Talk:Fossil Creek

Fossil Creek has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 4, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 June 2020 and 31 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Matthew Jez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tufa or travertine

Would it be more correct to call the deposits tufa, or meteogene travertine? Based on the tufa and travertine pages, the material at Fossil Creek seems more likely to be tufa, because the water temperature is 72F. 159.87.11.241 (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe -- it's a warm, constant-temp source (at around 72F), cooling to ambient downstrean. However, a quick scan at Google Scholar turns up lots of recent papers like

Travertine geomorphology of Fossil Creek (1998)
Potential for travertine formation Fossil Creek, Arizona (2003)

etc. etc. -- and none for tufa. So we should go with the literature, I think. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

I am nominating this article for Good status on behalf of User:Finetooth, who did a fine expansion job. FT does not wish to guide the article through formal review processes. I had no part in conducting research for, or expanding, this article but I am happy to address concerns that may arise during the review process. Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fossil Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 20:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images are good, no dead links, all citations seem sufficient. However:

Article contradicts itself - the length given in the infobox and the length implied from the river miles to source are different. (17 vs. 14). This is partly explained by the first bit being intermittent, but this is listed as the first 5 km not 3?

I tried to clarify this by adding an explanation to citation 5, the topo map, and using it plus citation 4 in the geobox as support for the 17-mile claim. The reporter whose news story I had used to support the 17-mile claim originally has the correct length but explains it incorrectly. He mistakenly says that the perennial part of the stream below the springs is 17 miles long; it's only 14 miles. The other 3 miles is my estimate based on measuring the intermittent stretch of the creek as it appears on the cited topo map. My method is a bit clumsy, but I don't think anyone will raise serious objections to the 17-mile claim. Finetooth (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm so the reporter does say the whole thing is 17 miles? Technically it would be WP:SYNTH if they didn't, but if you examined the map and found the upper section was about 3 miles I think it is reasonable to assume that was what their mistake was.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I worry some about using a ruler and map scale to suss out the upper lengths of little streams. I agree that it verges on a SYNTH violation, though I think it could only be a very minor one. I like putting something as close to the actual length from source to mouth as possible. The source and mouth are established by coordinates given by the United States Geological Survey, a reliable source. If you have remaining doubts, I could change the length to say "14 miles (perennial flow)". I think that would be fine.

Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the template won't support it, and it's not that big a deal anyway. I think we can leave it, it is understandable from the article.-Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the course section, there is no mention of where it enters "Fossil Creek Canyon", which is mentioned lower down, nor how it loses over 700 metres in altitude from the rim. Is there a waterfall or a series of previous canyons?

I added mention of the canyon in the appropriate place in the course description. None of the sources mentions a waterfall, and the smaller declivities through which the intermittent flows pass have no names on the topo map. Most of the stream flow originates at the springs. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of "Course" requires another reference, even if just a repeat of 8.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are required for the mentions of "nineteenth century observers" and especially people living in the area "10,000 years ago".

Done. Verified correct sources for inline citations. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for the closing of the power plants in 2008, as well as the whole Fauna and Flora section and the first paragrapg of recreation, which only have one per paragraph.

I corrected the sequence in the power-plant paragraph and added a citation. The invasive species were removed in 2004, the plants closed in 2005, and the dam breached in 2008. Finetooth (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources for these flora, fauna, and recreation paragraphs cover all the claims in these paragraphs. To make that more clear, I inserted more instances of the citations. Finetooth (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FT. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also the "plan due in 2012" at the end needs updating regarding present status.

Done. Corrected this earlier. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to what AB has said that it's not especially surprising that the Forest Service would miss the stated deadline. I checked the relevant Forest Service page just now, and it is still directing people to the PDF file I cited in the article. We'll have to check again from time to time to see what the Forest Service has done and then update the article accordingly. Finetooth (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gilderien, for taking the time to conduct a review. Congrats, FT! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First hydro-electric dam built in Az

It was suggested in the NAU documentary "A River Reborn" that the dam(s) was the first dam to be removed not only in Arizona but the whole southwest. Is this a significant enough fact (if indeed it is a fact) to be added into the removal section of this article? A for a cited source, I am sorry i can not find the movie on line. However this is the movie i am referencing - http://perceval.bio.nau.edu/MPCER_OLD/riverreborn/description.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.30.148 (talk) 06:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might be worth adding if more specific and supported by a reliable source. I've been poking around but have not found a reliable online source that says clearly that the dam was the first to be removed in Arizona or the Southwest. The sources I've found are either not necessarily reliable (dot.coms, advocacy groups, personal web sites) or hedge a bit in ways like the following from an issue (June 19, 2005) of the Arizona Republic: "It marks the first time in anyone's memory that an Arizona dam has been taken out of commission in the name of restoring a river." This implies that Arizona dams were removed for reasons other than restoring a river, and "anyone's memory" is nonspecific. The word "Southwest" is also ill-defined. You see the problem. Finetooth (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fossil Creek. 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) 19:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]