Talk:Daylighting (streams)

Summary: + ft, + head, wikify Further r; see Talk.
Explication: Add short (and longer) full text (ft) examples, add headings Projects and Some neighborhoods, add wiki format for links in Further reading and move to Bibliography; see Discussion.
Summary per Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. See also Talk:Seattle, Citing sources.

References having authors have conventional short form citation: <ref>[Author last name, {etc. if more than one}], [page numbers]</ref>, with complete reference in Bibliography, less page numbers.

--GoDot 09:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"[B]rought back to surface" is metaphorical, implying the earlier 20th century naval maneuver as well as the experience of miners. "[A]fter dramatic collapses in water quality": the problems were not and are not one-time. "[S]treams were increasingly buried with post-World War II growth" is casting with use of the present tense as a means of sympathy with the aggressive construction development mindset that left a legacy of cost today. "[S]choolchildren" implies a level of stodgy formality that is less than appropriate to the real-world, hands-on activity entailed; "juvenile salmon school kids have put" has a symmetry. "[W]ildlife such as", since the problem is prominently not dense populations of diverse species, but dense populations of few species, often non-native, not appropriate to the sustaining capacity of the environment. "Among" is not the same as "amongst". Amongst is the older form, appropriate in connotation with "iconic" and salmon running. "This is similar to such as" is for a tenuous analogy, temporary until other editors expand a little or contribute substantial, diverse examples of urban restoration of watercourses. (This was for KarenAnn : ) "[W]ill be looking" is active tense, in complement to the activity in the paragraph toward a better future. City of Seattle, City of Shoreline are proper proper nouns, the formal names.

Links lead to stubs such as Pipers Creek, Venema Creek, Mohlendorph Creek, etc., and Broadview that contain unreferenced text that is not consistent with found sources. Text in spun off Pipers Creek is not consistent with Pipers Creek#External link, and more. Would all this kind of info be more useful in an integrated, overarching article providing context? —at least until that article surpasses Wikipedia recommended size. Quality could thereby be facilitated also. Essentiallly, see Daylighting # Some neighborhoods.

"'That Michael Moore likes canadian bacon may be verifiable, however that fact is not encyclopedic' [...] rather sums up [...] Wikipedia" [ quoted somewhere on a Wikipeida: or Talk:Wikipedia page, regarding notablity.]

This can well apply to the diffuse propagation of trivial stubs. --14:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Starting out on a good footing can help toward desired goal: Wikipedia:Good articles. "Certainly all articles, including stubs, should cite references" [Source: Template:Unreferenced] This can save backtracking. Please see boxes, "Wikipedia:Verifiability # The policy" and preceding "This policy in a nutshell" and Wikipedia:Verifiability#The policy. Please see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Proposing as I do to follow the consentient testimony of historians, I shall give the differences in their narratives under the writers' names.
Tacitus, Annals XIII, 20 - Church/Brodribb translation. [Wikipedia:Verifiability#A thought: Tacitus.27 recommendation]

--GoDot 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]