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
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.
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.
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)
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
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.--GilderienChat|
List of good deeds19:49, 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.
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.
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
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
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.