Jump to content

Talk:Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 776678373 by Finetooth (talk) confused
Woody (talk | contribs)
32,653 edits
add the FAC template
Line 1: Line 1:
{{featured article candidates|Oregon Caves National Monument and Preserve/archive1}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{ArticleHistory

Revision as of 18:07, 22 April 2017

Good articleOregon Caves National Monument and Preserve has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 25, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Image attribution per the GNU Free Documentation License

Added image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oregon_Caves_p1080458_1024.jpg Author: David Monniaux Photo taken in 2006 96.41.164.58 (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good source for reliable information

A good source that could be used to clean up this article is Appendix C of the document Klamath Network Vital Signs Monitoring Plan published by the National Park Service. The entire document is available for download here. It was completed in 2007 and should be fairly up to date. –droll [chat] 04:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

I am nominating this article for Good status on behalf of User:Finetooth, who did a fine expansion job. FT believes the article may even be eligible for Featured status, but does not wish to guide it through formal review processes at this time. I had no part in conducting research for, or expanding, this article but I am happy to address concerns that may arise during the review process. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! I will also try to watch this page and address any concerns that arise. It's always a pleasure to dig into one of Finetooth's articles. -Pete (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic -- thanks, Pete! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Detail: dissolution cave

I don't know this term, but (obviously) neither does Wikipedia, as this is a red link. I'm no geologist, but it seems likely that solutional cave is the same thing. Can anybody confirm, and if it is, can we make a link and/or a redirect? -Pete (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's the same thing. "Dissolution cave" sounds like a party cave, which the Oregon Caves main cave was at times. However, "solutional cave" seems better, and I changed it to that just now and added a link. Thanks, Pete. Finetooth (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks! I read most of the article today, planning to come back before it gets reviewed. Considering picking up the GA review myself, but mindful of the time required…at any rate, it looks great so far. -Pete (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you like it, and thanks for the edits. I added a few more details today about the Historic District within the monument and the recent (early 2012) expansion of the district to include some trail segments. Meanwhile, a helpful geologist improved the sentence about subduction and the accreted terrane. Finetooth (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure :) -Pete (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Climate and weight

The climate chart is about the city of Cave Junction -- i.e., the home of the offsite visitor center. There's no chart for the climate of the main site itself. But I think the natural assumption for the reader is that if there's a climate chart, it would be for the main site.

Since the Cave Junction, Oregon article already has a (more complete) climate chart, and is only a click away, I think it would be best to just remove it from this article. (Just the chart, not the accompanying text.) Any objections? -Pete (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It does make more sense to have the climate chart on the Cave Junction article. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. Readers will assume these stats are for the main part of the monument. I don't remember why I used the Cave Junction chart, but I see that the Weather Channel has stats for the main monument location. They are not identical to the stats for Cave Junction. See the display here. I have another source I'd like to consult, but I won't be able to do that for a few more hours, in all likelihood. My thinking at this point is that the chart is useful but should be more accurate. Does that make sense, or does the chart still seem unnecessary even if tweaked? Finetooth (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only from personal preference, I'm not a huge fan of the climate boxes -- seems to me that a link to an external source is typically more what I would expect from an encyclopedia. But that's not a policy-based point, that's just WP:DONTLIKE. A climate box that puts appropriate emphasis on the main site would be fine if you think it improves the article. -Pete (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider stats for the main monument location relevant. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My other source turned out to have no useful information about the monument, and, without checking again here first, I decided the text made everything clear and that the climate box was probably overkill. I could put it back with the revised data if you like, but I'm fine with it being gone. Just to clarify: empty climate boxes are Wikipedia creations in the same sense that empty infoboxes are Wikipedia creations. The data in the boxes comes from external sources, but they are (or should be) acknowledged with inline citations. Since the climate boxes don't violate the "no direct link to other sites from within the main text" guideline, I think they are OK in general (in that particular way) even if overkill in this article. They are, however, garish and seem to yell at the reader. I like the way they present a lot of complex data in a small space, but I wish they weren't so intensely colored. Finetooth (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Oregon Caves National Monument/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 22:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems good, images well used and all acceptably sourced. No dead links, references are formatted acceptably. Concerns:

  • The words "big tree the largest diameter douglas fir known in oregon" seem to have been copied verbatim from the source, please re-word.
  • Does source 2 support the whole of the second paragraph of the Fauna and Flora section? If so could this be indicated through re[eated the citation more than purely at the end?
  • Similarly does source 45 support the whole second paragraph of the activities section?

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to review this article. I recast the big tree sentence to say: "Big Tree, thought to be the thickest Douglas-fir in the state." I have added citations to the other sentences in the two paragraphs you mention above. They were source 2 and source 45, respectively. Finetooth (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for doing that.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gilderien, for taking the time to conduct a review. And thank you, FT, for addressing these concerns. I have been away from my computer, and will remain so for a few more days, but I am thrilled to see that this GAN review was successful. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome, the GA backlog is far too long and I decided I might as well be proactive rather than be silently annoyed at how long my own nominations were taking to be reviewed, though as a personal opinion this is exactly the sort of thing people should be working on rather than the plethora of popular music articles currently at GAN. If you (plural) have any articles similar in topic you nominate just give me a ping.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oregon_Caves_National_Monument_and_Preserve&oldid=776696624"