Talk:Cinque Vette Park

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 27 December 2020 by reviewer Kvng (talk · contribs).

Italy Low‑importance

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hiking trails (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hiking trails, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Hiking trailsWikipedia:WikiProject Hiking trailsTemplate:WikiProject Hiking trailsHiking trails articles

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is/was the subject of an Outreach Programs & Events Dashboard-supported course assignment.

Educational Project Page

This page is part of an Educational Project by students of LIUC, Italy, with a course page at https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/LIUC_-_Universit%C3%A0_Cattaneo/Digital_Technology_(Autumn_2020)/home The users of the group are new to the Wikipedia platform and are learning to edit following Wikipedia rules. They are open to any advice on improvements of the page in conformity to Wikipedia requirements and guidelines, and any help useful for the enhancement of the page will be gladly accepted. The student team User names are:

Dervareser
LIUCmichela01
LIUCMEN0
Bighope71
LIUCste00

Limelightangel (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References and Sources

There is a correct citation format for all references, including websites. Never just a URL. Use the Cite tool, then the website template, then fill in as much of the template as possible - usually, an acceptable website will have author, page title, publisher, date, date accessed, and URL. You need correct citations for all the content so that it is clear where the information comes from. All editors need to add these at the same time as adding the relevant content. Use the Cite drop-down in the edit page, select the correct media format for your source, and complete as much of the template as possible. It was covered in the online training, and there is plenty of online help. Some useful starting points are:

Limelightangel (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planning

Being the topic regarding a natural park, there are several info points all around the park, which could contain information regarding geology, history, and so forth. Writing this information, no references can be put on the Wikipedia page. Is it possible to write to them anyway? Moreover, we called a guide of the park, who said to us that, being the park created just 3 years ago, there are neither books nor guides, he could give us important information though, is it possible to write them on our page?

Dervareser (talk)09.00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dervareser: No, see the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Limelightangel (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUCste00, LIUCMENO, LIUCmichela01, Bighope71, and Dervareser: The section header here is incorrect - the post is not about the Talk page. Nor is it of any value. The Talk page is not for non-topic/page content, such as mentioning a meeting. Read and use the helpful guidelines on using Talk pages - see and use Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. It is unclear who has posted the above reply. Sign all your posts using 4 tilde symbols ('~') - 1 click using the bottom toolbar icon; Indent your posts using ':' to create nested threads. Where possible, place your replies under the relevant text that you are replying to, or create a new section.Limelightangel (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC) I'm sorry for the misunderstanding I already tidy up the wrong part LIUCMEN0 (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History section

Would a brief discussion of the "Linea Cadorna", a topic linked to the First World War, be pertinent to our topic? Is it ok if I keep writing about it in our history section? LIUCmichela01 (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUCste00, LIUCMEN0, LIUCmichela01, and Bighope71: Team, we need to work on the history section, because there is a lot to talk about, above all regarding the Linea Cadorna and the first world warDervareser (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUCmichela01, LIUCste00, LIUCMEN0, LIUCmichela01, and Bighope71: You can mention it as say where it traverses the region. There is already a page on Cadorna Line, which you can link out to. Don't include anything on your page that belongs on the other page. This discussion should go in a Talk section on Cadorna line content, with indented threads, so we can easily find and follow it. You can move thins around the talk page for better structure. Limelightangel (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dervareser: I think this is a good link. Well done! I will check it out right now. Bighope71 (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUCmichela01: To my mind, the "Linea Cadorna" topic would be a good one as :@Dervareser: Team captain has just said. Furthermore, I suggest you add sourcing information on what you have written about the history of the park last time, as it has to be verifiable. Bighope71 (talk) 11:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bighope71: Ok, thank you. I'll add the source as soon as I complete the paragraph, thank you for pointing it out. LIUCmichela01 (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUCste00, LIUCMEN0, Dervareser, and Bighope71: Team I have added a section named "the Alpine Village of Mount Piambello"; I thought we couldn't avoid adding it because of the many links the village had not only with Mount Piambello but also with the rest of the area and with the important chapter of history that is WW1: please check it out and give me any feedback; Is there any reason why we haven't specified the name and the details about the old brewery we mentioned in our history section? Isn't it the Poretti Brewery? And I think the Cuasso al Monte hospital section needs some editing on the line that talks about the hospitalization(???). I have tried to make it more understandable (according to my standards) but I personally didn't really get what the person that wrote meant in the first place sooo lmk LIUCmichela01 (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Five main peaks section

@LIUCste00, LIUCMEN0, and LIUCmichela01: Team, I've found a website link with a short section about the trek on mount Piambello. I've already taken information regarding some aspects of the geology of the park

@LIUCmichela01: I think that's absolutely fine!Dervareser (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dervareser: Ok, thank you for the insight! LIUCmichela01 (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geology Section

@LIUCste00, LIUCmichela01, Dervareser, and Bighope71:, Team I found a well made Geological map about the territory of the park, do you think it could be useful to insert it?

@LIUCMEN0: Well done! I think we should ask the creators of the map before inserting it on our page. Dervareser (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUCste00, LIUCmichela01, Dervareser, and Bighope71:, Team, since that i can't find a reliable contact to ask for the permission of the link that I mentioned above. LIUCMEN0 (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUCMEN0: I believe this is a good idea! I will get in touch with whom of competence.Bighope71 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Draft page 02/11/20

as an Educational Project, equal and regular contributions are required by all team members, both to the draft and the Talk page. User:Bighope71 and User:LIUCste00 have made no Talk page contributions; LIUCMENO and LIUCmichela01 have made few or no contributions to the draft, and these User names are still in red.
Content: there are only 7 sentences on the entire draft page, which needs far more content to work on and develop. Look at similar pages for ideas e.g. if there is adequate secondary sources for the content, you can create a section on the 5 mountains, with a sub-section on each.
Topic: it is unclear exactly what the boundaries of the park are, nor how it relates to neighboring parks, such as Campo dei Fiori; there are some issues as to whether there is adequate acceptable secondary sources to support a page on this topic, and there are currently only two references.

@Limelightangel Thank you for accurately pointing out all the issues concerning our draft. We're going to search through books and other websites. There are actually many links between history and the topic. We even phoned the Biblioteca of Castellanza. LIUCmichela01 (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: there is an error in red in the Infobox, which needs fixing. There is a help link next to the error message, which relates to a URL issue. The current Infobox is a template for 'protected area'. Either use more of the fields in this template or, perhaps better, find a more applicable one. See Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes and look at similar topic pages Infoboxes.
Style: note the guidelines on writing style, particularly regarding subjectivity and references. You cannot say it is 'well known' without a reference and secondary evidence. It is certainly not 'well known' in the UK. It is unclear to UK reader what is meant by 'councils'.
Images: the page needs structured, copyright-free images, aligned to the relevant text sections (when written). These include a detailed map, and perhaps also a gallery. See: Wikipedia:Images
Linking out: understand the conventions for linking out to relevant pages. Is 'Lakes' a relevant link out here? See Help:Link

Limelightangel (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Limelightangel: Thanks for these guidelines. We will take into account the creation of a section on the 5 mountains. I have looked for information about these mountains and I have found some interesting articles and websites, but not for all of them. Regarding images, we have visited the park recently and we have taken many pictures, so we just need to upload them. The only thing we are struggling with is the fact that we don't have enough sources being the park created just 3 years ago. Tomorrow I will call a guide who will provide me with information about the park and resources if any. Bighope71 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Bighope71[reply]

Issues with Draft page 09/11/20

Talk page: Note the comment on Talk page conventions, indented threads and sections/structure. You can edit the Talk page to help users find and understand the topics e.g. with a section on Cadorna Line. You could tidy it up a bit to do this, and create a positive impression for reviewing editors.
References: There is an issue with acceptable sources, including some non-Italian ones. You need better sources, with authors, rather than anonymous content from tourist websites.
Images: Improve the captions on the images, so they are meaningful both on WikiMedia and on your page. Format them to be aligned with the relevant text. Is the Sasso Paradiso in the park? Is this image relevant for this page? Can you get a copyright free map of the park/trails?
Content: Remove 'it extends for 14km' and include better figures for it's size (klm squared?) and boundaries. Clarify what are 'councils'. What is the Bocchetta, and how high is it? Does anyone live in the park? Villages/population? Is there any climbing? prehistory? aircraft wrecks? etc. Worth mentioning it is in Italy?
Style: note the guidelines on writing style, particularly regarding subjectivity and references. You cannot say it is 'peaceful' without a reference and secondary evidence. Information, not 'info', etc. Do not use words like 'moreover', 'extremely', 'thanks to', 'there's, 'then', 'in fact', etc.
Linking out: understand the conventions for linking out to relevant pages. Are Boulder and Peculiarity relevant links out here? Link out to Cadorna Line, and WW1. See Help:Link
Structure: Is Location better than Geography? Does this need to come before history?Limelightangel (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further doubts and concerns

@LIUCste00, LIUCMEN0, Dervareser, and Bighope71: Do you think a brief discussion about the councils the park extends on would be pertinent? LIUCmichela01 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUCmichela01: I'd suggest just to insert some information about the park in the already existing pages of the councils, as our Tutor said us Dervareser (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to address

@LIUCste00, LIUCMEN0, LIUCmichela01, and Bighope71: Team, there are some issues to address before submitting our page

The section Location needs to have a reference, and also needs to be completed;
The section Geological aspects has no references;
The section Flora has no references;
The section Fauna had 2 invalid references, I deleted them, please insert valid references;
It would be better if we find some more information about the section Mountain Biking;
The page has to be submitted on the 26^TH, so we have to address these problems immediately

Dervareser (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dervareser: I am already working on some of them. But I have something more to add. Thank you @Dervareser: I'll work on the Mountain Biking section LIUCmichela01 (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LIUCste00, LIUCMEN0, and LIUCmichela01: Team, regarding the fourth reference, we should put it at the end of the period instead of in the middle of the period. I did not correct it because it may be that the other things someone of you have written could come from another reference.Bighope71 (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Dervareser: for pointing this out. I'm going to complete and check everything is left to do before we submit the page for review. LIUCMEN0 (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Draft page 26/11/20

Style: note the guidelines on writing style, particularly regarding subjectivity and references. You cannot say it is 'vast', 'wonderful', 'rather high', 'watching over the valley' or 'good' (vague and subjective). It is, not 'it's', there is, not 'there's'; has not, not 'hasn't'; etc. On this platform, mountains are situated, they don't rise in the heart';
Grammar: not 'its mountains'; 'situated in the (VA)', '(q.982)';'The Mountains'; 'huge Boulder'; 'Native fauna'; etc. Consistency in section names: The Five Main Peaks, or 'The five main peaks'?
Spelling: e.g. 'Panoramic spotts'; 'cmprised'; 'kilometres'; 'viewpont'; 'casemates'; 'letter year'; 'march 2020'; etc. Do not use words like 'on the other hand', 'besides those', 'however'; 'truth is'; etc. The flora section needs a review for grammar issues;
Structure: you go from flora/fauna to history then back to lakes: surely the description of the natural features should be together (including the 5 peaks), and the history perhaps before this? Should the hospital go as a subsection in history, as it is largely historical content? 'Panoramic spots' is not really an activity, and perhaps better in the text of another section, or removed. The text about history under Piambello could go in the history section. If donkeys carried things up in 2004, this needs to come before 2009;
Content: The summary introduction does not say that it is Italy; the long text on Mountain Biking needs substantial reduction to just summarize the subtopic;
Links out: Plate tectonics? Monte Rosa? Is 'lourdes' a relevant link out? was the cross located in France for a while? replace the linked text for comasco and lechese to the correct page titles;
Links in: From Cadorma Line? needs more. Limelightangel (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Limelightangel:, thank you for these guidelines! We will start addressing these issues immediately. Dervareser (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Limelightangel:, thank you for these directions. We are working on them. Regarding the error '(q.982)', I substituted it with 'm.a.s.l. 982'. Bighope71 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist issue

@LIUCste00, LIUCMENO, LIUCmichela01, Bighope71, and Dervareser: Fix the reference list issue Limelightangel (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Limelightangel: Thank you for pointing it out. I have fixed it Dervareser (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick once-over

As requested by Bighope71, I'll just have a quick read through and comment on a few copyediting matters and anything else that comes to mind...

In the lead, no need to capitalise "natural park", as it's not a name of a place.
Wikilinks should never be bolded (MOS:BOLD, and unless you're planning to create WP:REDIRECTs to the page from those other terms (Castle of Cuasso al Monte, the Artistic village of Boarezzo, etc.), which seems unlikely, as they're not subtopics). I see unnecessary bolding in other sections of the article too - best remove them all, unless a redirect to the place would be useful on Wikipedia.
Alto Varesotto is mentioned in the lead and not the body of the article, and I'm not too clear on what "suggestive and naturalistic" is meant to mean - recommended natural beauty spot, or something like that?
No need to capitalise "Park" throughout the article (I think MOS:INSTITUTIONS probably applies here.) Not serious though.
Location section: I suggest linking to words that are not common, or where readers may be interested in more detail, such as "Protected area|protected site", travertine, tectonics, autochthonous, etc.
- Climatic aspects - sentence case for sub-headings (MOS:SECTIONCAPS), and last sentence should be part of the same paragraph
Re-check all of your spacing and gaps between sections - the photo of the hospital would be better placed after the subheading than before it, and there's an extra blank line after History.
History - in the same para, you have WWI and World War 2. Better to spell them out and link to both, or neither. Roman numerals (I, II) are the usual styling in English. Leave out phrases like "the truth is", and the sentence about the Maginot Line needs a bit of a rewrite for grammar and length. I don't know what "The info point..." refers to, but information as a word should not be abbreviated. Is it a kind of tourist information/visitor centre?
Skimming very quickly through, as I don't have time to read thoroughly, but noticed "14th of July, 1921" - see MOS:DATE.
Fauna - you could find links for many of those animals, especially the less common names such as mute swan, black kite, etc. I have no idea what the "diurnal rapacious Biancone" is (there is a disambiguation page for biancone that says it's a type of grape), but I went googling for "frosone" and eventually found it and created a redirect for it, so you can link to that word.
Trails: I think it's better to create a sentence saying something like "The following hiking trails are available in the park:" above the table and add the citation there, rather than hanging in mid-air after the table.
Guides: it's probably not worth listing these people - they probably change fairly frequently and will not be kept up to date on Wikipedia.

Well, that took longer than intended, and I haven't covered very much, but it's obvious that a lot of work has gone into creating it and I can't see any reason for refusing it. Get rid of the unnecessary bold text and if you wish to incorporate any of my other suggestions, that's up to you. Good luck! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Laterthanyouthink:, thank you very much for the insight, and for having dedicated us your time, this will help us a lot! Dervareser (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Hi @Laterthanyouthink:, thank you so much for having taken the time for reviewing our page. We extremely appreciate your help and we will take into consideration your suggestions. Thank you again!Bighope71 (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Dervareser and Bighope71, all the best - and I have just fixed my own punctuation above, having omitted to close two sets of parentheses! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concern

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Draft:Cinque Vette Park, Lombardy for a concern raised by Cthomas3 of a potential copyright violation in Cinque Vette Park § Castle of Cuasso Al Monte (ruin) from an Italian language source. ~Kvng (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Kvng: for pointing it out. We're going to fix it immediately. Dervareser (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spellings

Hello editing team!

Great work, well done. You need to decide whether you are going for US or British spellings, and then be consistent. See WP:ENGVAR for more. In American English (AmE) the measurement is spelt meters and in British English (BrE) it is metres. It kind-of doesn't matter all that much which you choose. I suppose I would argue that if you have no strong view and the authors are not deliberately using one spelling or the other, then BrE might be preferable on the grounds of proximity, history and so on ... but if the article had been started in AmE by an American I would have no problem with it staying there either – we try to be pretty flexible about this. What is NOT okay is for it to mix them, so you really ought to decide metre/meter and stick with it. Colour and color don't come up but would also be an issue, along with a few other spellings. Don't let anyone tell you that you have to change characterize and similar – IZE spellings are perfectly acceptable BrE spellings and can be left – but again you would want consistency so you would not want to mix organize and sympathise, which would just look silly together. Hope this helps, cheers, DBaK (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DBaK! Thank you for having spent time on reviewing our page and for having given us your feedback. We are going to fix immediately the spelling problem. At the beginning we were prone to using the British spelling, but since some members of the group have been to America, they are used to using the American spelling. Anyway, we will rapidly choose which spelling to adopt. Thank you again for your help! Dervareser (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]