries, Game, and Forests, first published in 1985 (last: 1907 -- source). Updated this on description page. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Petitcodiac-watershed-map.jpg, File:Petitcodiac-water-pollution.jpg, File:Petitcodiac-causeway.jpg: I would prefer for the source to be the url of the page that displays the image instead of the direct link (WP:CITE#IMAGES), although the OTRS alleviates the concern somewhat.
  • File:Monctontidalbore.jpg: The source states "1908?" and states "Courtesy of the Petitcodiac Riverkeeper". Images on Commons have to be public domain in the US and the country of origin. It needs verification where this photograph was first published. Since the "Petitcodiac Riverkeeper" is mentioned as the source, then it should be possible to contact them to verify this and to obtain a copy of better resolution; they are the ones who granted the OTRS permission for the above three images.
    • Source of original photo. Original source stated "spring 1908?", and the question mark was referring to the "spring" claim. Hover text on website confirms the date. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The site makes no mention of whether this photo was published or not (a factor in determining the image's copyright status in the US). Publishing (distribution of copies to the public) and creation are two separate concepts; one can take a photograph in 1908 and keep it in his or her private collection before selling copies of it to interested parties in 1930 (thus making first publishing in that year). It would be better to seek clarification from Riverkeeper.
      • Note that several pre-1923 postcards, which show an overhead view of the bore, are at the Musee McCord Museum (search with "Petitcodiac" and check the "Include images of partners"). These postcards are in the public domain of both United States (PD-1923) and Canada (PD-Canada), so I would encourage their use instead if the above cannot be resolved. Jappalang (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Thank you very much for the link; I found the boat photo in The First Hundred by E. W. Larracey, but still no source was found, so I've taken two replacement images from the link you gave me. very helpful and much more verifiable. Thanks. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Boat-petitcodiac-river.jpg: Where can we verify that this was published or registered for copyright in 1908? Hence, what is its copyright status in the United States? Per WP:CITE#IMAGES, the page that displays the image should be linked, not the direct link to the image.

Other than the second item, the rest should be addressed before promotion to FA can occur. Jappalang (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally take this long to respond, but I was a little busy. Fixed everything I could. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 22:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images are okay, either licensed appropriately or can be verified to be in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (reluctantly) by Ruhrfisch

  • While I can see how much work has gone into this, I do not think it is up to FA standards yet. I had read most of this when Karanacs made her comments and hoped that the History section would be improved more than it has been. While the sourcing is better, there are still large gaps in the history. SInce comprehensiveness is a FA criterion, the gaps need to be addressed. For example the section "Resettlement and modern history (1763–1968)" has no material more recent than 1859, so there is over a century missing in its coverage. The Causeway controversy (1968–present) section is nicely done, but again focuses on just one (very important) aspect of the river. What else has happened since 1859?
    • I understand your concern, but I'd like to note that other than the shipbuilding boom in the 1840–50s, there is little to say about the area, let alone how the river takes part in its history. Around the 1860s, the shipbuilding industry collapsed due to the benefits of the new European and North American Railway which came to the city. The city grew economically again when they became the HQ for ICR, and they were affiliated with them until the 1970s. I've looked through six sources for any reference for the building of covered bridges mentioned by Petitcodiac Riverkeeper, but nothing came up (took it out as a result). I can't verify their claims that the river was used for shipping sandstone to Boston and New York in the 1900s either, so I was forced to take that out as well. The river simply lost its novelty after the crash in the 1860s, and it was probably for that reason that it was seen as a nuisance in the 1960s (when the causeway was built). I could probably add the ICR bit to the article to talk of the economic crash, but other than that, I don't think anything is worth noting. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added the bit about the E&NA railway and the rest of the shipbuilding industry, which reaches to the beginning of the 1900s. If you want more, give me Wednesday and I'll check out a few more books, to see if they help. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 19:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also found the Acadian expulsion a bit confusing - the end of the first paragraph of the Acadian history (1698–1763) section says the governor orders their expulsion, then the first sentence of the next paragraph is Approximately 165 Acadian families living in the region of Trois-Rivières were affected by this event. but I am fuzzy as to how exactly they were affected - were they expelled? Well it seems not as they were there to fight the British, and then starve. However the first sentence of the next paragraph is Following the expulsion, Acadians in exile began to return to the region to resume their daily lives.[78] so some at least were expelled. I am confused.
  • I was looking at this source and it talks some about the growing population of Moncton and how it is having an impact on the river - there is very little on the modern history of the settlements and people of the watershed (120,000 plus population)
    • This will be worth adding in the Resettlement section. I'll do so when I finish researching on Wednesday. Thanks. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Colonisation and Acadian history sections are about the region much more than the river, so I am not sure why there cannot be some history of the region / watershed in the later History subsections. Could there be mention of the political history? Could the dates of establishment of New Brunswick, the counties, cities and villages on the river be included? There are some population figures already, could the growth of the region be cited? I am not very familiar with the history of New Brunswick, but it just seems like there has to be more - the growth of the cities along the river led to the disastrous causeway being built. Are there books on just covered bridges in Canada / NB? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh. I was under the impression that the article should have been straying from speaking too much about the region. Most of the Acadian history served as a background aid. I'll try to find info on population figures and growth on Wednesday. Political history... err, Canadian confederation took place in 1867, and New Brunswick was one of four provinces to enter that year. Nothing has changed other than that. As for the covered bridges, I found a short book on those in the Maritimes, but they only mention the more popular ones (i.e., Hartland, New Brunswick), and not in general. No confirmation on the number in the area either other than what the Riverkeeper has on their site. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 01:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same source has an author, who is not listed in the ref here
  • I was looking at the source to try and figure out which are the four major tributaries mentioned in the lead. They are shown on the 19th century map, but at least one name has changed and it is very hard to figure out what these are from the article text. I also am a bit amazed that a river this large has only 10 named tribs
    • This was very tough to integrate. Most of the sources I found only cited the Anagance, North, Little, and Pollett rivers as "major tributaries". When I found the 1999-2001 report by the PWMA, they cited 11 "sub-watersheds" (each encompassing a total of 28 streams), one of which was not even tributaries of the Petitcodiac River, but tributaries of tributaries of the Petitcodiac River (lol, I hope you understood that). With that said, I don't think there is an established list or number of tributaries, so I had to say four major tributaries (per the majority of sources I found), and ten "established" tributaries (listed at the Tributaries section) encompassing 28 additional streams. I could change the lead's statement to ten tributaries, and add them in the Course narrative and infobox, but seeing that you are knowledgeable with rivers, I would appreciate it if you could give me your say on this. Also, it is stated in the Course section that the Little River used to be named the Coverdale River. I will write a stub sometime on the river. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The basic point I was trying to make is that the lead is a summary of the rest of the article. If the lead says there are 4 majors tribs, then the article should at least repeat this and identify which ones they are. I think the article could say something like the Petitcodiac River is divided into 11 subwatersheds, which are drained by 10 tributaries. Might also help to note which trib is large enough to be part of two subwatersheds. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acres should have metric equivalents per MOS

This is not a complete list of objections, but I belive it is enought to justify my reluctant oppose. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am fine with you taking more time, though it is up to the FAC director and his delegates how long this FAC runs.
    • Of course. I was getting a little worried they would have closed it by now, but I'm sure that I only have one run to the library left before I get most of this straightened out. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that the Wildlife section focuses almost entirely on the fish etc in the river, then has the mastodon. Most river FAs talk about the wildlife of the land around the river too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most rivers aren't largely surrounded by cities, either. I found this a few moments ago. Might shed a bit more information on what species are present. I may integrate it tonight or tomorrow. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Petitcodiac_River/archive1&oldid=1136096059"