Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shoshone National Forest

Shoshone National Forest[edit]

This is a self nomination of an article I started some time ago and discusses the first National Forest created in the U.S., and is a major component of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. There have been several other editors that have also contributed and the article has been peer reviewed and adaptations of comments from that process have been addressed for the most part. Most of the discussions on the talk page center around the size and or number of Glaciers in the forest, resulting in numerous alterations to ensure a NPOV resolution. I look forward to all feedback and will address any concerns in the hope that should this nomination fail, the article will, at the very least, become an even better one through this process.--MONGO 08:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Detailed info, fine pics. Brandmeister 13:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work --PopUpPirate 22:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support- good job with the article! ~~Object~~- I haven't looked through the article yet, but just by looking at the article, inline citations need to be added (2(c) of FA critera). Also, being 44 kb long (which is not exceptionably long, but still quite long), it should undergo Wikipedia:Summary style, and subpages have to be created from this page. AndyZ 23:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being 44 kb is not too long to be featured. In the past month alone, we've promoted nine different articles which are longer than that. That said, I think you are on the money when it comes to inline citations. Andrew Levine 23:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I did have inline citations earlier and will replace them...I can also trim the article if needed, as that was brought up during peer review.--MONGO 01:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I believe that the general reference section is actually an External links section and should be changed accordingly, since links like this image weren't (I believe) used as references, but as other links that users might find useful. AndyZ 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I see, gotta change that one for sure.--MONGO 04:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, article needs to use a ref/note system to take the place of in text html links, in the reference section the references need to be clearly distinguished from the general interest websites that weren't used to gather information to write the article.The images in the Fauna section are a bit crowded. See also that are already in the article should get the chop. should be used to separate numbers and their units, eg 5000 km.

Thank you...I am unclear as to why the article should use ref/note as links to other areas which clarify. My reasoning is due to my preference that evidence that support the article be available at that point and that this isn't a term paper, but instead a wiki, which allows quick links to articles that support the statements. I can, of course use ref/note but I saw that either way is acceptable under WP:CITE. I do understand that immediate referencing needs to be separate from general referencing and I can get that done. I will remove some of the images, probably two at least to eliminate crowding. Will also use $nbsp;...thank you for the feedback.--MONGO 06:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now what you mean...I can make the adjustments to make it footnote with ref/note style.--MONGO 08:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlesss I'm missing something management of the area is discussed in the lead and is never really expanded on again in the article, and it should probably have a small section of its own. While the article isn't massively long, it could definately use some tightening, there are some paragraphs that are way to long making them harder to read, and there is also superfilious text - for example there is a bit too much detail on bear management and the methodology of cloud seeding. Also its a good idea to put the most basic facts first in a section, I had to read almost the whole fauna section before I find out how many types of mammal there are in the park, and the whole galciology section before I know that Shoshone National Forest has the most individual glaciers in any U.S. National Forest in the Rocky Mountains. I'm also not sure that the sections are in optimal order - are you using a suggested layout?--nixie 05:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed the management throughout, such as in forest uses and fire sections. I will tighten up passages that are not area specific to the forest such as glaciers and fauna. I can also ensure that sections lead off better and the supporting evidence appears afterwards. I rearranged the sections as they are after a few other editors suggested the current arrangment, but nothing is written in stone. I appreciate your assistance.--MONGO 06:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copyediting and trimming of duplicate and travel guide material to make the text more relevant and readable. I've left some questions in the text where things need clarification. The text still needs more copyediting, you may want to ask someone like Wayward or Bishonen to go over it again.--nixie 23:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely...I appreciate you taking the time to do that and I'll get busy.--MONGO 02:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great job --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Very nice work, but a few issues: first, what does the sentence "The Wind River Indian Reservation (population 8,000) is located along the southeastern border of the forest and belongs to the Shoshone and Arapaho Indians" have to do with anything in the first paragraph of the human history section? Seems to be stuck in there randomly. Was it part of the preserved 2.2 million acres of tribal lands? There also a disconnect in the last paragraph of the section, when the text suddenly shifts to "During the era of the Great Depression". Next section: if the "annual operating budget is $5,000,000, with almost twice that from grants", isn't the annual operating budget really $15 million? Is there a reference for the second paragraph of the flora section? Also, please review my recent changes to make sure I haven't obscured any important meaning or eliminated important content. --Spangineer (háblame) 04:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reservation is only pertient due to the Shoshone Indians as namesakes for the forest...it needs to be moved, I agree and will do so later. I'll have to look into it, but the reservation predates the forest and I don't believe any reservation land was taken by the creation of the forest, but the southernmost forest section is disconnected from the rest by the reservation. Not sure why I put the 5 million and twice fro grants thing there..it was directly from the forest website, rephrased of course. I can find a reference for the flora section. The only change that I saw that you made was to the wilderness section,which was recently put there by me after Nixie stated that I needed to clarify what a wilderness is, but you seemed to have left an adequate explanation and it's linked to (a rather poor) subarticle on wilderness. I might change your wording to emphasize the word "pristine" as that word seems to be widely used when discussing wilderness. I appreciate your commitment to helping make this a top rate article.--MONGO 05:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad, I see you left "pristine" in there.--MONGO 06:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]