Jump to content

Talk:Oroville Dam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jasper Deng (talk | contribs) at 18:06, 13 February 2017 (→Proposed merge with 2017 Oroville Dam crisis: oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleOroville Dam has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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
DateProcessResult
September 2, 2012Good article nomineeListed
WikiProject iconCalifornia GA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDams GA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dams, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dams 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.DamsWikipedia:WikiProject DamsTemplate:WikiProject DamsDam
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Flood protection cost savings

This article needs sources. It makes allegations regarding the cost savings from flood protection but does not provide a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.154.96 (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Oroville Dam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 00:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very nice, well-written article. I've only a few minor comments:

  • "it is the tallest dam in the U.S." - I added " as of 2012" - is this correct?
  • NealthNewsDigest.com - is this a reliable source for damage prevented?
  • "Groundbreaking on the dam site occurred in May 1957 with the relocation of the Western Pacific Railroad tracks that ran through the Feather River canyon." - the relocation of the railroad tracks was the groundbreaking?
  • I've made a few edits that you're free to correct.[1]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
    b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    c. no original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    no edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Damage in February 2017

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/02/07/damage-reported-at-oroville-dam-spillway-after-officials-increase-water-releases/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.22.104.168 (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are no photos available with a permit-able license. We will probably see one in a few weeks of the spillway damage. That should be uploaded. Seeing something to scale (people besides or in) will show a lot more than just saying how big it is. Also the damage after use when this is over will greatly increase the size of the hole. It'd probably be good to add the emergency spillway and a photo of the water, and the damage later on. Currently the damage and cost is all just speculation so its good that it isn't put in. Citations will need to be gone through though to be certain that everything is reliable as this is a current event. Rocka1994 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2017

Update the final paragraph of the "2017 spillway failure" section:

On February 12, 2017, evacuation was ordered for those in low-lying levels of Oroville, due to an anticipated failure of the auxiliary spillway.[1] A failure of the concrete top of the spillway would allow up to 30 vertical feet of Lake Oroville through the gap in an uncontrolled deluge. The flow over the main spillway was increased to 100,000 cubic feet per second (2,800 m3/s) to try to slow the erosion of the emergency spillway.[2]

as follows:

On February 12, 2017, evacuation was ordered for those in low-lying levels of Oroville, due to an anticipated failure of the auxiliary spillway.[3] Specifically, erosion on the hillside was growing uphill toward the concrete lip of the auxilliary spillway, leading to the fear that it would collapse. A failure of the concrete top of the spillway would allow up to 30 vertical feet of Lake Oroville through the gap in an uncontrolled deluge.[4] The flow over the main spillway was increased to 100,000 cubic feet per second (2,800 m3/s) to try to slow the erosion of the emergency spillway.[5]

By the evening of the 12th, the increased flow had successfully lowered the water level to below the emergency spillway, allowing the erosion there to be inspected and hastily stabilized with boulders.[4] The danger is that the damage is transferred to the main spillway. Not only does this make future repair more expensive, but the damage to the main spillway could grow uphill to the point that it endangered the main spillway gates, leaving no safe way to release water.[4] The extent of such damage is currently unknown, hidden by water spray and darkness; it will be assessed on the morning of the 13th.[4]

Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I have added the requested changes. However, I have changed some of the wording and grammar (to put things in the past tense), and omitted potentially contentious changes not supported by the sources. Please resubmit your request if you would like additional changes. --Vandraedha (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Staff, KCRA (February 13, 2017). "Evacuation orders issued for low levels of Oroville". KCRA. Retrieved February 13, 2017.
  2. ^ "BREAKING: Fearing collapse of emergency spillway at Oroville Dam, Oroville evacuated". Sacramento Bee. February 12, 2017. Retrieved February 12, 2017.
  3. ^ Staff, KCRA (February 13, 2017). "Evacuation orders issued for low levels of Oroville". KCRA. Retrieved February 13, 2017.
  4. ^ a b c d Reese, Phillip; Sabalow, Ryan (12 February 2017). "Experts: State left with few options while trying to avert disaster at Oroville Dam". Sacramento Bee.
  5. ^ "BREAKING: Fearing collapse of emergency spillway at Oroville Dam, Oroville evacuated". Sacramento Bee. February 12, 2017. Retrieved February 12, 2017.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2017

Fix the dead (possibly malicious) link in the Operations section at the end of the paragraph involving the 1997 flood

|url=http://cepsym.info/Sympro1997/roos.pdf

Should be this:

|url=http://cepsym.org/Sympro1997/Roos.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tduff (talk • contribs) 2017-02-13T00:23:18 (UTC)

Done --Vandraedha (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Spillway incident

I've attempted to reorganize the existing text of the incident into a logical progression and coherent narrative. I've added sub-headers in an attempt to clarify the timeline and avoid confusion between the failure of the primary spillway and the use of and failure of the auxiliary (emergency) spillway. These subheadings may not be the best solution long term, and they but I hope that they will help keep things organized temporarily until the incident evolves further.

I have also changed several mentions of emergency spillway to auxiliary spillway. Although most of the locals and many news sources use the term emergency spillway, I believe that using auxiliary spillway is a more clear and accurate description. AFAIK, this is also the term being used by the California DWR. Although it may be more correct, I think that emergency auxiliary spillway is just too long and potentially confusing to type repetitively. I'm not really concerned with the exact term used for the secondary spillway, as much as having a consistent name. --Vandraedha (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • We may want to hold off on adding too much detail about the spillway incident to the lede, lest we run afoul of WP:RECENT. Yes, it probably should be mentioned, but the exact wording for the mention will most likely change repeatedly over the next few days/weeks/months. At this time, nobody knows exactly how big of an event this is going to be and there is a high degree of speculation and uncertainty involved in all aspects of it. --Vandraedha (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with 2017 Oroville Dam crisis

The content of the 2017 Oroville Dam crisis article is described in more detail in the Oroville Dam article. I suggest splitting in the future, but right now the 2017 Oroville Dam crisis article doesn't have any content that is not duplicated in the other article. epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose @Epicgenius: In my opinion, that is putting the cart before the horse. I think there is too much content in the dam's article on the current crisis (overall slanting the article towards recent events) and splitting it off is a good thing. We should be trimming what the dam article says, not undoing the split.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oroville_Dam&oldid=765305701"