Wikipedia:Peer review/Banff National Park/archive1

Banff National Park

I'm working to get this article to featured status, with help from two other editors. Until recently the article's talk page was empty, so I don't think this article has had the scrutiny needed. Is there anything significant missing? Anything that could be covered better? Anything confusing or not explained well enough? Any problems with grammar or style? Any comments or suggestions? Thanks. --Aude (talk contribs) 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aude, I'm interested in helping with this one. I have not yet reviewed the article, but at this time my comment is that the intro needs a bit more context. I know this is basic, but I think the intro should give enough context that anyone in the world will have a full definition of the article's subject. I would suggest something like

"Banff National Park is a Canadian National Park located in the Rocky Mountains. Established in 1885, it was the first area in Canada to be designated a national park. It is located in the province of Alberta, 120 to 200 kilometres (80 to 120 miles) west of Calgary, and includes the town of Banff. Banff National Park covers 6,641 square kilometres (2,564 square miles)

Previously: "Banff National Park is located in the Canadian Rockies, 120 to 200 kilometres (80 to 120 miles) west of Calgary, Alberta, and includes the town of Banff, Alberta. Banff National Park covers 6,641 square kilometres (2,564 square miles) and was the first national park created in Canada."

This includes links to Canada, Alberta, and Canadian National Parks, and gives the real basics to the reader that someone too familiar with the subject takes for granted.

My next comment would/will be to ensure that the introduction (WP:LEAD) summarizes the main points of the article. Outriggr 07:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to switch the order of the paragraphs in the intro. Start with the features, before you hit the reader with statistic data. "Towering", "scenic" and "enjoyed" aren't words I'd use in the intro of an encyclopedic article. Are all of the names in the "early history" that well known, that the reader will get the significance of their explorations just from the names? Or should they get explained? All those numbers, figures and sizes in the following chapter are well researched, but IMHO presented boring. No one expands a park to get it to a certain size, please explain the reasons: Which features were included, possibly why. --h-stt !? 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC) PS: I'm biased, as I prefered Jasper ...[reply]

Jasper is more remote and has a lot less development and is altogether a wilder place for sure. Will try to reduce the promotional wording some.--MONGO 21:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automated suggestions are provided here, that you may wish to refer for some useful style guidelines. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]