Talk:Petrified Forest National Park

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Petrified Forest National Park article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Petrified Forest National Park is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 22, 2012.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 3, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
November 15, 2010	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as High-importance).

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Sources

Since the article currently has no sources, I've started adding some basic references for material already present in the article. Geologyguy kindly pointed out the inadequacy of my original additions, so I've just replaced them with more appropriate ones. I'm sure there must be newspaper coverage of the park and the area, but a quick Google search didn't return anything. Forestgarden (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Good job with the cleanup, Finetooth. What class should this be assessed? serioushat 04:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know much about the assessments between start and GA. My goal is to get this up to FA, if possible. I have ideas for the Activities section, a couple of additional or better images, some filling in of the gap in the History section about research since the 1940s, something about petroglyphs, and maybe something about a couple of the park structures not already covered. Beyond that, I intend to create a map of the park showing where the main features are in relation to one another. When that's all done, I'll run the article through peer review at WP:PR, make changes based on recommendations there, and then nominate the article either at GAN or FAC depending on its condition. Meanwhile, I'd appreciate any suggestions for improvement (or direct help), and I have questions in my head that I have no answer for yet. For example, is the Western rattlesnake found in this park likely to be Crotalus viridis, which is what I've linked to, or should the link actually go to Crotalus oreganus? Finetooth (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the guidelines say about the sources section(s). Should the "Works cited" section be renamed to "Bibliography" or "References", and should the current "References" section be renamed to "Footnotes"? You can use {{cite book}} so you don't have to format the works cited by hand. serioushat 01:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What I've done is fine, though not the only way. I've already done FAs using "Works cited" below the "Reference" section. See for example Rogue River (Oregon). Or see one that is not mine, Mozart in Italy, that uses something similar. Splitting the long works out to a "Sources" or "Works cited" section lends itself to using short refs in the "Reference" section. The Manual of Style allows quite a bit of latitude in choosing reference methods, styles, and section names. The main requirement is that the system be logical and consistent. Finetooth (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

shutterfly?

Why am I being redirected to fluttershy.us when I try to click anywhere within the article? Is this some kind of joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.197.52 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on a page

This page is damaged by someone. There is a div element with 9000x9000 pixel size added to this page that link to some "fluttershy" site. It seems that due to this div block, all links on this page refer to this site and unusable.

195.208.49.60 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no such problem... Little Mountain 5 17:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Are you sure you were reading the actual Wikipedia article and not on another site? Little Mountain 5 17:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind. The Arizona Parks template was vandalized and has since been fixed. Thanks, Little Mountain 5 17:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linus Torvalds

Why is Linus Torvalds in this article? 190.51.186.7 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was vandalized. It has been restored now. Little Mountain 5 17:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:The PEFO Tepees.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:The PEFO Tepees.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 27, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-08-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 17:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

The Tepees, a rock formation in Petrified Forest National Park in the U.S. state of Arizona. Named for its large deposits of petrified wood, the park covers about 146 sq mi (380 km²), encompassing semi-desert shrub steppe as well as highly eroded and colorful badlands. The petrified trees that give the park its name date to the Late Triassic, about 225 million years ago.Photo: Finetooth

Archive – More featured pictures...

conflicting size indications

The article gives wildly differing sizes ranging from 380 km2 to almost 900 km2! --Espoo (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. At some point someone updated the original listed size, which had grown somewhat bigger over the intervening years because of acquisitions. However, the editor making the change substituted for fee-area size what the NPS refers to as "gross size", which includes private lands and other non-park public lands. I've changed the numbers again, making them refer consistently to the fee area of the park, which, according to the NPS stats document cited, was about 170 square miles (440 km²) in 2011. I also added a label to the geobox identifying the size quantity as "NPS fee area". I have not yet found a more recent update, but I think the numbers are now at least internally consistent. Finetooth (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Petrified Forest National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100618034928/http://gapanalysis.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt/community/maps_and_data/1850 to http://gapanalysis.nbii.gov/portal/server.pt/community/maps_and_data/1850/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with convert function Comment

In the statement "low of 5,340 feet (1,630 m) along the Puerco River to a high of 6,230 feet (1,900 m) at Pilot Rock; the average elevation is about 5,400 feet (1,600 m)" it seems that in meters 5,340 feet (1,630 m) is higher than 5,400 feet (1,600 m). In realty 5,340 feet is equal to 1,627 m and 5,400 feet is equal to 1,645 m. אביהו (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting catch. The problem arises from auto-rounding in the template. Adding the "sigfig=4" parameter to the three instances of the template yields this: "The park’s elevation above sea level varies from a low of 5,340 feet (1,628 m) along the Puerco River to a high of 6,230 feet (1,899 m) at Pilot Rock; the average elevation is about 5,400 feet (1,646 m)." That is more precise but harder to read. To retain the ease of reading and to eliminate the apparent contradiction you noted, I deleted the third instance of the template. The average elevation can be inferred more-or-less from the first two elevation numbers. Does that seem like a reasonable solution? Finetooth (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A better solution in my mind is to skip using the function and use hard coded numbers. אביהו (talk) 05:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now used sigfig=3 in the third instance of the template to achieve the same end. Thanks for pointing out the original logical discrepancy. Finetooth (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with dates

The period specified in the statement "Between 6000 BCE and 1 CE, the Archaic–Early Basketmaker Era" do not overlap the period in the article about the Archaic–Early Basketmaker Era (7000 - 1500 BCE). A bigger problem happen with the statement "The early farmers from the Early Basketmaker II Era, lived in the Petrified Forest from about 1 CE to about 800 CE" (1500 BC – AD 50 in the article on Early Basketmaker II E. אביהו (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson:, who added the info and sources in question, might be able to answer these questions. They lie outside my areas of modest expertise. Finetooth (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]