Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/North Cascades National Park/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2018 [1].

North Cascades National Park

edit
Nominator(s): MONGO 14:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commenced upgrading the details of this article in 2014 then took a nearly 4 year hiatus from it and recently returned and fleshed out the rest of the details. The article underwent a peer review here which is archived. The reviewer felt the history section was too long however all my previous national park related FACs have had similar or longer history sections. To provide more balance to the article I went and expanded mainly the section on Fauna as shown here in the last week since admittedly that section was weak. I feel the article is close to FA level at this point. The ref URLs are all solid and working, the article is comprehensive and on topic but it may need further fine tuning with grammar and composition. The goal is to see the article approved early enough to possibly see it on the mainpage for the park's 50th anniversary on October 2, 2018.--MONGO 14:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by GMG

edit

Did a full read through c/e. Here are the points that I jotted down as I went, and wasn't able to immediately fix myself:

  • Mining, logging and dam construction section, last paragraph needs citation. I don't see this covered anywhere in the preceding source.
    Added source to end of last paragraph in the section
  • The sentence beginning "The North Cascades National Park Complex management activities include..." is wonky. It reads like it wanted to be a semi-colon separated list-of-lists, and then backslides into two separate sentences with a full stop, and then picks back up with "and the administrative division..." as if it was an embedded list-of-lists all along.
    Seemed like a paragraph of less than useful or necessary information so I simply removed it altogether.
  • "Many visitors that wish to see Mount Shuksan by car drive to the Heather Meadows Visitor Center in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest well outside of the park." Unless I'm mistaken, this is not a sentence.
    Took the whole car/drive wording out and adjusted it so it is no longer tedious reading
  • I left a crappy edit summary, but I did remove here a pretty sizable chunk about the park service generally, and which wasn't really about this park in particular.
    Yeah, looks fine to me now.
  • The last sentence in the last paragraph of the Glaciers section needs a citation. It does not appear to be contained in the previous citation.
    Repositioned from being a standalone paragraph at end to being added to tail of first paragraph and after rephrasing, added a reference
  • The last sentence in the second paragraph of the Camping, hiking and mountaineering section needs a citation. It does not appear to be covered in the previous citation.
    Rewrote this bit of information and referenced it.

GMGtalk 17:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent copyediting and much appreciated. MOS for whether to use US or U.S. indicates the most current form is US now but either is fine and I am not beholden to either so long as we have consistency. I will address other concerns you have mentioned in next few days. Thank you for the deep copyediting, correcting some grammar and links as well as punctuation and your thoughts!--MONGO 18:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably actually prefer "US" naturally when writing, but yes, the important thing is that it's consistent either way. And....I think my third bullet is a misreading actually. If you put a comma after "car", then it makes "drive" the verb, whereas I was interpreting it as if...it was spoken almost hyphenated..."that wish to see the mount by car-drive", as one would say "you can go by bus, train, or scenic car ride", where I guess drive is part of a noun phrase, rather than the first verb in the next clause. GMGtalk 23:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to drop the ball on this one. Some follow up minor notes: The Sooty Grouse picture is a little out of place, since it's not actually mentioned in the article. There's also some minor formatting issues around the Glaciers section, where the image above causes significant white space on wide screen monitors, and the images on the right start to stack significantly. Probably could use some artful arranging/pruning. I'll try to give it another thorough once over tomorrow. GMGtalk 01:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Added sooty grouse to the article body and reposition some images to left margin to avoid stacking issues.
  • Looking at the small sub-section on attractions, the following do not appear to be backed up by their immediately following citations:
  • few maintained buildings and roads within the two units of the park
I simply removed it
  • popular with backpackers and mountain climbers
Does this really need a reference?
  • Picket Ranges, Mount Triumph, Eldorado Peak
  • popular with climbers due to glaciation and technical rock
  • at 9,127 ft (2,782 m) is the second highest peak in the park
Have done a complete reorganization of the last sections pertaining to these issues
GMGtalk 13:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Camping, hiking and mountaineering
  • strictly regulated Doesn't seem to be in the source. Can't really say this in WP's voice as commentary on the bare facts of the permitting system. Need a source that itself evaluates the system as strict, otherwise WP:OR and whatnot.
Reworded for clarity and moved ref to support. See: [2]
  • the size of parties allowed Not in source, likely intended to point to the previous source. But would still need commentary for any descriptors as per above.
Moved ref to support wording. See: [3]
  • Since the vast majority of the park is designated wilderness, the goal is to ensure all hikers and backcountry travelers enjoy the opportunities for solitude. I don't see anything in the source that addresses either the proportion of the park designated as wilderness, or the goal of the park being primarily the enjoyment of solitude.
Moved reference up and adjusted wording. See: [4]
  • Unlike most national parks, there is no entrance fee at North Cascades The source backs up the no fee part, but doesn't back up the "Unlike most national parks" part.
Changed most to some and added ref as shown here: [5]
  • Bicycles are allowed in the park but only on the same roads that vehicles are allowed on. There is no mountain bike access allowed on hiking trails. Source doesn't seem to say anything about bikes at all.
The source used backs up what is written and is the same source as this one
  • sturdy quality I'm not sure if this is maybe a technical climbing term. The source does say "climbing routes of high quality" but it's not totally clear that translate one to one to "sturdy".
Not sure what the issue is with this. I suppose I can change the wording. See: [6]
  • ice climbing...bouldering...above the tree line None of these appear to be covered in the cited source.
Just removed it as it kind of happens without saying since climbing is done there and sometimes that mean crossing glacier and ice, etc.
GMGtalk 13:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will look these over but I am not putting a reference after every single sentence and every single word that is merely a derivative of a source word to avoid close paraphrasing.
No sorry, that's not what I'm suggesting. I hate mid sentence citations and try to avoid them at all costs. But a lot of these just aren't covered in the sources. GMGtalk 16:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on these and have most addressed by end of day.MONGO 17:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really just waiting on other's comments. I'm probably not qualified to write about the more technical subjects on an FA level or to judge them. GMGtalk 19:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Suggest scaling up the North Cascades map
  • File:Nlaka'pamux.jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this first published?
  • File:Stephen_Mather_1916.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • File:Lowercurtis.jpg: source for 1985 extent? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Increased display size of North Cascades map
    • File:Nlaka'pamux.jpg appears to be owned by the Canadian Museum of history so I removed the image
    • Switched Stephen Mather image with one that is used on the National Park Service website and updated url on Commons page to show origination and that is it in the public domaain
    • Lowercurtis image source url and links added. The image was uploaded and released to the public domain by Mauri S. Pelto (User:Peltoms)

Support from Gerda

edit

Thank you for great nature! Just a few comments, while I read:

Lead

  • For a newcomer to the topic, consider to first say mountain ranges first, than sizes.

Modern exploration

  • modern meaning 1811? interesting ;)

Establishing the national park

  • or Establishing the National Park? - It's this specific one, no?

That's it. Again thank you, Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you Gerda. Have made some minor adjustments.

Coordinator comment: Hi MONGO, this seems to have stalled in recent times and will be archived if it doesn't attract some additional review soon. I've added it to the Urgents list. --Laser brain (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to seek out other old FACs and see if I can help out there to also get them moving. Seems the FAC arena is lacking enough reviewers. I cannot request anyone to come and make suggestions as it is totally contrary to my way of going about this sort of thing.--MONGO 01:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Hopefully adding to the urgents list will prod some interest. We've gotten complaints in the past about nominations being suddenly archived or nominators not being sure how much time they have left, so I've been experimenting with leaving some low-overhead friendly notes. --Laser brain (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – I don't have the time to commit to a complete review at the moment, but I gravitated toward the climate section (as usual) and found some things that don't sit well.
  • The western slopes receive 76 inches (190 cm) more moisture than the eastern slopes, which works out to more than 400 in (1,000 cm) of snow falling in the west more than the east. - The source doesn't support the implication that snowfall accounts for the entire 76-inch difference in precipitation. If 76 inches of liquid "worked out" to 407" of snow, that would require an implausibly wet 5:1 ratio. Maybe simply switching out "works out to" → "contributes to" would suffice.
  • On the western slopes, at elevations between 1,000 and 4,000 ft (300 and 1,220 m), snowfall depths range from 50-to-75 in (130-to-190 cm) annually. Above 4,000 ft (1,200 m) snowfall depths of 400 to 600 in (1,000 to 1,500 cm) are normal. - I'm not sure what "annually" means here, since the source says only 7k+ ft peaks retain snowpack year-round. Also, the suggestion that typical snowdepth increases from 75 to 400 inches as soon as you cross the 4,000 foot contour line is unsupported and, again, implausible. Source discusses a gradual increase starting from the "lowest elevations."
  • Since the 1950s, there has been a 5 °F (−15 °C) mean winter minimum temperature increase at elevations above 4,000 ft (1,200 m). - The {{convert}} template doesn't work here, since F and C convert differently for temperature values than they do for increments; 5F warmer corresponds to an increase in about 3C (you'd have to check the math).
  • it is warmer than other regions at a similar latitude further inland - You want "farther" (physical distance), not "further" (rhetorical).
  • Altitude and whether one is in the eastern or western sections of the park can greatly influence the overall mean temperatures. - This could be turned into something vastly more succinct, like "Altitude and location within the park..."

This relatively small section was a bit clunky, so I'm hoping it's not representative of the entire article. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • have addressed your concerns listed above by making the following changes:[7] and [8]

CommentsSupport by Jens Lallensack

edit

I read through half of the article by now. While most reads well without much to nitpick for me, I feel that certain sections, namely the ones about the paleoindians and the geology (from those I already read), are not up to the standards yet. Details below.

  • The map in the infobox shows all of the US, making it difficult to understand the exact location of the park (e.g., its distance to the see). While I had some problems imagining the geography since the "geography" section does only appear in the middle of the article. The infobox of the featured article Redwood National and State Parks does show the state per default, with an option to show the whole country. Maybe these options would be a good addition to this article as well?
Updated infobox to show various maps
  • Historians believe human history in the region – I would remove the "Historians believe", its a bit weird and doesn't add anything.
Human history removed
  • Historians believe human history in the region that is now part of North Cascades National Park – Which part of the National Park? Or do you mean that the National Park is part of the region?
Changed "Human history in the region that is now part of North Cascades National Park dates back to the end of the last glacial period, and the region has been continuously inhabited for the last 8-10,000 years" to "Human history in North Cascades National Park and the surrounding region begins 8-10,000 years ago, after the end of the last glacial period."
  • Hozomeen chert – isn't that just the name for the local chert occurrence? I would just link to chert.
done
  • Hozomeen chert is part of the archaeological record throughout the Skagit River Valley – do you mean blades made out of the material?
adjusted for wording as seen in this diff: [9]
  • Is microflakes the same as micro blades? Maybe use the same word to avoid confusion.
Amended as shown here: [10]
  • indicating people visited the region if for no other purpose than to obtain raw materials – I assume that "region" refers to the National Park. This is confusing, as it was also stated that "the region has been continuously inhabited for the last 8-10,000 years." "Inhabited" is more than just "visiting".
I simply removed the part about visiting the region as shown in this diff: [11]
  • The micro blades are part of an archeological assemblage – Does this assemblage refers to the entire park?
I would assume so since there are 260 sites identified in the park there are probably others outside the park as well. The indigenous people did not have a formal park boundary as we have today, nor is it likely they could even ponder 10K years ago that there would someday be a Canada and a United States. They can be assumed to have traveled between these regions, seeking out raw materials and food stuffs. In most parks I have written about in this region and the northern Rockies, local natives would venture into the mountains to seek out things just mentioned, but the winters, especially in higher elevations, were no more inviting (probably less so then) than now and surely they would retreat to lower elevations during winter. The problem is this is not spelled out well in the refs I have available so without making a vast assumption I cannot back up, we have this.
  • Prehistoric micro blades from 9,600 years ago have been discovered at Cascade Pass, a mountain pass that connects the western lowlands to the interior regions of the park and the Stehekin River Valley. The micro blades are part of an archeological assemblage that includes five distinct cultural periods, indicating that people were traveling into the mountains nearly 10,000 years ago.[7] The archeological excavation at Cascade Pass is one of 260 prehistoric sites that have been identified in the park.[8] – I don't quite understand what I should get from this. If there are 260 prehistoric sites in the park, why are you elaborating on a single one, what is the significance of it? And then, I miss information on the other prehistoric sites; are these exclusively micro blades, or is there more?
This was altered as shown in these diff: [12] and [13]
  • Please mention that Skagits are a coastal tribe living in the west right at their first mention, I found it quite hard to understand the geographic relationships between the tribes as this is only mentioned at the end of that discussion.
added "Residing mainly to the west of the park near Puget Sound, the Skagits lived in settlements..."
  • Did/do the tribes live within the borders of the current park? Are there any archaeological finds indicating settlements?
As mentioned in the article, it is most likely they resided only seasonally, during the summer.
  • The first sentences in "park management" might be better suited for the section "geography", as they are about the topic.
  • Maybe (not sure here) add the geographic overview right to the beginning of the article? Would help a lot to know the geography first.
Previous FA level articles on National Parks I have been the primary contributor have the human history and park creation sections first. This may not be the best way to do it, but has been adequate for previous FAs
  • the North Cascades are composed primarily of Mesozoic crystalline and metamorphic rocks.[43] The exposed rocks predate the middle Devonian and are approximately 400 million years old. – This is contradicting itself, as the Devonian is older than the Mesozoic.
All but completely rewrote the section and it hopefully is easier to read and better explains things now
  • The North Cascades are the northern section of the Cascade Range – this info could be easily incorporated into the previous sentence which is talking about the sections, for conciseness.
I adjusted this slightly
  • I would use "younger" instead of "newer" when talking about rocks.
done
  • the vertical relief is significant, averaging between 4,000 and 6,000 ft (1,200 and 1,800 m) – this info (with the same numbers) were already given.
Rewrote this sentence [14]
  • the heavier basaltic rocks of the ocean floor had started to push the lighter granitic rocks – The reader might not know where the ocean floor is coming from all of the sudden. The section fails to give the general picture of the geologic development. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed these issues better now I hope see the alterations in these edit:}} [15]
  • I continue with additional comments first and will answer to the above later.
  • Why did you change the spelling of the box title to something different from the article title?
This was just a typo and now corrected
  • The geology section is much improved, thank you very much. Only few more nitpicks here. You write A complex assemblage of various rocks and formations – but formations are large-scale units of rocks (i.e., formations consist of rocks), so maybe remove the "rocks".
Did a swap of words to clarify: [16]
  • rocks deep underground near the collusion zone became crystalized – most rocks are consisting of crystals; maybe better "recrystalized"?
I believe this has been addressed now
  • while others were formed into granitic rocks – could you check this again? Granite usually forms from melt, not from other rocks.
As in last comment above, wording altered for specifics
  • The uplifted rocks eroded mostly away, however 40 million years ago the heavier basaltic rocks of the ocean floor had started to push the lighter granitic rocks that are the core of the mountains upward; a process that is ongoing – Is this referring to the oceanic crust of the pacific, which is being subducted under the continental crust?
This is complex as mentioned. I could find no reference to support that the mountains are still rising due to subduction of the Juan de Fuca Plate, which is the culprit that has created the volcanic portions of the Cascade Range which lies west of he park. Common logic would suggest that this same subduction also formed the existing North Cascades but I have not found that specific mention anywhere
  • I think it would really help to include some basic information on the geography in the lead (e.g., that the nationalpark is divided into a northern and southern part by the Skagit river).
Done: [17]
  • The University of Washington – is "The" part of a name and has to be capitalized?
was a typo, fixed
  • In the Thunder Creek watershed alone, this decreased runoff amounts to a loss of 30 percent of the summer streamflow. – unclear: Is this since 1971, or since the end of the Little Ice age?
Replaced entire sentence: [18]
  • For the last section on the glaciers, I think it might make sense to discuss the long-term losses (since the little ice age) first and the more recent losses last.
  • 9,000 ft (2,700 m) vertical feet – there appears to be one "feet" to much
fixed
  • I would generally link species in the image captions
good idea, done
  • Not sure if it makes sense to include an image of the Common Bearberry when this species is not discussed in the text at all? Maybe replace with one of the important trees, which are broadly discussed.
I can add it. I try and use images taken in the park itself and this one was
  • At what elevation does the White bark pine occur? Since you are discussing the elevation of the other trees as well.
Added to this and cited: [19]
  • The article appears to suggest that there are two species of wolfes (Timber wolf and gray wolf), but the Timer is a subspecies of the Gray.
adjusted now
  • I'm not sure about your mammal list (including 75 mammal species such as the timber wolf, coyote, bobcat, Canada lynx, cougar, moose, elk, river otter, hoary marmot, pika, mountain goat and black bear). There appears to be no obvious reasoning behind it, kind of a arbitrary list, and since you are mentioning the black bear but not the grizzly, I first thought that there is no grizzly.
It is a random sample as this is not a list article so the species listed could be changed, altered, so long as they are actually found in the park. Is random an issue? Grizzlies do not reside in the park for all basic purposes...sightings are nearly nonexistent so why include them with other commonly more found species? Albeit the lynx and cougar are rarely seen too, but they are not virtually nonexistent.
Well, I have nothing against a well-chosen collection, but I feel that a completely random list is of little help. I would: 1) remove the wolf (if the grizzly is not included, the wolf, which you stated is practically non-existent, should be removed also). 2) State the scope of the list. For example: "Notable species frequently seen in the park include …" or "The park is best known for its occurrences of …"; I think this would help the reader to understand what he can expect to find in the list. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection I have made a much more concerted effort to parcel the mammal species into their orders/families and rearranged the paragraph wording better as shown here: [20]
  • You are mentioning 10 species of bats, but no word about the other mammal clades. How many rodents, for example?
I thought that there were 10 species of bats to be singularly impressive factoid but rodents include beavers, gophers, mice, etc...so its a big Order of critters
  • Is there no beaver? A very significant species, both from an ecologically and popular point of view.
I can add it but there is not any easily located details about where they are, how many etc.
Mentioning it in the list is enough I think, thank you.--Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow is the interesting detail about the climate so I put it first.
  • You are discussing two animal species in great detail: the grizzly and the wolverine. But why not discussing the wolf as well, isn't it as significant? There must be similar campaigns for it, as it was also extirpated from the region but reintroduced again. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can add that there is no plans to do a wolf reintroduction in the park. To maintain summary style I decided to not go into great depth on each rare mammal species so I chose two of probable interest to most readers. The wolf is virtually nonexistent. I made some alterations though: [21]
  • There have been few things that made me wonder, triggering me to check some sources:
    • Source #4: I couldn't find most of the information in this source. For example, Hozomeen chert is not mentioned, neither are Skagit tribes (Especially, I would like to see a source for "Paleo-Indian Native American ancestors of Skagit tribes", as I don't see how one could relate the Paleo Indians to this but not other tribes).
Moved a reference up to support the Hozomeen Chert discussion [22] and [23]
added a ref to support that [24]
But your new source lists "Wood-burning stoves, construction, farming, industry, forest fires, mining and volcanoes" as origins for air particles, so construction and farming are not the only sources as the article seems to suggest, and there is no hint that those two would be the major sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the wording now to better reflect the available reference as shown her: [25]
done
support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments support from Cas Liber

edit

Looking now...

  • Environmentalists then campaigned to preserve the remaining wildness of the region... - should that be "wilderness"...?
  • Rarely seen mammals like the wolf is listed as endangered, while the grizzly bear is listed as threatened, though sightings of both are extremely uncommon to nonexistant - this sentence seems a bit circular with it repeating "rarely seen" ..."sightings". Can you rejig it?
  • North Cascade National Park has management plans in place to return grizzly bears to the park but not wolves, as the latter is seen as likely to reestablish itself naturally over time - "wolves" and "themselves" or "wolf"..."itself"....

Otherwise looking good comprehensiveness= and prose-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think these issues are covered now. Admit it might still need a tweak or two, Thank you for the copyedits
I am happy, but others might still find some prose improvements. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John

edit

Super article! I only read it for the prose, and I'd say it's not quite there yet. I will post a fuller review. --John (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost finished copyedit. "Collusion"? "farenheit"? Some of these errors are non-trivial. I've gone for US over U.S. throughout; abbreviation needs to be consistent. --John (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was my first pass. Please inspect. --John (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty deep copyedit and I thank you. "Collusion" is a correctly spelled but is the wrong word altogether of course so Word missed it even though I should not have. I may not have run some sections through spellcheck and that explains the misspelling of "farenheit". US vs U.S. only matters if were talking about it being used as an adjective or a noun. I am indifferent and as MoS states, consistency is paramount. In official titles like "US Army Captain" it simply looks better to have it as "U.S. Army Captain" but that's an opinion not a standard I do not think. "Archaeology" with the second "a" is preferred in formal writing so good catch on that too.MONGO (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, thank you for writing such an interesting article. I now support, but please check this further series of copyedits. Alt-text, while no longer essential for FA, makes the articles more accessible to users of screen reader technology and should always be used. --John (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I...had not considered that. Thank you for that addition and the further copyedits. makes me think other FAs I have done should have this alt text too.MONGO (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

(Inadvertently posted to the closed peer review page, transferred from there. Apologies!)

  • The external links checker tool indicates that all links are working (although it can't be guaranteed 100% accurate)
  • However, I did notice that one link (ref 14) doesn't go to a page entitled "Geology Fieldnotes". Can you check?
  • Also, in ref 6. p. 323 is not in the google preview so the link is meaningless
  • Refs 35–38: "Wilderness Connect" appears to be a work of the University of Montana
  • Ref 129: source is behind a paywall, so you need to add the (subscription required) template
  • General point: ISBNs should be presentled uniformly, preferably in hyphenated format

I notice that about three-quarters of the refs are to sources published by the National Parks Service, which I suppose is inevitable with a topic like this. Subject to my points above, the references look well ordered and of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will address these points in next day or two..thank you
I believe I have addressed the points you brought up in this series of edits: [26]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/North_Cascades_National_Park/archive1&oldid=849580831"