Wikipedia:Featured article review/Yosemite National Park/archive1

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 10:20, 13 February 2007.

Yosemite National Park

Review commentary

Messages left at Mav, California, and Protected areas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking many references. (criteria 1c.) --W3stfa11 02:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Mixed reference styles,~~ inadequately cited, ~~listy, See templates incorrectly used, photo galleries dominating text, layout needs work, has taken on an unencyclopedic tour guide tone in some parts.~~ I corrected extensive WP:MSH problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I worked on SG's non-citation points (I think Mav will have to go back and add more references). hike395 10:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

1 bloated photo gallery, now integrated into Commons:Yosemite National Park
Waterfall list split out into its own article: List of Yosemite waterfalls
Visitor info belongs in Wikitravel, temporarily moved to Talk:Yosemite National Park/Visitor Info
moved tourist destination list out into their own article: List of Yosemite destinations

And I fixed the templates. ~~The "Miscellaneous" section is actually trivia, that should be deleted or incorporated into appropriate sections.~~ Referencing work will be needed. ~~I'm wondering if others think Summer and winter activity sections should also be moved to the touristy article?~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of the summer/winter activity can be incorporated into the Activities section. The rest should be (re)moved. I'll try to help out with citations whenever I can. --W3stfa11 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the summer/winter activity section can be turned into prose and rescued. I'll try and attempt that. hike395 21:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bring out the refs I used to flesh out this article and add cites. --mav 22:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Looks like plenty of other people are already working. To avoid edit conflicts I will work on getting uranium ready for FAC and will come back here once things settle down. So far, great work. --mav

Alternately, you could spend some time on your other FAs that need to be cited, so they don't have to come here. (I've cited all I can in Yosemite.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like we can cite a lot of it from the websources (which are quality sources) already there - sorry for all the edit conflicts, I was trying to get a basic ref structure in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing that most of the article was taken verbatim from the public domain (National Park Service), which means it must be cited to those websites it was taken from - for others working on the cites, look first there or via google. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have gotten most of the content from the National Park Service public domain cited; normally, the lead isn't cited, but since the text came directly from the NPS, I went ahead and cited it. That's probably all I can do for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article is well put together. It seems that, given the cursory glance I made, it is well put together, flows nicely, and has enough sources to get by. → JARED ^(t) 14:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an issue of counting sources or "enough to get by": it's a question of whether everything that should be cited, is cited. As an example, last time I looked at it, the lead said 1,189 something, when the refs I found said 1,200 - could be rounding, we need to know. Also, I couldn't verify the percent of wilderness. Those are only two examples from the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well besides that though, it is put together nicely, and maybe some things need to be touched upon, like the lead and the sources. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found a couple sources for the 89% wilderness figure. I'm not sure how authorative they are though. Here's one. [1] --W3stfa11 19:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's a good one. [2] W3stfa11 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not clear on how to cite Google books, per a concern raised by Indon on the Anne of Great Britain FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added all the cites from the Geology of National Parks book I used as a reference. More cites later from Geology of U.S. Parklands. Please add {{cite}} where appropriate and I will also look up those specific facts. --mav 16:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done for now. --mav 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting close. 89% wilderness needs to be cited (hard to verify), and most of History is uncited. There's a huge amount of work to be done on units of measurment - all need a non-breaking hardspace. [3]. I saw quite a few sentences that start with a number. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have forgot three other references I used: Yosemite National Park: A Natural History Guide to Yosemite and Its Trails by Schaffer, Yosemite: A Visitor's Companion by Wuerthner and Yosemite: Official National Park Service Handbook by the NPS. I'll dig them up and add more cites later; hopefully starting tomorrow and finishing a week from today. Any help with the measurements/numbers will be greatly appreciated. :) --mav 03:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add the &nbsp when I have time, unless someone else gets to it first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Problem of size still needs to be resolved - the lead says 1,189 square miles (I can't find a source); body cites more common 1,200 square miles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More cites added and all Facts either fixed or removed. Please check. --mav 03:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1,189 vs. 1,200 square mile stat needs to be verified, cited, and sorted out—we can't be stating two different sizes in the same article without explanation, even if it's only rounding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed in article. --mav 14:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 11:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much work done by Sandy, Hike, myself and others to address the concerns put forward (mainly, a lack of inline cites). I beleive this article is now up to current FA standards and vote to KEEP. --mav 14:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Mav asked on my talk why this got moved down given much work. The move from FAR to FARC is always "least harm". I check if there is definite consensus to close early and if I don't see it, I move it. (A much greater problem would be closing as a keep and being told later that serious issues remained.) When moving, I don't give the more thorough look at the history etc. as when closing. If everyone involved is "keep" right now, we can close it tonight! Marskell 18:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- As you were the only two working, away it goes. Marskell 10:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.