Talk:Crystal Springs Dam

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Crystal Springs Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206034220/http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov:80/3Dbayarea/html/CrystalSprings.htm to http://3dparks.wr.usgs.gov/3Dbayarea/html/CrystalSprings.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Pre-GA notes

Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System

Hi 3602kiva, you've done some really good work on this article. However, I don't think it meets the good article criteria quite yet. Since this is your first GA nomination, I don't want to quick-fail the nomination; instead, here's some things I would recommend working on to get the article to GA quality:

• There are several unsourced claims in the text, as well as numbers in the infobox that aren't cited (either in infobox or prose). [Criteria 2b.] A few numbers (height and watershed size) are different in the infobox and prose.
• There's not a prose description of the dam itself - size, overall shape, etc - in the article. I would recommend a section in the article, similar to Three Gorges Dam#Composition and dimensions. [Criteria 3a.]
• The lede should be a summary of the rest of the article. Currently, it contains mostly information not present elsewhere in the article. [Criteria 1b.]
• All sources need to be cited inline; currently, four sources are just listed at the end. Several other sources are dead links, have incomplete/incorrect citation information, or are self-published pages with questionable reliability. [Criteria 2b.]
• The article currently doesn't discuss one of the major parts of the dam's history: the public acquisition of the dam, including the preceding debate, and how it related to the Hetch Hetchy project. [Criteria 3a.] I can send you scans of the relevant pages from my copy of Hetch Hetchy and its Dam Railroad if you'd like.

If these are things you'd be able to fix relatively quickly (i.e, before another reviewer starts the GA review), then that's great. If not, you may wish to withdraw the nomination for now, work on it at your own pace, and re-nominate it later. I'm happy to provide any help or guidance that you'd find helpful. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535 and 3602kiva: I've uploaded an interpretive sign of the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System at Crystal Springs and added it to this section. I think it gives a good overview of what Pi.1415926535 means when they write about how the dam relates to the Hetch Hetchy project. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to also mention: the lead image is from 2006, and it no longer looks like that after the bridge replacement in 2018. I have newer images, but they aren't so great. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: 3602kiva (talk · contribs) 20:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 21:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• For the most part, this is well written. I did a little light copyediting a little while ago. The one thing that has me confused is: The structure was completed in 1889 at a height of 120 feet (37 m).[1] However, a wet winter in 1889-1890 caused the dam to overflow, leading to an addition to bring the total height of the dam to 145 feet (44 m), making it the tallest dam in the United States at the time Earlier you said that the tallest dam in the US was 95 feet, so didn't this beat that at the initial 120 foot height? This makes it sound like it wasn't the tallest until reaching 145 feet.
• https://www.foundsf.org/ looks like an interesting site, but probably not a WP:RS.
• https://www.cementkilns.co.uk/ does not look like a WP:RS.
• The dam is classified with an "Extremely High" downstream hazard rating by the California Department of Water Resources in the event of a breach is cited to an interactive map. Given that it is from the California Dept of Water Resources, the data itself is probably reliable, but surely this is not the best way to present this. I'm sure you can find some other source which supports this statement in an easier-to-access form.
• As a general rule, every paragraph, other than in the lead, needs a minimum of one citation at the end (with more for individual sentences as needed). This is not met. For example, the last paragraph of Background and the several paragraphs in Operations and repairs.
• I need to do a spot check per WP:GAN/I#R3, but I'll hold off on that until you've addressed the other sourcing issues.
• I don't see any indication of copyright problems in Earwig.
• This meets the "Broad in its coverage", "Neutral" and "Stable" criteria.
• For the most part, the images look fine, but File:Crystal Springs Dam Front.jpg and File:Crystal Springs Dam Leeside.jpg both have tags saying they are pending review. Could you please chase down whatever review process is required on commons to clarify the licensing?
• If you could create a map showing the location of the dam relative to San Francisco (I suggest using {{Maplink}}), that would give the reader some geographical context.
• I'm going to put this on hold for a week to give you time to address the above points. If you need more time, please ping me and I'll be happy to extend that to any reasonable interval. RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback; will get to work on these as soon as I can. 3602kiva (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  @3602kiva I put this on hold for a week; it's been two weeks. Where do we stand? RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  The nominator seems to no longer be active, so I'm going to close this as unsuccessful. Feel free to renominate it after working through the issues I've raised. RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas and Pi.1415926535: I just noticed you had previously commented on this submission, so pinging you both to make sure you're aware of this review. Feel free to chime in with additional points if you like. RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the "pending review" tags from the images. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Source spot-check

I'll take a deeper look once you're finished with the above issues, but here's some things I've spotted for now:

• The structure was completed in 1889 ... making it the tallest dam in the United States at the time. The source doesn't say anything about being the tallest.
• Two outlet towers were constructed near the dam, the first being built in 1891. Magura 2024 talks about "a tower, main shaft, tunnel, and three feeder delivery tunnels ..." and goes on from there with a more detailed description. It would be good to include at least some of that in the article.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crystal Springs Dam/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: 3602kiva (talk · contribs) 18:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: SnowyRiver28 (talk · contribs) 02:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Mostly ok, though there is clarification needed on the phrase "The dam is also classified with an "Extremely High" downstream hazard rating by the California Department of Water Resources in the event of a breach." Expanding a little to say what specifically is at risk downstream would fix this.

   Resolved

   Also, could you please clarify on the comment the previous reviwer made regarding the dam's height. Here's their message:For the most part, this is well written. I did a little light copyediting a little while ago. The one thing that has me confused is: "The structure was completed in 1889 at a height of 120 feet (37 m).[1] However, a wet winter in 1889-1890 caused the dam to overflow, leading to an addition to bring the total height of the dam to 145 feet (44 m), making it the tallest dam in the United States at the time" Earlier you said that the tallest dam in the US was 95 feet, so didn't this beat that at the initial 120 foot height? This makes it sound like it wasn't the tallest until reaching 145 feet.

   Resolved

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   This is mostly ok. A citation for the claim "Schussler ensured that each block of the dam was poured with concrete made to the exact proportions of his mix specifications: namely, a water-to-cement ratio of 0.45 was maintained across the project." would be good.

   Resolved

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   18% highest on Earwig, which is all company names, titles etc.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Looks like images have been fixed up since last review. No issues here.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images look mostly good, although the one in the main infobox could do with a caption.

   Resolved

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Issues fixed from the first review and from this second review and article ready.

I'll put this on hold for 7 days so you can have a look at the above issues. Let me know if you have any questions or need any help:) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback @SnowyRiver28! I've gone ahead and made the revised changes; note that I fixed the issue regarding the dam's height earlier in the year in response to that piece of feedback; it now directly states that it was the tallest in the US at a height of 120 fee - hopefully that should make the statement easier to understand.

Please let me know if there is anything else needed from my end! 3602kiva (💬) 17:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead image still an issue

Along with the replacement bridge, the parapet wall was raised by nine feet, the dam's spillway was widened, and power lines were relocated to the underside of the bridge. Construction completed in late 2018...

The dam hasn't looked like that since 2018. I previously addressed the image problem up above with no response from nom. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I unfortunately don't have a better image on my end, @Viriditas. What you do propose as a solution? 3602kiva (💬) 01:48, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here.No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath talk 08:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Crystal Springs Dam survived the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake despite being unintentionally built just 1,000 feet (300 m) from the San Andreas Fault?

• Source: - "Despite being located a mere 1,000 feet from the San Andreas earthquake fault, this dam withstood both the 1906 and 1989 earthquakes with no significant damage,” said San Francisco Public Utilities Commission General Manager Dennis Herrera. “It’s not only an engineering marvel, it’s a crucial part of our system. We continue to invest in it to ensure it supports by people of the Peninsula and San Francisco for generations to come.”

• • ALT1: ... that the Crystal Springs Dam was the first mass concrete dam in the United States, and possibly in the world? Source: - "Lower Crystal Springs Dam is the first mass concrete dam built in the United States and possibly in the world. The dam’s design and construction techniques became standard practice for other large mass concrete dams, including the Hoover and Grand Coulee Dams in the United States."
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is my first ever DYK nomination, so I apologize in advance for any of the errors that I undoubtably made in the nomination of this hook!

Improved to Good Article status by 3602kiva (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

3602kiva (💬) 03:24, 13 September 2025 (UTC).

• Article was nominated on the same day it passed GA, long enough, and well sourced. Earwig flagged only proper nouns and a spot check showed no copyvio issues. QPQ not needed. Each hook is sourced and appears in the article (though ALT1 only appears in the lead and should probably be worked into the body somewhere).

Regarding the hooks: There is consensus at DYK that "first" hooks ("x was the first to do y", or in this case, "x was the first y to be built in z") need impeccable sourcing to make sure the hook doesn't end up at WP:ERRORS. While I think the sourcing on this "first" claim is good, I don't know that it's airtight, and anyway I just don't think it's a terribly interesting fact.

ALT0 is much more interesting, but I don't think the sources completely back up the "unintentional" aspect. The cited source in the nom here doesn't qualify it that way, and the source that's used in the article says no hard evidence has survived noting if he intentionally included seismic-resilient elements into his design but that he may have had some inkling about the restless fault zone nearby. The article more correctly says it's unclear whether he knew. Thankfully I think that word can be dropped with no ill effect. I'm also not sure both earthquakes need mentioning in the hook. Therefore, my preference is for,

ALT0a: ... that the Crystal Springs Dam survived the 1906 San Francisco earthquake despite being built just 1,000 feet (300 m) from the San Andreas Fault?

@3602kiva: Nice work on the article and your first DYK nom! What do you think of the proposed modifications to the hook? DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @DrOrinScrivello: Thanks for the in-depth review here! Yes, that modification seems very reasonable to me. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done from my end! 3602kiva (💬) 22:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@3602kiva: Nothing more for you to do, I just needed to add this little green tick. This is good to go. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)