Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Featured article review Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:49, 5 January 2009 editJoelr31 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users12,225 editsm →Kept status: +1← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:15, 6 January 2009 edit undoGimmeBot (talk \| contribs)Bots75,273 editsm Bot updating FAR archive linksNext edit →
Line 42:		Line 42:
	==Kept status==		==Kept status==
	{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/M62 motorway/archive1}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/M62 motorway/archive1}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Bryce Canyon National Park}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Bryce Canyon National Park/archive1}}

	==Removed status==		==Removed status==

Revision as of 05:15, 6 January 2009

Pages are moved to sub-archives based on their nomination date, not closure date.

See the Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/archive for nominations under the previous FARC process.

Kept status

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Joelr31 21:49, 4 January 2009 .

M62 motorway

Hi. I am nominating this article, of which I am a significant contributor, for featured article review to ensure it still meets the standards for FAC. The reason I am nominating this article is that it was promoted around a year ago, and standards can change in that long a period. I'm hopig to gain opinions on how to update it to today's standard. Thanks! Sceptre 13:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image check OK. DrKiernan (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Note No concerns have been brought up in this FAR. If no concerns are brought this FAR will be closed. Joelito (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Mixed citation styles: the article mixes the citation template with the cite xxx family of templates (see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Citation templates and tools). The {{citation}} templates need to be converted to cite xxx. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Joelr31 13:49, 5 January 2009 .

Bryce Canyon National Park

Review commentary

Notified Mav, WP Protected areas, WP Utah, WP Earthquakes

This article was promoted four years ago, and needs many inline citations to meet current standards, since it only has one currently. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I still have the same books used as the listed references and will add inline cites. --mav (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, nifty with the big pic there! Unusual usage but I do think it is justified in this case. I can look in on copyediting. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head (can't do much as I am enmired elsewhere but a couple of things stick out) - if the article were bigger, the gallery section could be integrated nicely in the article. As it is only 24k, there should be scope to do this. Things I'd like to see embellished are flora, and the two bulleted segment faunal regions could be expanded and made into paragraphs. National Parks are about preserving environments, so focussing on some of the biological is a fantastic was of introducing readers to the delights of biology. With most articles I do, especially plants, I slot in (or help the main contributor) scientific names - the Everglades is a good example. Be good to add a bit on the soil types as well. Can expand on the threats to the park, and are there any endangered plants or animals which depend on it? I will ping Moni3 too as she did all the Everglades ones... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Many inline cites added. Please add fact tags as needed and I'll track down any remaining items that need inline cites. As for images: I would rather remove the gallery and reduce the size of the large photo than to expand the article solely to accommodate them. The amount of info in this article is already proportionate to its size and the amount that can be written about it. This is a small park that protects pretty much just the erosional features and small areas beyond them and therefore has the same flora and fauna as the corresponding life zones in the High Plateaus. --mav (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I know next to nothing about US natural history, so am ignorant. Even small parks here in Oz often have something unique in them. Many restricted species do occur across an area of similar space to a park but the park is the only place that is protected by legislation. Agree that the sole reason for expanding the article should not be to accommodate images. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In its present state, this article wouldn't get through GA, never mind FA. It needs to be much more thoroughly cited. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- See above. Many inline cites now added. --mav (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I used Bryce and Zion as guides when I wrote Everglades National Park. I don't recall the citations being so slim (but seriously - who remembers what happened last week?). This place is spell-binding, so I hope it can keep its FA status with some improvements. Let me know if you need me to do anything. --Moni3 (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I found some stuff on the Utah Prairie Dog and added it (as it was specific for the park), but there is more. Apparently the park is also important for the endangered southwestern subspecies of the Willow Flycatcher, and the California Condor. Also, what about reptiles in the park? I presume there are rattleysnake type critters (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Cool - thanks. I'll take another look at that section and add mentions as needed. --mav (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- A bit about reptiles and the two other endangered species added. --mav (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I just gave this a quick copyedit/MOS flyover. I left a couple inline comments for you, mav. Maralia (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Great edits thanks! I'll take a look at those comments. --mav (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I found all of your comments and addressed them. If so, I think we are done with this FAR. --mav (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I tweaked a few more things, and have only one lingering question. You modified this sentence to suit me: "A nearby example of amphitheaters with hoodoos in the same formation but at a higher elevation, is in Cedar Breaks National Monument, which is 25 miles (40 km) to the west on the Markagunt Plateau." The sentence itself parses now, but it is dangling at the end of a paragraph about the weather at Bryce, and I can't figure out why. Grasping at straws - are you trying to make the point that hoodoos form even at higher elevations? Or does the sentence belong somewhere else? Maralia (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  - Good point. That sentence now follows sentences talking about Bryce hoodoos. --mav (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations. Joelito (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I'm not sure why this went to FARC b/c I addressed all the citation concerns. If there are any more concerns, I will address those as well. --mav (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Adequately cited now; flora and fauna sections expanded per request; and copyedit/MOS cleanup done. Maralia (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Mav did a great job in adding citations, no outstanding issues left. hike395 (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Good improvement. Cirt (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the article is WP:OVERLINKed (common terms known to most English speakers need not be linked), but it's close enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep Another great job by Mav; I think I got most of the overlinked (common) terms, feel free to de/relink more. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages

:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages