Talk:Restoration of the Everglades

Nitpicky

Now as far as I was aware, the Melaleuca species in question was only the one, Melaleuca quinquenervia, so best to just use the species name in the article (?) I may be wrong on this though. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right. I'll amend the paragraph. --Moni3 (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Restoration of the Everglades/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. I am reviewing this page and will post detailed comments shortly. I am also fixing typos and minor copyedits. Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, here we go. Because of the article’s length I am commenting in stages. This first bite takes us to the end of "Everglades Forever"

First impression: I am very impressed by the amount of detailed information that as been gathered for this article. Because of its somewhat technical nature, great care needs to be taken with organization and presentation, and with explanation and linking of unfamiliar terms. There are some problems with fluency, and I have made several suggestions as to how some awkwardnesses might be overcome. It is possible that some of my points will have been raised and dealt with at the concurrent peer review.

• Lead
  • I am a little perplexed by the opening sentence. A "culmination" is a finishing point, the final result of a process. The process itself cannot be a culmination. Thus your start: "The restoration of the Everglades is the culmination…" seems wrong to me. The fully restored Everglades will be a culmination, but your article is about the process. I am also edgy about the lower case "restoration" in the first line – I don’t know why, but it niggles.
  • At over 500 words, I think the lead is too long and over-detailed. It also has a tone, particularly at the start, which is more redolent of a conservation pamphlet than an encyclopaedia article - not quite POV, but not quite neutral either. It’s not a major problem, but it needs watching.
  • Is it necessary to specify “human” history in this context?
  • This sentence needs reworking: "Before the canal was completed in 1971 conservation and sporting groups were demanding its restoration". You need to specify "it", otherwise the sentence is misleading.
  • "It became the first C&SF project to be removed…" "It" has changed from the previous sentence: and is "removed" the right word?
  • "backfilled" needs explaining
  • "wetland" could be usefully linked at first mention
  • This sentence needs some work: "Though costly and lengthy court battles were waged between various government entities to determine who was responsible for monitoring and enforcing water quality standards, Governor Lawton Chiles proposed a bill that determined which agencies would have that responsibility, and set deadlines for pollutant levels to decrease in water." The “though” at the beginning reads oddly; and was it the governor, or the bill, that set the deadlines?
  • In the final para, shouldn’t "act" be capitalized?
  • Reading the first sentence of the last para, I wonder in what respect the Act was "successful", given the reported negative consequences for South Florida. And again, in the following sentence: "…if nothing was done…" The supposedly successful Act was presumably an example of doing something?
  • Another sentence needing attention: "In 1999 the result of an eight-year study was submitted to US Congress that evaluated water control systems in Southern Florida warning that if no action was taken the region would rapidly deteriorate". Suggest "..results…..were submitted". Also, as written is sounds as though Congress evaluates the water control systems of Southern Florida – I’d be surprised if that were true.

• Background
  • "tourism and development of the state" combines a specific with a generality – tourism is part of development
  • Similar point: "arrival of railway lines" and "political motivations" are an odd combination together
  • Shouldn’t Governor Broward’s attempt at canal construction (over a 14-yr period) be pluralized? (attempts)
  • "Floods from tropical storms again in 1947…" is awkward wording
  • The general historical comment in the last sentence of second para looks misplaced, would be better elsewhere.
  • "The remaining 25% of the Everglades" – the sums don’t add up. 37% + 27% + 25%
  • The map is useful, but not at present closely related to the descriptions in the text.

• Project Everglades
  • Land Conservation Act needs explaining
  • "Florida began establishing environmentally unique and irreplaceable lands” In this context, what is "Florida"? Was it, or they, establishing or restoring?
  • You should say who these voters were, and how they registered their approval
  • This sentence is convoluted, and its beginning is a repetition from the previous sentence. "UNESCO listed the park as a World Heritage Site because it is an outstanding example of a major stage of evolutionary history of the earth, biological evolution where the temperate climate of North American meets the tropical climate of the Caribbean, and a natural habitat that supports rare and endangered species" Some rephrasing necessary
  • The map illustrates changes between 1900 and 1972, which is not the period covered in this section. It’s also quite hard to interpret.

• Kissimmee River
  • Suggest rephrase of first sentence to: "In the 1960s the C&SF came under increased scrutiny from…"
  • I had to consult the dictionary to find that "ha" was the abbreviation for hectare. You give acres as your principal area measurement – for whose benefit is the conversion?
  • Another problematic sentence: "Even before the canal was finished conservation, naturalist and sports fishing and hunting groups…" The problem is that "groups" is too far removed from some of its qualifiers in the sentence. I suggest something like: "…conservation and naturalist groups, also sports fishing and hunting organisations,…"
  • "Marshall was as successful in portraying…" The "as" suggests a comparison is coming, but it never does.
  • "…instead of only conservation organizations" reads poorly. Suggest: "rather than being the preserve of conservation organizations" or words to that effect.
  • You choose an odd time to drop in Mrs Douglas’s age. Is it relevant here? If it’s at all relevant, perhaps it should have been given at her first mention.
  • I know it’s in a quote, but I’m a bit puzzled by "when we do the restoration of the Everglades". Isn’t that what they were doing?

• Water quality
  • The medical information (beginning When mercury is ingested…) really needs some specific citations, even if they are to the same basic source’
  • Link raccoons. I’m sorry, but we ignorant Brits don’t know what they are – big, small, tame, fierce, etc. We only know they used to make coats out of them.

• Everglades Forever Act
  • Suggest "a period of 12 years" is better than "total" since we are talking about a passage of time rather than a sum of components
  • This whole sentence needs some reorganization: "Critics of the bill argued the deadline for meeting the standards was unnecessarily delayed until 2006, a total of 12 years, to enforce better water quality". Suggest: "…meeting better water quality standards was delayed until 2006, a period of 12 years". (or perhaps end the sentence at 2006?)

Comments on remaining sections will follow. Here, indeed, is more

• Widlife concerns
  • Links suggested for each of the following: wilderness, estuarine, panther, cougar
  • "allowing many species survival" reads better as "enabling many species to survive"
  • "their roles (plural) during drought". Only one role has been demonstrated
  • "they remain endangered from their first designation in 1975". Does this mean: "they have been designated as endangered since 1975"?
  • The sentence: "Collisions with vehicles also are a leading cause of death" repeats information established earlier in the paragraph ("After vehicle collision,…")
  • Personally I have problems with the choice of the verb "crowded" to describe the squeezing-out of panthers from SW Florida, but its probably a BritEng thing. Later in the sentence, though, I would suggest that Fort Myers began to "expand", rather than to grow, into the western Everglades
  • I thought "per cent" was two words. Perhaps not in AmE
  • Final para begins: "Perhaps the most dramatic loss of any group of animals…" This seems possibly to contradict the previous para in which Florida panthers were stated as the most endangered species.

• Invasive species
  • Opening: should specify the sharp rise as in "human" population
  • "Many animals have been released as pets". I assume this to mean "any pet animals have been released"
  • For clarification, say “Of imported plant species…"
  • Hurricane Andrew should be linked at first mention
  • A further slight rewording: "many of them as released exotic pets"
  • "Virtually all lizards….are introduced" means, presumably, "have been introduced from outside"
  • Last sentence of section is two unrelated clauses linked by "and"

• Homestead AFB
  • Can you "revitalize" lost money? Recover, or recoup, perhaps?
  • The sentence which begins "Reminiscent of the 1969 plan…" isn’t quite right. I think it means "As with the 1969 plan……a cursory environmental study was carried out. This was deemed insufficient…" etc. I’m not insisting you change if you don’t think my version an improvement.
  • Chronology requires: "Groups had previously been alarmed by a 1990 design…"

I'm forgetting to sign these comments. Remaining sections soon. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Last 3 sections

• Sustainable South Florida
  • "advances with the decreases" is a clumsy-sounding phrase. I think the opening of the section would be better reading "Despite the successes of the Everglades Forever Act, and the decreases in mercury levels,…"
  • "Urban areas were living beyond their physical means". Surely, it is urban populations, rather than areas, that do this. And wouldn’t it be better to specify that they were "consuming increasingly unsustainable levels of natural resources"?
  • "…mainly roads and handling traffic congestion for half the amount of vehicles would cost $26.3 billion". Why not give the figure for the full amount of anticipated vehicles?
  • Final para: It seems to me that it was a political battleground that became briefly a bipartisan cause but has recently become a battleground again. If this is so, perhaps this para should reflect this.

• Central and S Florida Project Restudy
  • First line: Is this the Water Resources Development Act?
  • Does "improve water deliveries" refer to quality, quantity or both? Should be made clear.
  • What is sheetflow?
  • Link aquifer

• Implementation
  • Fifty-five better in figures
  • "Regardless" is not the right word for the start of para 2. Though over-used, "despite" is still better in this context.
  • Second sentence para 2: Suggest "Political maneuvering continues to impeded CERP; sugar lobbyists…."etc
  • What does the final phrase mean: "…of which Everglades restoration was considered to be eliminated"? I can’t work it out.

This was a good learning experience for me - something I knew nothing about, now I know something. Although my review list looks long, you will see that most are pretty trivial points - rewordings, clarifications, request for links etc. I see no major impediments to promotion, but I'll look at it again after your responses to these. Good wishes Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm shipping you an extra raccoon I had laying around the house. Use gloves.

Otherwise, thank you for the review. I changed most everything mentioned. The bolded titled of CERP projects are verbatim from the summary, though their explanations are paraphrased. When you asked for "improve water deliveries" to be explained, the summary does not go into more detail than what is presented, but both quantity- because water is flushed into the Caloosahatchee River very quickly, and timing-because water inundates places in the dry season that should remain dry, are to be a focus. Fifty-five is at the beginning of a sentence. Should I rewrite the sentence so it can read as 55?

I very much appreciate your comments and review. --Moni3 (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the changes I made, I did not address one of your points: Florida panthers are the most critically endangered since less than 100 live in the wild. However, in loss of numbers, wading birds qualify as the most affected. They number in the hundreds of thousands, but far less than the millions in the late 19th century. If that delineation is unclear, I can try to fix that. --Moni3 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think on my later reading I picked up this point, and I wasn't going to pursue it further. And Fifty-five is fine, too. You have dealt with almost all my other points, the only outstanding ones being:-

• The lower case r in the top line still bugs me!
• In the lead, you've changed "removed" to "restored", but it still doesn't feel right. On reflection, I think the word needed is that good old Wikipedia favourite "reverted". Do you agree?
• Still no explanation of the term "backfilled". Sorry, but I (and millions like me) don't know the word - can you help?
• I asked, out of curiosity really, why you felt it necessary to put in hectare conversions. I can only assume that they're a big thing in USA?
• As I said before, the impression I get from reading your article is that the bipartisanship of the late 1990s may not be holding now, in 2008. If this is so I think it worth saying.
• Very last phrase: "to be eliminated" or "likely to be eliminated"?

Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry. I don't know about the lower case r. For it to be upper case, it would have to refer to a proper noun, like Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. But CERP has its own article, and this one covers more than that. I think it needs to stay lower case.

Ruhrfisch suggested acre be converted to hectare. I thought acres were acres in standard and metrics. I'll change them.

The bipartisanship of the 90s existed for a fleeting moment in time for the purpose of election year spin. I can't really put that in the article unless it's cited.

The last phrase says that the programs are considered to be eliminated. Is that not similar enough to your intention?

Let me know. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll say no more on the lower case r. On hectares, as I recall from school, a hectare is 10,000 square metres, about 2.5 acres. My only point was whether a conversion was necessary - if Ruhrfisch thinks so, fine. On bipartisanship, I'm sure you could say: "Restoration of the Evergalades, however, briefly became a bipartisan issue..." - which seems to meet the facts.

If the last phrase means that the programs are considered eliminated, i.e. no more state funding, isn't that rather a major issue to be tagged on to the end - perhaps I'm misreading? I've decided that backfilling is probably what we Brits would call "filling in". I'll await your final comments on the above and then get on with the promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I added "briefly" to the bipartisan cooperation. I've read the last sentence several times, and maybe this is a Brit-Am English difference. The cuts have not been made yet, but they are "on the table" as one of the main projects to be cut. Do I need to make that clearer? --Moni3 (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It could be a language thing here. Would this serve both language styles: "Everglades restoration was under consideration as one of the main state-funded projects to be cut." That removes all ambiguity for me, but the final decision is yours. Brianboulton (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed the last sentence. Thanks for the time you put into reviewing the article. I know it's long and involved. I appreciate your efforts. --Moni3 (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

Brianboulton (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

I am no expert on images, but I took a quick look at all of images to look for obvious problems:

• Image:Three Roseate spoonbills.jpg - It would probably be a good idea to add a date to this one, if possible.

The rest look good to me! Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a bit to the source description, but the source does not include a date for the image. I reflected this in the summary. --Moni3 (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Invasive species

I would have thought the she-oaks gained a guernsey here, namely [1], [2]

for the lovely Casuarina equisetifolia, Casuarina glauca and Casuarina cunninghamiana....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

All bluelinked anyway. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions from copyediting

• The second paragraph of the lead is confusing to someone unfamiliar with the history of the Everglades. Who the CS&F is probably needs to be made clearer - why were they making canals? Etc.

• A commission appointed by the governor published a report in 1995 stating that South Florida was unable to sustain its growth, and the deterioration of the environment was negatively affecting daily life for residents in South Florida. - Which governor?

• The remaining 25% of the Everglades in its original state are protected in Everglades National Park, but the park was established prior to the C&SF, and it depended upon the actions of the C&SF to release water. - I am not really sure what "the remaining 25%" means.

• Another water quality issue was the discovery of mercury in fish during the 1980s. - Could we find a better transition than "another"?

• I think the panther paragraph could be better organized. I worked on it a bit, but the arrangement as it now stands still jumps back and forth between topics.

• With the sharp rise in human population, the problem of exotic plant and animal species has grown. - When? How sharp was it?

• A plan in 1993 to revamp the property and convert it into a commercial airport was met with enthusiasm from local municipal and commercial entities hoping to recoup $480 million and 11,000 jobs lost in the local community by the destruction and subsequent closing of the base. - Is "revamp" encyclopedic?

• Underground water storage so that 1,600,000,000 US gallons (6,100,000,000 L) a day could be stored in wells or reservoirs in the Floridan Aquifer, to be used later in dry periods, in a method called Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR). - I feel like a verb is missing at the beginning of this statement.

• Treatment wetlands used as Stormwater Treatment Areas throughout 35,600 acres (14,400 ha) that would decrease the amount of pollutants in the environment. - Another statement missing a verb at the beginningn to match the rest of the list.

• For some reason, the main body text almost touches the quote box in the "Implementation" section. Larger margins need to be set or something.

That's all I have! Awadewit (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I think I fixed most of your points. As for the issue of 25%: 27% of the Everglades is now the Everglades Agricultural Area, and 38% of the Everglades is contained within the Water Conservation Areas. Approximately 10% was taken by urban expansion. The remaining 25% of the original Everglades is in the park. Do I need to make that clearer?

Let me look at how to do cellpadding in quote boxes. It's almost touching the text on my screen as well.

Thanks again, Awadewit! --Moni3 (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Future of restoration section

Pursuant to your question here regarding the McCain issue, I'm not seeing any WP:UNDUE problems here. You present both candidates' quotes on the matter and there is only one paragraph on them in a much broader article that explains the context for their views, so I think we are fine. What does everyone else think? Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit questions

• "Their last venture was the C-38 canal which straightened the Kissimmee River": does this need a comma after "canal"? It would have 20 years ago. At that time, leaving out the comma would have meant that you're talking about the C-38 canal which did this, as opposed to other C-38 canals which do something else; putting it in would have meant that the clause doesn't help specify the object. But everyone's style has fewer commas these days, and I don't know if it's time for this one to go. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• "and maintaining roads and handling traffic congestion for half the amount of vehicles would require $26.3 billion over the next 20 years": I think I'd prefer to leave that out. I read the source, and I thought it was slightly goofy for them to be assuming that half the "transportation" (did they mean cars?) would disappear. I also don't think that a 20-year projection made almost 15 years ago (and doubtless wrong) is helpful. It seems to me that the part before that can stand on its own: "It noted that though the population had increased by 90% over the previous two decades, registered vehicles had increased by 166%". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• When I look at the box that begins "Though Congress promised..." and ends "The New York Times, November 2007", I get the impression the whole thing is a quote from the NYT; is it? Btw, if it's not a quote, I would switch it around to read "Though Congress promised half the funds for restoration, the federal role in CERP was left unfulfilled after the War in Iraq began and two of CERP's major supporters in Congress retired." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• The US Sugar story at the end feels just a little anticlimactic; could we give it its own paragraph and start it off with something like "in a widely-applauded announcement..." (and maybe give another reference indicating that environmental groups consider it significant?) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, but "widely applauded announcement" is not NPOV. I would support adding in references showing that environmental groups have supported the move (which is indeed good news for restoration efforts), but we need to find something a little more neutral for the article. Horologium (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I read your suggestions, and I can do them, but my real job - the stupid one - is diverting my attention at the moment. However, I thought about this last one, and I think I was purposely low-key about it because I really did not believe it was going to happen. I still have reservations that it will go through, and it's causing some controversy about how it will be carried out, if Big Sugar will continue to extend deadlines as they have in the past, etc. I certainly don't want it to be such a big finish that people will assume everything will be all right since the article has such a neat and tidy conclusion. --Moni3 (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Horologium, you're always welcome to butt in. My feeling is that statements like "widely applauded announcement" are POV unless they're supported by multiple references that support the statement. I feel they can actually help to reduce POV if the alternative is a long list of "X liked it, Y liked it, Z liked it".

Moni, your responses to my edits and to my questions were great, and I'm done. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Relevent Everglades News

I just want to provide this recent article since it relates to this article. Not sure if there is any updating necessary, just trying to keep editors here informed, sorry if you already knew this - [3] NancyHeise (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Nancy, 404 error. I have full access to the Miami Herald. If you give me the title or some such, I can find it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

let not precision exceed accuracy

Twenty-five percent of the original Everglades are preserved in Everglades National Park.

Numbers like "25%" make me suspicious; has it really been measured as less than 26% and more than 24% (if indeed the original area of the Everglades can be stated to two significant digits) or did someone think the mere two syllables of "one-fourth" undignified? —Tamfang (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Propose adding text on National Research Council review of CERP

Hi,

I'm interested in adding some text to describe a series of reports from the U.S. National Research Council that review the progress of the CERP (more information here http://dels.nas.edu/search). I'm also proposing adding the same text on the main Everglades page--let me know if I should edit the version that appears here, or perhaps only add this in one place.

A series of biennial reports from the U.S. National Research Council have reviewed the progress of CERP. The fourth report in the series, released in 2012, found that little progress has been made in restoring the core of the remaining Everglades ecosystem; instead, most project construction so far has occurred along its periphery. The report noted that to reverse ongoing ecosystem declines, it will be necessary to expedite restoration projects that target the central Everglades, and to improve both the quality and quantity of the water in the ecosystem.

To better understand the potential implications of the current slow pace of progress, the report assessed the current status of ten Everglades ecosystem attributes, including phosphorus loads, peat depth, and populations of snail kites, birds of prey that are endangered in South Florida. Most attributes received grades ranging from C (degraded) to D (significantly degraded), but the snail kite received a grade of F (near irreversible damage). The report also assessed the future trajectory of each ecosystem attribute under three restoration scenarios: improved water quality, improved hydrology, and improvements to both water quality and hydrology, which helped highlight the urgency of restoration actions to benefit a wide range of ecosystem attributes and demonstrate the cost of inaction.

Overall, the report concluded that substantial near-term progress to address both water quality and hydrology in the central Everglades is needed to reverse ongoing degradation before it’s too late.

Any feedback would be appreciated. Best wishes, Earlgrey101 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Restoration of the Everglades. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510070315/http://www.unep-wcmc.org/sites/wh/everglad.html to http://www.unep-wcmc.org/sites/wh/everglad.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081028150828/http://exchange.law.miami.edu/everglades/statutes/state/florida/E_forever.htm to http://exchange.law.miami.edu/everglades/statutes/state/florida/E_forever.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621044535/http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-editafpicayunesbjun09%2C0%2C2043626.story to http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-editafpicayunesbjun09%2C0%2C2043626.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070710101132/http://www.floridamemory.com/PhotographicCollection/photo_exhibits/everglades.cfm to http://www.floridamemory.com/PhotographicCollection/photo_exhibits/everglades.cfm

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) 16:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Restoration of the Everglades. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128094308/http://sites.nationalacademies.org/NRC/index.htm to http://sites.nationalacademies.org/nrc/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529070017/http://www.evergladesplan.org/docs/comp_plan_apr99/summary.pdf to http://www.evergladesplan.org/docs/comp_plan_apr99/summary.pdf

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) 19:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Restoration of the Everglades. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515051358/http://www.friendsoffakahatchee.org/history.php to http://friendsoffakahatchee.org/history.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unep-wcmc.org/sites/wh/everglad.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529070046/http://www.evergladesplan.org/docs/fs_psta_hires.pdf to http://www.evergladesplan.org/docs/fs_psta_hires.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911134503/http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/amcr.pdf to http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/amcr.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080524182847/http://www.fws.gov/floridapanther/panther_faq.html to http://www.fws.gov/floridapanther/panther_faq.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130219000243/http://www.homestead.afrc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3401 to http://www.homestead.afrc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3401
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090516153453/http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/fgils/agencies/sust/tocs.html to http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/fgils/agencies/sust/tocs.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720075749/http://www.evergladesplan.org/wrda2000/wrda.aspx to http://www.evergladesplan.org/wrda2000/wrda.aspx

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) 15:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

FAR needed

Unsourced content, lack of updating since 2008/2009. (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)