Wikipedia:Peer review/Everglades National Park/archive1
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/Everglades National Park)
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in nominating the article for GA or FA status. I've based this article on the FA's of Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park and Yosemite National Park. Any suggestions editors can give for improvement before nominating it is appreciated. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Great work! Keep them coming. Suggestions 1) The bit about coming off the List of World Heritage Sites in danger should be merged smoothly in somewhere. 2) I don't see much information on the economics of running the park. I see good numbers on the restoration cost, but where is their income (how much state, federal, how much admission fees, etc) and what are the running costs? It is unfortunately something that is missed in all of the other articles you pointed out, which also seem otherwise great. With those items fixed, I can't see anything else separating this from FA. I'm not a great copyeditor though, perhaps there are improvements someone can point out on that front. - Taxman Talk 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I included a section about park economics under park history, and moved the 1-sentence paragraph. Thank you for your suggestions and comments. --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good. Though the economics section seems a bit out of place, I can't immediately say where it would be better. Also the sentence "In 2001, the National Park Service set a goal to generate $161 million US from fees and income by 2005." needs some context on how it relates to this park. Finally $35k seems incredibly low, but if that's what the source says, so be it. Depending on how your schedule is you could delist this here and take it to FAC right now if you wanted to. I'm sure that in short order you could deal with any of the suggestions brought up there. - Taxman Talk 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I clarified who made the goal. It was the superintendent of ENP. As for the $35k, the document I took the information from listed all the national parks in a table. I don't know what they consider "local economy". I imagine that means the economies of Everglades City, Florida City, and Homestead - all very small towns. Although the park is close to Miami and Naples, I don't know if they considered them as well. If you, as your username implies, are into accounting, I can give you the URL for the pdf that I got that information from. I'm not a whiz at accounting, so it could mean something different. Thanks again for your input. --Moni3 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, send the link, either here or email is fine; I'm sure you're right though. On that goal, that is such a larger number than the ones that preceded it (100,000 for fees etc) that those all need more context on how they're different/related, etc. - Taxman Talk 20:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you go here and click on "NPS System Report for 2006" it's a document that goes into the general revenue for each national park. I took the information that's in the article from the first table in that document. --Moni3 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, hmm. As I look at the document again, those numbers should be multiplied by 000, I think. That number should be $35,000,000 shouldn't it? This is why I am not an accounting whiz... --Moni3 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, well, easy fix. :) Does the strategic guide give more information on the current number that compares with the $161 million goal? That's the part thats odd to me. I assume most of the difference is government funding, but that still leaves out the current info, which would be better than the goal. - Taxman Talk 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think the table points out - and I realize I need to make this clearer - that the income generated within the park is not from entrance fees, but tram tours, fishing licenses, gifts, etc. I need to find how much overall income the park generated...or I'm just not reading that table right. --Moni3 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, well, easy fix. :) Does the strategic guide give more information on the current number that compares with the $161 million goal? That's the part thats odd to me. I assume most of the difference is government funding, but that still leaves out the current info, which would be better than the goal. - Taxman Talk 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, send the link, either here or email is fine; I'm sure you're right though. On that goal, that is such a larger number than the ones that preceded it (100,000 for fees etc) that those all need more context on how they're different/related, etc. - Taxman Talk 20:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I clarified who made the goal. It was the superintendent of ENP. As for the $35k, the document I took the information from listed all the national parks in a table. I don't know what they consider "local economy". I imagine that means the economies of Everglades City, Florida City, and Homestead - all very small towns. Although the park is close to Miami and Naples, I don't know if they considered them as well. If you, as your username implies, are into accounting, I can give you the URL for the pdf that I got that information from. I'm not a whiz at accounting, so it could mean something different. Thanks again for your input. --Moni3 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good. Though the economics section seems a bit out of place, I can't immediately say where it would be better. Also the sentence "In 2001, the National Park Service set a goal to generate $161 million US from fees and income by 2005." needs some context on how it relates to this park. Finally $35k seems incredibly low, but if that's what the source says, so be it. Depending on how your schedule is you could delist this here and take it to FAC right now if you wanted to. I'm sure that in short order you could deal with any of the suggestions brought up there. - Taxman Talk 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I included a section about park economics under park history, and moved the 1-sentence paragraph. Thank you for your suggestions and comments. --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)