Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Redwood National and State Parks

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redwood National and State Parks

[edit]

After it was commented that this article was was in need of improvement, I started over and greatly expanded the article. The article has only been at peer review for a few days, but no opposition was encountered there. So any suggestions on what I need to make the article better are greatly appreciated.--MONGO 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will have a look there and see if I can encounter anyone who speaks German and English to assist me.--MONGO 01:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My German is lousy, but from what I saw, that article is better than this one in terms of the amount of detail. I suppose I could say I am flattered that they created such a great article on a park that isn't even in Germany. I will probably utilize some data from there and one image I saw. The image of Beargrass (the plant) may be incorrect though as I don't think that plant exists in that park, at least not in abundance.--MONGO 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was pretty impressed! I think that the history section and the different ecosystems probably comes from a few of the books referenced. Might be nice to eventually add what we can. InvictaHOG 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - This article looks great! Its amazing to compare this article now with a month ago. PDXblazers 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think the red dot on the opening image is in the right place. I thought it was further south. If someone investages and proves that is it in the right place, I have no other objections and will support. Tobyk777 01:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anything the location is north of where the dot is now. It unfortunately is affected by what browser you may be using and what resolution you may have it set at. The park is not far south of the Oregon border and is centered near Cape Mendocino--MONGO 01:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MONGO is correct. As a multiple time visitor of the park, the dot is definitely not too far south. PDXblazers 01:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, after reading your assurances that the dot is in the correct place, I just looked it up. Apparently I was mistaking this park for something else. It is in the right place. Change vote to Support Tobyk777 01:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Giant Sequoia National Monument, maybe? Sheep81 00:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—fails Criterion 2a. Take the lead, for example.
"Redwood National and State Parks (RNSP) is comprised of one federal and three state parks that are jointly administered in an effort to protect a large portion of the remaining Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) trees, the tallest trees on earth. Located entirely in the U.S. state of California, approximately 45% of all remaining old growth redwoods are protected by these parks. Redwood National and State Parks consists of the original National Park, created on 2 October 1968, as well as Prairie Creek, Del Norte Coast and Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Parks, all of which were administratively combined in May 1994. The park preserves habitat along the northern Pacific coast of California and includes 37 miles (59.5 km) of pristine coastline. By the time the federal and state parks merged, the United Nations had already designated Redwood National Park a World Heritage Site on 5 September 1980[1] and an International Biosphere Reserve on June 30, 1983."
    • "is comprised of" is ungrammatical. Would it be better to say "... comprises four contiguous parks—one federal and three state—that are jointly administered ...". You are intending to say that the parks are jointly administered for that purpose, and no other purspose, are you? That's the sense as currently worded.
    • Remove "in an effort".
    • Why make us read the initialism "RNSP" and subsequently fail to use it?
    • The dates should be formatted consistently; if you want to auto-format them, do it for all. (It's fine not to, and definitely don't link chronological items that have no date.)
    • "already" is redundant.

Not a good start. Tony 11:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That bad eh? So you only read the intro I take it. I made some adjustments as you mentioned. RNSP is used as far as I can see almost everywhere else in the article. Yes, the parks work together with the slated goal of protecting the coast redwood.--MONGO 12:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: Sheep, have you read the article closely? By the way, "Thoroughly a good read" is not idiomatic English. Let's look at the section on management.
RNSP is managed by both the National Park Service, (a federal agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior), and the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The 2004 annual budget for the park was $7,380,000 which is roughly the same as for the previous year.[8] The National Park Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation work collectively to protect not only the redwoods, but also pristine Pacific Ocean coastline, cultural resources and the unique natural habitat. Much of the more recent land area that has been purchased to expand the parks was logged and the old growth trees are now gone. Efforts to rejuvenate these areas have been ongoing for several decades as old logging roads are removed and the land is allowed to return to its original state. Lack of adequate funding precludes major improvements and much of the logged sections were replanted by timber companies with tree species that were both faster growing, and not native to the environment. Coastline areas including dunes and coastal prairie have been impacted by exotic species and the previous elimination of forest fires, which until the 1980s were suppressed. A fire management plan now utilizes controlled burning as one method to return the parkland to its original state. The redwoods were logged based on accessibility, so forested areas that were the most difficult to get to were the last ones to be cut. This left an island–like mosaic whereby large old growth forest sections were isolated from one another, sometimes by many miles. In many cases, it will be many decades before the forest fills in naturally regardless of the amount of money used to rehabilitate the environment.[9]
The park utilizes many logging roads that are now scenic public drives. They do not meet current safety standards, yet funding for improvements is not adequate. Park structures such as visitor centers and employee housing are generally in need of updating to meet 21st century needs. The park also performs air and water quality surveys, endangered and threatened species monitoring and works cooperatively with the California Coastal National Monument, which is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, to protect coastline.[10] The park headquarters is located just outside the parks in Crescent City, California.
    • The commas need a thorough audit. The first sentence contains two in a row (the parentheses don't count here); a comma is required before the "which" in the second sentence (and what's your point about the fact that the budget is roughly the same in 2004 and 2005?).
      Major screw up...I'll fix this. The budget is the same, even though cost go up...I dunno, do I need to spell this out?
    • "not only ... but also"—it's a tired way of marking text; does it really need emphasis? Just use "and".
      Yes, it needs emphasis...the park is named after the redwoods, but the mission of the park is about a lot more than just protecting the trees.
    • "more recent"—is this in contrast with something "less recent"?
      Probably needs tweaking...oops, is that bad English?
Not by itself, but here, it's vague and begs the more/less question. Can't you be more specific? Our readers want precise information, if possible.
    • "Lack of adequate funding precludes major improvements and much of the logged sections were replanted by timber companies with tree species that were both faster growing, and not native to the environment." Two different ideas jammed into one sentence, without a logic connector. "Lack of adequate funding"—just "inadequate funding"?
      Yes, this is a disaster. I'll fix it.
    • "both faster growing, and not native to the environment"—again, why mark it with "both"? As well, it's kind of fuzzy, because it's unclear that both attributes are undesirable (am I right in assuming your intended meaning?). Remove the comma.
      Faster growing...can be removed....not native is negative.
    • My US Encarta dictionary is very sniffy about "impact" as a verb. Perhaps "significantly affected"?
      Literature does not indicate that the exotic species have significantly affected the park, only that there has been an impact.
If you mean the literature, it's vague: what literature? Can't you refer to one good piece?
    • "Utilize" is one of the ugliest words in the language, and is quite unnecessary. What's wrong with "use". (Two occurrences.)
      I don't like the word use...if we use it too many times, it gets used up. What exactly, aside from your POV, makes the word utilize one of the ugliest words in the language?
Whatever, but get rid of "utilize". "Use", as a common word, can be used more often than its ugly sister can. There are other synonyms, too; consult your online thesaurus.
    • "The redwoods were logged based on accessibility"—"logged based" is ungainly; try "logged on the basis of".
      Yes, this could use some tweaking
    • "the last ones to be cut"—spot the redundant word. Replace the stop with a semicolon, yes?
      How many points do I get if I am "right"?
None; I'll' reconsider my remove declaration if the whole article is fixed.
What remove declaration at the end...you lost me.--MONGO 01:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "island-like mosaic" is unclear—what is island-like about it?
      Well, not island like as in tropical islands and Tahitian Princesses...I dunno...the groves are isolated from each other.
    • At least one occurrence of "many" in the next two sentences could be removed.
    • "the amount of money used to"—there's a more elegant wording, surely. Comma before "regardless".
      Okay
    • "not adequate"—as before.
      Inadequate?
Yep.
    • "Structures"—"built infrastructure", to be more precise, or just "buildings"? Why not be plain and simple for our readers?
      Just trying to not use te same words over and over.
Sometimes it's better to repeat a word if it adds to the cohesion of the text. It's a fine judgement.
    • "to meet 21st century needs"—get rid of it and the prose is stronger.
      Opinion noted.
I think that means "opinion rejected". The problem is that it's vague: what needs? If you insist on keeping this phrase, at least reword it so that it's useful to our readers ...
    • "the park performs surveys"—no, the management, or some other entity, does this.
      Yes, how foolish...the park couldn't possibly...of course, I'll adjust this.
    • "to protect coastline"—"the"?
    • "The park headquarters is located just outside"—Spot the redundant word; didn't I raise this very point in relation to your previous nomination?
      I have used an oak ruler across the back on my hands for this gross oversight.

I've chosen these paragraphs at random. The prose is not "beautiful", as the previous reviewer claims, and it's not "compelling, even brilliant" as required of our FAs. There's an urgent need to network to find others to help with the prose of the entire article.

On a lighter note, I can't resist pointing out that the person in the first pic looks as though he's relieving himself. Tony 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is releiving himself...haha! I stuck that picture in there deliberately it has nothing to do with trying to emphasize scale.--MONGO 05:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of images for the article size...I can see about taking one out. Image size also may appear much bigger if you have your resolution set low. I try to show numerous images in these types of articles since the appeal of the parks for most people is visual.--MONGO 08:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My res is 1440 x 900. I would size the images down a bit, and take one or two out. I much prefer articles when they are well written rather than a picture book. :P — Wackymacs 08:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a very high resolution. I get complaints from folks if I make the images too small and I get complaints from some when I make them too big. Without the images, the article loses its ability to fully document the subject visually. I took one out.--MONGO 09:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would strongly agree that many of images are too large but I woudn't say there's too many. Also, in the Geology section you say that "The region in which RNSP is located is the most seismically active in the U.S. outside Alaska." "How do you define "region?" Do you have a source for this statement? --Nebular110 18:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image size is dependent on resolution. I reduced the size of the larger images, and referenced the issue of the earthquakes, which by the source I used, indicates that it is more active than anywhere else in the U.S.--MONGO 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why specify the size at all? Why not let user's preference determine the size? — Zaui (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the size constraints.--MONGO 00:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose for now. Unfortunately, Tony is right about the copy. Sentences end in prepositions, commas don't seem to know what they're doing, and, generally, in part because of overly complex sentences, that is, sentences which contain multiple thoughts and self-explanations that are often redundant and repetitive, the whole things wanders (all over the place) and fails to flow well. Simplify. If you are doing this yourself, my suggestion is a careful and methodical review: paragraph by paragraph, one sentence at a time. I will be predisposed to support after a thorough copy-edit. Tony has given you a lot of detail on many items, but he has only given examples. Please listen to him, and apply the examples throughout the article. You've done a lot of work; this will take it past the finish line.

: On the images, I would suggest trimming images that do not clearly illustrate the point. Then I would vary the size. Right now, the images are simply green tiles appearing one per section. Sam 13:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has tried to offer his opinion on what needs to be done to the article, and I have addressed many of his concerns I believe. I was told by another commentator above to remove the size settings for the images and allow each persons browser do the work, now you want something completely different. Sorry about the flow...I've been informed that even though I have 3 FA's my writing skills are not up to FA level. For fear of "making a mess" I suppose I will refrain from any major stylistic changes.--MONGO 14:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The process can be frustrating - I've gone through it before and expect to go through it again soon, and recently found myself defending an article from Tony in the FARC. I'd be happy to take a crack at a section sometime and give you my thoughts, but I still found the flow choppy and the language overwrought.

:::On the images, it was just my observation; make your own assessment and decision using the comments from all of us to help. I'm not going to make up my mind as to support or oppose based on the images. Sam 15:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick crack at the history section, not making any major changes, just paring here and there for readability and precision. It could use more. I deleted a little information that didn't make sense to me as a reader unfamiliar with the topic.Sam 15:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I note there are several people actively editing this article. I'll revisit in a couple days and really do hope to support. There's a lot of good stuff in this article. Sam 19:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment...I just read through this article and as far as I am concerned I think some of the recent changes over the past few days have greatly improved the prose and flow of conversation. I tahnk all those that have helped to improve this article.--MONGO 10:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral for now. There's been a fair bit of work and progress, but I don't think the surgery has been radical enough. If you look at the history section, where I made some changes and then Frutti di Mare made some (including fixes to mine) and then we essentially collaborated in polishing for a bit, I think there is a good model for the rest of the article. But in copyediting, there seems to be as much added as subtracted, so the simplifying that needs to go on isn't quite there. It's worth some more more, but getting there. One small point (that will likely require a short add) - the lead mentions the Biosphere and World Heritage designations, but I don't see them discussed in the article. I'm interested. It's worth a couple of sentences. Thanks for the work that has been done, especially to you and Fruiti.Sam 13:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. WP:SS...the article is not about Bioshere and world heritage designations, which are wikilinked to articles about those issues...the article is about the redwoods.--MONGO 18:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See criteria 3(a) for FACs - lead should summarize more detailed info below. I was trying to help. But, as you say, whatever. Sam 18:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry...I didn't mean to come across as snide. I didn't elaborate on the Heritage or Biosphere issue when working on the Glacier National Park (US) article. I guess I thought it was wikilinked and that was sufficient. I also appreciate your contributions.--MONGO 01:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive and interesting, MONGO's done a great job. Full disclosure: I've done some recent copyediting and now also amplified the intro a little, as suggested by Sam. Frutti di Mare 00:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you...your changes have been excellent and I appreciate it. It is much improved.--MONGO 01:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Entire article text (each and every paragraph) has been extensively tightened up by Mongo and others, especially since Tony's detailed comments of June 8[1]. The images display based on the user's prefs, so that seems to be resolved. My edits are pretty much limited to adding some details about the UNESCO designations to the body of the article, as suggested above. Well, and dabbling a bit with a couple of the supporting articles. Niteowlneils 04:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contributions and the query on the article talk page about the biosphere reserve issue. The "tightening up" of the article was not really my doing though...that credit definitely goes to all the others who have helped.--MONGO 04:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The content was always good, but this has seen a lot of improvement to the copy and is now up to snuff. There's always room for more, and I hope this will be well maintained so it will continue to see improvement. I think it would benefit from a revisit from Tony if he is willing, who is a tougher critic than I on the copyedit front. Sam 23:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does anyone think I should eliminate the "RNSP" abbreviations and stick with he full title or maybe even use some other less lazy looking abbreviation?--MONGO 00:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Redwood_National_and_State_Parks&oldid=192530979"