Talk:Lees Ferry

According to this weblog post Lee's Ferry is sometimes spelt as Lees Ferry or Lee Ferry; Lees Ferry is the official name but the version with an apostrophe is more common. I've added the alternate spellings to the intro but changed other occurrences to Lee's Ferry for consistency. Andy Smith (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I disagree strongly. Haven't spent a great deal of time at Marble Canyon and the Grand Canyon, although misspelled, "Lees Ferry" is much more common, and is the official name (http://www.nps.gov/glca/planyourvisit/lees-ferry.htm). I've changed all the Lee's Ferry to Lees Ferry for consistency AND accuracy. But I don't know how to change the Title!? Timbruc007 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is the second photo necessary and/or does it offer anything to the article?

I second that statement. It looks more to me like someone is showing off rather than posting a constructive photo. I say delete it. 71.9.106.65 03:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The mention of a steel wire cable basket for use of park services employees I believe is referring to the structure used by the USGS to maintain the "rating table" for the water measuring station. The rating table is the relationship between river height (measured directly at the site) to flow, which is the measurement of interest.

The phrase "annual flow of the Colorado River" makes no sense. Total annual volume is a metric of intrest and is perhaps what the author meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.163.132 (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lee's Ferry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 01:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I will review this article and be back with comments soon. Montanabw^(talk) 01:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Needs a copyedit for flow, some run on sentences, a couple spots where phrasing is a bit awkward or confusing. Nothing major, but should be given a good copyedit
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Looks pretty decent other than as noted in other sections
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Too many External links, review per WP:ELNO and see if you can trim a few.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some dead links to fix, see below
	2c. it contains no original research.	May be stretching some historical sources a bit
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Goes off on a couple minor tangents
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Appears to have a bit of an anti-Mormon tone in places. See below
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Initial assessment spotted a few dead links, can you fix these and then I can go on and complete the verification of them? Other short comments in chart above, will add longer comments here if needed; you can also discuss here. Montanabw^(talk) 08:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

1. The lede is just on the edge of long enough; I spotted a couple things that might be interesting to add there and will note them as I go.
2. There are dead links to fix (four at the time I ran this) see here: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Lee's_Ferry
3. The HABS LOC links in the EL section go to pages of little use. No images show and it appears these would just be potential references for later. I'd cut them.
4. In the EL section, I'd also chop some more stuff. This link is dead: http://www.azgfd.gov/h_f/FishingLocationsMap.shtml and the "UP Native goes wild" is not available to non-subscribers, and seems to have no real relevance. The current conditions link is suitable to keep. The boating locations link is down, but it may be temporary
5. I'd remove the phrasing "Mormon Utah" from the lead, the bulk of travelers may well have been Mormon, but the phrasing is mildly stereotypic; I'd just say "Utah".
6. I'm spotting a fair number of run-on sentences, take a copyedit through and if you see a lot of commas, consider breaking things up a bit, I particularly noticed the geology seciton has this problem.
7. There is a slight (not serious, but enough that I picked up on it) anti-Mormon tone; the area clearly has an extensive Mormon history, but it seems that there are some places where the emphasis can be toned down a bit.
8. the section on John Lee goes a bit past history with phrasing such as "scapegoat" references to a coverup and such; it borders on OR and I'd recommend toning it down. Much of that first paragraph probably should be incorporated into the John Lee article; what's relevant here is that he started the ferry, and that he was somewhat in exile due to his participation,; it's OK to note his execution, and even that he was the only one, but the paragraph has too much editorializing. Trim it a bit. Fixed.
9. The water rights stuff is quite interesting, I'd add another sentence on that to the lede.
10. Any other activities besides rafting? Fishing? Camping? Any expansion of that section possible?

More to come, fee free to start on what is listed here. Montanabw^(talk) 09:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm starting to edit the article now based on your comments. Shannon 01:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

No rush, take your time and ping me when you want me to take a look at your work! Montanabw^(talk) 06:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Shannon1:: You are making great progress! Neutral tone much better, sourcing and cleanup well underway. I'd chop the "U. P. native goes 'Into The Wild'" EL, no reason that one is needed as far as I can tell: If an EL contains material that can be incorporated into the article and then become a footnote, that's the thing to do. If it's there because it's a site that has copyrighted material we can't use effectively in the article - like the boat launch map - that's acceptable, as is an "official" web site. I guess if the UP Native article is there for a reason, let me know what that reason is

. Keep on with the copyedits, the source fixes look good. I'm pleased with the work you are doing here! Montanabw^(talk) 06:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've added a bit of info about fishing and hiking in the Recreation section, there isn't really a lot of detail I can put because Lee's Ferry is really more of a "jumping-off point" than an attraction in itself, if you catch my drift... I might put some info about the NHRP designation there, though... I might be without internet access from ~this Saturday through next Saturday but I'll try to do as much as I can. Shannon 18:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good progress, yes, I think some of the NHRP info would be great. You're pretty close to done, here. WIll you object if I do a bit of minor copyediting? I don't want to become an "involved" editor, as I am the reviewer, but there is a bit of copyediting that would smooth things out a bit in a couple places. Montanabw^(talk) 06:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes, definitely, I'd welcome any changes you think would make the article better. I'll get some more info up in the next couple of days. Sorry for stretching out this review quite a bit, I've been running around trying to get things sorted out for Thanksgiving. Shannon 05:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Did a light copyedit, fixed one place where the ref didn't verify the content. Revert anything you don't like, fix any errors of mine. Trout me if I really screwed up. All is good to me, this article passes! Montanabw^(talk) 00:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thank you for the copyedit, it took me longer than I thought to get back to WP. Thanks for the review! Shannon 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lee's Ferry. 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/20121221092940/http://cpluhna.nau.edu/People/paleoindians.htm to http://cpluhna.nau.edu/People/paleoindians.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150910083140/http://www.usbr.gov/projects//ImageServer?imgName=Doc_1232657383034.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/projects//ImageServer?imgName=Doc_1232657383034.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) 14:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply