This article, with its many photos, comprises about 5,500 words — which to me, an Idaho resident, seems overlong. Meanwhile, the entry on the Boise National Forest is a mere 240 words. Perhaps someone with the requisite knowledge about both forests could redress this imbalance. Sca (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- As the primary author of this article, I don't think it is overly long (but of course I am biased). It is of a length where you can have enough detail about all aspects of the forest requisite of a protected area good/featured article, such as Shoshone National Forest, which is the only other National Forest article that is of this length and quality. I think the greater issue is that nearly all of the National Forest articles (including Boise NF) are severely deficient in content in part because they lack the recognition and following that national parks receive. I am slowly working to improve the quality of National Forest articles. I started with Sawtooth NF but have currently turned my attention to higher prior articles (according to WikiProject Protected areas) such as United States Forest Service and List of U.S. National Forests. Boise NF is near the top of my list for articles to improve, but not to the extent of the Sawtooth NF article. Sawtooth NF includes two very distinct areas, one north of and one south of the Snake River Plain. Such large differences aren't seen in Boise NF. I haven't spent nearly as much time there and don't have any pictures of Boise NF. There are only a few on Flickr, so if you have any please upload them to the Commons with as much info about them as possible (including description and coordinates). There is also a lot less literature out there on Boise NF and many other forests than there is for Sawtooth NF. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- (From someone who doesn't edit this article) When an article is as chock full of quality, germane information as this one is, I think that this is the perfect length. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- This article's length and quality is what other articles on national forests should aspire to. Right now, as Fredlyfish notes, there are only two detailed articles on national forests that I know of, this one and Shoshone National Forest. I encourage to OP to set about Boise National Forest to expand it and bring it more nearly into line with these model articles. Acroterion (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- And...interestingly, Shoshone NF is on my plate to undate and possibly expand slightly. I worked on that one due to my familiarity of the forest and because it was the first NF so designated. Looking over this article, it appears to meet most of the criteria for Featured as well...I'd suggest that if Fredlyfish4 is so inclined, it might be worth shooting it to Featured Article Candidates and see how it goes...if it fails on the first go, another try in a month of adjusting and it should pass.MONGO 21:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- I plan to take it to FAC after I revise it within the next month based on suggestions I received and new sources that have been recently published. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Points well taken. Well I hope someday someone can contribute a comprehensive article on the Boise National Forest, too. Sca (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Well...the group above is tied up with other projects it seems at the moment, but I can watchlist the Boise NF article and help you if you want to work on that. This article might provide a decent template for expansion on the Boise NF one.--MONGO 01:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- The outline of this one would make a a good framework to help expand other NF articles. North8000 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Sorry, I'm not knowledgeable enough to tackle this myself. Perhaps some enterprising Forest Service employee will take it on. Sca (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
