Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Noleander (talk · contribs) 22:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 03:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be your Good Article Reviewer for today, per the agreement at the WP:GARC.

@Pokelego999: Thanks for volunteering to do this review. I'll spend my time today reviewing the article from GARC I was assigned to. I'll return here later today or tomorrow and begin answering your questions and implementing your suggestions. Noleander (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the character.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses all free use media.

-Looks good, seems like a decent overview of the topic on a first read

-Looks good

-Is the Jawa Dam the first dam, the first recorded example, or just a notable example? I feel a sentence of some sorts discussing the origins of dams should be included, even if it is just saying "The origin of dams is unknown" or something.

Done. Changed to "The oldest known dam is the Jawa Dam near Amman, Jordan, built around 3000 BCE." And added a footnote "There are claims that older dams may have existed in Armenia, but those claims are not verified." Noleander (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-I do feel this section may be better off after types, so that way readers can understand the individual dam types mentioned in the history section better. While the lead gives a brief definition, I do feel this would be helpful, especially given some sections talk extensively about the particulars of dam design (Notably the section on the Industrial Revolution).

Done. Moved History section to follow the Types section. Noleander (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Are there any more recent numbers for the data after 2011?

Regarding: " The total number of reservoirs (large and small) in 2011 was estimated to be 16.7 million." No, I cannot find any newer source for that reservoir information. Noleander (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Noting this here since this is a recurring thing in the article, but for lists within a sentence, you should be using commas instead of semi-colons (For example, when discussing mitigation techniques in the third paragraph) unless the fragments you are connecting are complex fragments and use commas (So for example, "they can be built from locally available dirt and rocks, as opposed to importing rocks and cement required for concrete dams" would use a semi-colon since it's a complex sentence and needs separation from other commas, but other fragments that don't work like that don't need it). Correct me if I am wrong of course but I'd check through and make sure your semi-colon usage is proper throughout.

Done. I think you are correct. I reviewed the guidance at MOS:SEMICOLON and converted many of the semicolons to commas (one to a period). I left semicolons where (a) commas were in the clauses on either side of the semicolon (so it would be confusing to convert the semicolon to a comma); or (b) clauses on both sides could be standalone sentences (but the semicolon give them a closer connection than a period would). Noleander (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Is there anyway to link porous at all, such as via Wikitionary or a hyperlink? It's not a common word so many be confusing if you're unfamiliar with it.

Done. Noleander (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Section otherwise seems solid. One minor note is that, are the exact specific measurements necessary? Not too familiar so do let me know on that.

Which measurements are you referring to? ", typically with an inclination between 0.3 and 1.0." , or " water seepage 10x more than silt, 10,000x more than sand, and 100,000,000x more than gravel.". I think those are both pretty important: the sources make a big deal of the former numbers. The latter is only in one source, but I think readers will find it fascinating and it explains why clay is a key material for some dams. But I can remove one or both of those if you want. Noleander (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Moreso the inclincation-esque lines than the one about seepage, which is pretty helpful. It's a bit unclear what the relevance of the inclination is if you aren't familiar with how inclines and such work. This is not necessarily me saying it needs to be removed, but I'd at least define why the particular inclination used is relevant to the construction of the dam, if that makes sense. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Changed the text to now read " The thickness and inclination of a gravity dam must also be carefully designed to ensure stability. The thickness of the base should be 70 to 85% of the height. The inclination of the downstream face is typically 0.75 to 0.8, and the upstream face should be more vertical than the downstream face.". That should clarify that the inclination values are related to promoting dam stability. Noleander (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-The first sentence in other purposes is uncited.

Done. I removed that sentence: "Not all dams are created to support the primary purposes listed above: some dams support other purposes ". No source says exactly that. I included it to smooth the transition between sections. But it is not essential.Noleander (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Microclimate should be linked in some way.

Done. Noleander (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Looks good

-"Embankment dams have wide bases, and do not subject the ground to as much pressure as heavy dams; so – in some situations – they may be built on loose rocks or soil." Pretty sure a semi-colon isn't needed here

Done. Noleander (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Could it be specified how recent the data is on statistic of 150,000 dams no longer being required? I assume it is 2026 from the source used but it is useful for future proofing and so it can be clear when your data is coming from without checking the source.

Done. Numbers in that sentence are from 2021. Also added some details into the citation emphasizing the 2021 date. Noleander (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Is there any information on the first ever dam failure recorded? Is it the Malpasset Dam failure? If not it's a bit unclear why specifically the first arch dam failure is included and not failures for the other three types discussed above.

The first known dam failure was in 2600 BCE in Egypt. That fact is already mentioned in the "History" section: "Around 2600 BCE, the Egyptians built the Sadd el-Kafara embankment dam near Cairo, although it failed around the time its construction was completed." The sources treat dam failures in a peculiar way: each failure is an anecdote ... it often reveals a new safety issue hitherto unknown. Over the course of decades, even centuries, the anecdotes accumulate and inform the dam design process. Unfortunately, there is no theme or over-arching message except "Dam failures are the source of lessons learned." And that is told to the reader in the first paragraph of the "Dam failure" section. As for the rest of the section: I simply followed what the sources did: I selected a handful of notable dam failures of various types. Since each failure is a distinct anecdote, the only sensible sequence I could think of was chronological order. But I can change the order to another algorithm if you think that would be better. Noleander (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose my issue with this is that the Cairo dam is not mentioned as the first ever failure in the article at all. It might be worthwhile to bring it up again in the dam failure section, even if briefly, just to define that it is the first recorded instance of such a failure.

Done. Added sentence to "Dam failure" section: The earliest known dam failure occurred around 2600 BCE, when the Sadd el-Kafara dam in Egypt failed around the time it was completed, apparently due to a flood that severely damaged the dam structure." Included this footnote: "Portions of the Sadd el-Kafara dam near Cairo are still standing." Noleander (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Organizationally I think you are fine. My main gripe is moreso why these particular failures were chosen, rather than how the ones used are arranged. Were they mentioned the most in sources? Did they have the biggest impact of any failures? If the latter, that should be mentioned. If the former, I'd appreciate some clarity. If it's just random selection I do feel there could potentially be more helpful failures included for those looking to get an intro to the subject (Particularly by pulling notable examples, such as first failures for particular types or ones that had significant consequences for how dams were constructed on the whole). Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The dams selected for the Failure section were the ones mentioned the most by sources. The best sources for dam failure are Schnitter, Schleiss, and James 1988a. The failures they discuss are:

1. Schnitter: "History of Dams" - Does not focus on failures, but lists some famous historical dams that failed. Sadd el-Kafara dam in Egypt p 2; Marib dam p 27-28; Subiaco Dam p 58-59; Alcantarilla Dam (Spain) p 62; Puentes Dam, Spain p 130-131; Bold Gasco Dam Spain p 138; Early embankment dam failures p 158-159; Moyie Dam US, p 203; Malpasset Dam France p 207; Bhakra Dam India p 226-227; general decline in failure rate pp 229-231
2. Schleiss "Design, Safety, and Operation of Dams" pp 110-116. Failures: Vajont Dam France; Malpasset Dam,France; Shih Kang Dam gravity, Taiwan; Teton Dam, US; Lower San Fernando Dam, US; Zeyzoun Dam embankmt (Syria);
3. James 1988a "Lessons from Notable Events" pp 8–59. Failures: Baldwin Hills Dam, US; Malpasset Dam , France; St. Francis Dam US; Teton Dam, US; Vajont Dam, France; Walter Bouldin Dam, US.

Other sources that discus failures in a overview (lessons-learned) sense are Jenson 1988 and Fell 2014. E.g. Fell 2014 " Geotechnical Engineering of Dams" has generic failure modes (gravity & embnkmnt) but not specific examples Modes: pp=704-720, 752-753,760-776 ; also 1st ed. pp 820-824. Piping: 375-382, 567-573.

After reading the above sources, I selected specific dam failures to include in the article as follows:

• Vajont Dam was discussed by multiple sources
• Malpasset Dam was discussed by multiple sources
• Teton Dam was discussed by multiple sources
• Baldwin Hills Dam - Was discussed only by one source, but I felt readers would gain important insight from it because it was an example of a failure where experts were not able to identify a specific cause (which is apparently a rather common situation, since the evidence of the cause is often destroyed in a failure). Noleander (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good to me. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-The final paragraph in this section (On enbankment dams) should likely be put up in the first paragraph, which discusses similar problems present in the other three types. It's unclear as of now both why they're split and why they're so far apart in the section.

The first paragraph is the introduction: an overview that does not name any specific dam. The following four paragraphs are four distinct dam failures (a broad representation) presented in chronological order of the failure. Noleander (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean moreso the particular dam types. The first paragraph lists how all the three other dam types can potentially fail, except for embankment which is in the final paragraph. How each of the four can fail should be kept together rather than split if that makes sense. I'd just remove the Teton Dam mention and move the information about how the embankment dams can fail back up to the first paragraph. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Moved material about "piping as a cause of failure" into the 1st (intro) paragraph. Kept the example of Teton Dam, but put it into a footnote at the end of the "piping" sentence. Noleander (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Not sure it's really clear why the Vajont Dam incident is here since it is not clarified if there is wider significance within the overall history of dams beyond being an unusual failure. Given this section is discussing the overall concept so much space being given to one particular example feels a bit odd to me.

See my reply two bullets up that begins "The first known dam failure was in ... ". If you still have questions, or feel the article is deficient, let me know. Noleander (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Are there any further examples of dam agreements beyond Brazil and Paraguay's agreement? It feels a bit odd to spend multiple paragraphs discussing multiple water disputes only to have one sentence spent on agreements.

The "International disputes" subsection presents the data in a manner proportional to the sources (WP:PROPORTION). The sources cover the disputes in tremendous detail. The cases of international cooperation are not discussed much in the sources. In fact, I originally did not include the Brazil/Paraguay sentence in the article, because it is not prominently mentioned in the source. In the end, I included it because otherwise readers might get the impression that 100% of international dams involve disputes, when in fact is is only 99% :-) Noleander (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• That is fine with me then. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Perhaps link water conflicts in a further information hatnote in the international disputes section?

Done. Noleander (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-What is the inclusion criteria for popular culture examples in the Art and culture section? Given the hefty amount of works on the topic and my own unfamiliarity with it I am not sure what process led to the current selection and would like some clarification if possible.

Although "Dams in art and culture" may not seem especially important, I'm planning on taking this article to WP:Featured Article after GA, and I'm 100% certain the reviewers there will insist on "art and culture" information. For example, the FA article Bridge#Art_and_culture. Some FA articles, like Black hole focus on one aspect of culture: Black_hole#In_fiction. A Good Article with an "In culture" section is Giant_panda#In_culture.

Turning to the question of what should be in the section: See the essay Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content which discusses that question. My interpretation of that guidance is:

• Keep it brief and concise
• Everything needs a solid source
• Strive to show readers the extent to which the article topic (dam, panda, black hole) has permeated society.
• Select examples that come from a wide variety of cultural endeavors.

Unfortunately, every "art and culture" section in Wikipedia ends up being a hodge podge of miscellaneous facts. But the article is better with it, than without, IMHO. Noleander (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, I have no issue with the section and believe it should be kept. I wish to clarify how the particular pop culture examples were selected, rather than why the section exists at all. Why The Dam Busters, for example, and not any other dam-based production. I believe there should be some way of determining inclusion in the section since those can easily spiral out of control, so I am curious what the inclusion method for particular pop culture examples was more or less, if that makes sense. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I first looked through all the dam-related sources I had access to (see the articles Reference section) but none of them discussed "dams in culture". I then turned to Google search engine. I started with about 20 of its top-listed items, and eliminated the items that did not have English WP articles. I then narrowed it down to a maximum of one or two items per cultural area by picking what appeared (based on the WP article) to be the most noteworthy item in each area: one musician, one novel, one non-fiction book, one docudrama, one documentary, one stamp, and a pair of artists. I also made a special effort to include items from countries other than US or UK, since that kind of US-centrism or UK-centrism is not appropriate in WP, especially for an international topic like "dams". Unfortunately, Google did not provide too many non-US/UK examples, but I did the best I could. Noleander (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems good to me, though

-Will continue prose review tomorrow. Very sleepy right now, but leaving with you with some initial comments for right now. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Noleander: Went through the prose review. Overall very well done and very informative as someone who isn't well-versed in dams. I will continue with the spotcheck once the prose issues have been addressed. Ping me if you have any questions or anything I can clarify. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: Thanks so much for the great suggestions above. I've completed going thru all your prose suggestions above. I implemented most of them, and the others I replied with an explanation. If you're not satisfied with any of the replies, let me know and I'll make it right. Noleander (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Noleander: Clarified on some above points. Let me know if further clarity is needed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999 - I replied to all of your latest comments, above. I made 3 changes to the article (Early Sadd dam failure; embankment failure info moved; explain importance of inclination values). And I explained reasoning behind two editorial choices (selection of "art and culture" items; selection of "dam failure" examples). Noleander (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Noleander: One last thing before I begin the spotcheck shortly: Perhaps the envrionmental impact of dams could be its own section? It's discussed a lot in impact assessment but it seems odd that it is the bulk of that section when it is its own topic that is hightly important.

I will begin on the spotcheck soon. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. That "environmental" section is a good idea ... I was thinking of doing it myself. Moved all environmental impact material into new section Dam#Environmental_impact. Noleander (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The section feels a bit buried (And it also feels a bit odd it's still under design when environmental impact isn't a large part of dam design). I feel it's either better off with its own header (Like dam failure) or under another header, though I am not entirely sure which would be best to contain it for the latter point. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Moved "Environmental impact" section to be a top-level section (below the "Design" top-level section). Noleander (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Noleander: Spotchecked five from each category.

Books: Arnold, Collins, James, Pelikan, Turpin

Journals: Boulange, Fawkes, Lichtenstein, Ondor, Sutor

No-Name: The Guardian, HarperCollins, National Academies Press, International Commission of Large Dams (Dams for Hydroelectric Energy), Global Dam Watch

For many of these citations, they cite multiple sources, which makes it a bit unclear at times which sources are being used for attribution at a given sentence. I am going to assume good faith in that info not corroborated by a particular source is corroborated by another in the same set, but I would keep in mind it may make verification a bit more difficult at FA. For the most part the sources verified most of the information, so I assume the missing bits were in the other sources cited. A few quibbles below:

-For Boulange, I am not seeing the 50 year statistic mentioned in footnote AM in the source in a cursory read over, though I might've just missed it.

Done. That "50 year" stat was in a footnote, and the the cites for that footnote were not correct - in fact, the entire footnote is obsolete. So I removed the footnote and its cite. The body text contains better material covering the "return period" data, and I double-checked the cites for that body text material and they are valid. Noleander (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

-Where is Earthquake Engineering for Concrete Dams: Design, Performance, and Research Needs cited? I am not seeing it used anywhere in the article, or at least under any identifiers used in its citation. I am very tired so I might just be blind or its using a citing format I'm not recognizing at a glance, but I figured I'd at least check on this. Same for the Dams for Hydroelectric Energy Source.

Done. Thanks for finding those two unused sources. I removed both of them. Noleander (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All other sources check out at a glance. Once the above are addressed, as well as my comment on the environmental impact section, I should be good to go for passing this. Well done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999 - Thanks for the source spot check. I have addressed the three most recent issues: (a) Env Impact section; (b) "50 year" cite; and (c) two unused sources. Details above. I believe that is everything. Noleander (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Noleander you should be good to go then! You should do a run through of your sources to make sure there's no other ones that remain unused before taking it to FAC, but I have full confidence this will be addressed. For now I will pass this article. Well done. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]