Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Redwood National and State Parks/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [1].

Redwood National and State Parks

[edit]
Notified: MONGO, Tony1, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject California, diff for talk page notification

Review section

[edit]

The issues about this article were raised one or two years ago, including sourcing and outdated info (or insufficient updates or coverage). Edits have been made since, but I think more work is still needed. George Ho (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been even a vague attempt to list here what work remains to be done on this article. (I haven't had time to check.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just so they're all in one place:
  • Issues mentioned at talk:
    • smatterings of uncited text throughout
    • detailed information is from 2008, and needs a check to make sure it's still in date. For instance, the camping rights details quite possibly could have changed since 2008, etc.
    • several marginal sources have been introduced since the last notice
  • Issues mentioned here:
    • addition of an unsourced paragraph
  • My issues:
    • §History has some clunkiness, unhelpful time jumps, probably could be better illustrated
    • Many tangential details, info about parks that are not in RNSP
    • Some quoted material is not sufficiently attributed in text
    • §Park management is tagged with "needs expansion"
    • In §Flora, the tree Hyperion is described as "tallest tree in the park" as of September 2006. It's not clear that the date refers to its discovery as the tallest tree, and the description should probably be something like "considered the world's tallest known living tree". The mention in the next paragraph of Stratosphere Giant, which is not in RNSP, is emblematic of the "tangential details" issue
    • Need consistency in use of "park" vs. "parks" and use of "RNSP" as either a singular or plural acronym
    • Unclear relevance: "The evergreen hardwood tanoak produces a nut similar to the acorns produced by the related genus Quercus (oak). Both tanoaks and oaks are members of the beech family"
  • I stopped documenting problems there, but there are more. I'd love to help keep the star on this one. I expect to be able to handle the items mentioned so far, and I hope to be up to resolving the unexpected issues. I don't have a strong feeling about whether this happens at FAR or FARC, but I do think it will be a couple weeks before I can really be in the zone on it. A resolution to WP:FAR#Heian Palace is (hopefully) coming soonish, and I can poke away it this before that frees me up to do more. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC...and go ahead and delist. I acknowledge this article needs updating, but the last time I worked my tail off updating an article it still wasn't enough to satisfy the reviewers. I think its better to let the articles get delisted then someone can later on see if they want to work to get the articles back into shape...but for me, I see it as a losing battle. I have been absent for 3 months mainly due to the exasperation of dealing with that last FARC situation.--MONGO (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include coverage and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oof it's been a while! Thanks for the ping. I'll get back to it this week. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: What are your intentions? I will not do this alone and have worked long enough to feel like MONGO. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HI SL! I saw your work and appreciate the changes. I think I'll be able to resolve the tags you added ore remove the tagged content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: Your turn please. My hands are full again with Minneapolis and will be for some time. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck, and thanks, SusanLesch! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If someone cares at all and has time, I see no reason why this article can't be finished and kept. Last month I tried to improve sourcing. I worked on park management, coast redwood and the rest of natural resources. Simplified the lead around what was an unsourced statement. Improved sourcing to include perhaps the trees' foremost advocate, Stephen Sillett by name (inexplicably not mentioned before), and added the Works cited section. Started improvements at the beginning of Preservation section. I am no longer available due to commitments on another article. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, I am finishing up Preservation after dividing that section in two. If you have time, the main thing remaining is Fire management. Jenner has a whole chapter on it, that I have not read. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SusanLesch. I know the park's site has some fire management content too. Thanks for picking up so much of the heavy work! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, fire management is waiting for you (now for a couple weeks). Can you possibly assist? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt, SusanLesch. I have some time dedicated to it in the next week, and am optimistic about more freeing up between now and mid-January. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Holding you to that. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here we go. Let's see if anything I remember from expanding out Smithe Redwoods State Natural Reserve and Reynolds Wayside Campground a few years ago.

  • The use of clearcutting logging is mentioned in the lead, but isn't referenced directly in the article until the end of the National Park section. I think this practice should be mentioned more directly when discussing the logging heyday
  • "The parks' budget for 2017 was $9,601,000 ($11.5 million in 2022) for the national park, and $660,000 ($787,950 in 2022) for California" - I don't know what the answer to this is, as the NPS source isn't clear, but is this California figure of $660,000 a budget from the state, or a budget of federal aid to the state to manage these parks?
  • " The tallest specimen alive is 380 feet (120 m)," - should this have an "as of" date?
  • "Instead, redwoods developed lignotubers to regrow new trunks from other limbs." - is there a particular reason why this is in the past tense?
  • Trask 2004 - I think the journal link you want is Social Justice (journal). The current link goes to an anti-semitic publication from the 1930s

This article looks much improved. Hog Farm Talk 03:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. I'll look into your first two issues soon, and I resolved 3 and 5 (great catch, wow). For 4 (lignotubers), I think it's meant to be read as an evolutionary development, which is best presented in past tense. Do you think this is sensible wording, or should we consider an alternative like "redwoods evolved lignotubers". More extensive reworking is possible if this is a sticking point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the budget figures: this is tough one. As you said, the NPS site gives no explanation. Figures are available for California State Parks expenditures on the three state parks in the 2014-2015 year, and they sum to about $6 million. It seems unlikely that their budget in 2017 would be just over a tenth of that. I have not yet found a source that pulls the info together in a usable way. I'm tempted to remove the budget info from the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearcutting now mentioned earlier. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be clearer with "evolved" for the lignotubers; as for the budgets, I would just drop the information it its unclear and going to be six or seven years old at the newest anyway. Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My remaining concerns with the addressing of clearcutting have been addressed through a discussion on article talk page; I think this is good to keep. Hog Farm Talk 17:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts after a quick readthrough:

  • The last paragraph of the "Native Americans" section (under history) talks a lot about the redwood, but I am struggling to see its connection to this area. I think most of this information can be moved to Sequoioideae and this paragraph should focus on various groups' connection to the area. It also has a lot of quotes that I think can be reduced.
  • "Arrival of European Americans" While most believe Ferrer was the first European in the area, the section doesn't state who the other historians think is first. Not as much space should be devoted to their theories if they are in the minority, but a brief mention of what they are should be explicitly included.
  • Reworded to mention H. H. Bancroft who was the major figure in disagreement.
  • "Writing for the Arcata lumber company, Willard Pratt said," I don't know what this quote is trying to tell the reader, and I think context for the quote should be given, or it should be removed.
  • Added phrase for context.
  • "NPS provides safety tips for visitors who encounter wildlife" What is the purpose of this paragraph? I think it should be expanded upon or deleted.
  • Omitted.
  • "Spotted knapweed and poison hemlock were both under consideration in 2015" Any update on this?
  • The list was last updated February 28, 2015.
  • The chart in "Climate" doesn't seem to be updated past 2010, and probably should have the most recent information.
  • Good catch, Z1720! Table is rewritten for 1925 to 2023.
  • Undone. See below.
  • Redone. See below.
  • I added alt text to the images per MOS:ALT. Feel free to change to better wording.
  • Thank you. A few tweaks added.
  • I ran IABot on the page to archive the websites used.
Thanks much. I'll put it to good use. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping when ready for more comments. Z1720 (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SusanLesch's responses look good to me (for posterity, all the interpolations above are SL's). For the first item, about the NA section: I would be open to trimming that last paragraph. I do think some content on the relationship between people living in the park areas and the redwood trees is warranted. Sources think it's important, and it's reasonable to me that readers would as well. I would suggest trimming it to a few sentences, and maybe having those lead into the material uses of redwood. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Firefangledfeathers, would you please deal with that paragraph? I have no connection to it. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now trimmed and re-ordered. Z1720, ready for more comments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did also change many of the alt texts, especially to shorten them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, I think we're ready for more comments. I made one correction. The world standard WMO climate normals are released every ten years (similar to the decennial US census). They were current and other than record high/low temps won't change until 2030. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I goofed. Z1720 was correct that the climate table was outdated. Sorry this took a while to understand a totally new subject for me. The table has been fixed. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I did not respond before: it got lost in my pings. Here's some comments:
  • From the lede: "The species is the tallest, among the oldest, and one of the most massive tree species on Earth. The coast redwood was named an endangered species in 2011." I think this is going off-topic again about the redwoods and would prefer that these sentences talk about how RNSP is preserving the species.
  • The first half of the second paragraph seemed a little off-topic until I read the second half of the paragraph. I wish the first half mentioned the parks a little sooner, perhaps something like "In 1850, old-growth redwood forest covered more than two million acres (8,100 km2) of the California coast, including where the parks are situated today." While the conservation is important to the parks' history, the paragraphs need to mention the parks more often to prevent off-topic concerns. It might also be wise to trim this paragraph a little more.
  • The first paragraph of the lede should be expanded to include information on the climate, fire control, and recreation information. My opinion is: if there's a heading for it in the body, it should be mentioned in the lede, even if only briefly.
  • "The Redwood National and State Parks form an important protected region," Important for what? This feels like a POV statement and I think "important" should be removed or explained here.
  • The "Coast redwood" section contains lots of information about the redwoods species, but not about the park. Any information about the species should be moved to the species's article, and the remaining information should directly connect to the park. This will reduce the prose in this section, but will cause it to become more focused on the topic that the article is about.
  • "They receive abundant rain during most of the year, with a peak in winter, a decrease in June and September, and two dry summer months (July and August)." needs a citation
  • "but light snow mixed with rain is common during the winter months." needs a citation.
Those are my thoughts. Sorry again for the delay. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. A quick question about #6 ("They receive abundant ..."). This is a summary of the cited data collected in the table just below. Do you think an additional citation is needed? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: Yes, but you can reuse the citations from the chart if it verifies the information. The citations allow the reader to know where the information came from. Z1720 (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
#4, 6, and 7 now done (in this series of edits). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SusanLesch sandboxed issues 1, 2, and 3, which are now resolved and installed in the article. Item #5 is pending, but reviewers of the new lead would be welcome. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, I think we're in good shape now. Thanks for your excellent comments. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lede looks good. I reviewed the article and I think it's a keep. I removed some duplicate citations to make the article easier for the reader to read. Thanks everyone for your hard work. Z1720 (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling good about the state of the article, and I believe all issues mentioned above have been addressed. I'm a keep. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. FFF and I did months of heavy lifting to bring this up to date and recent FA standards. We added the new Works cited section. I am confident in our work. (Pinging the lost universe of George Ho, SandyGeorgia, and MONGO). Best wishes, SusanLesch (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Redwood_National_and_State_Parks/archive1&oldid=1214106495"