Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/John Day Fossil Beds National Monument/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

John Day Fossil Beds National Monument

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take it to FAC. Petrified Forest National Park, a featured article that I nominated about a year ago, was my main model. It's a Triassic park, whereas John Day Fossil Beds National Monument is a Cenozoic park. Any suggestions about how to improve the article will be appreciated.

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Very informative, beautifully illustrated. A few issues and suggestions:-

Lead
  • Possible ovedetailing in lead? The two sentences beginning "The park's headquarters..." and "Scientific work in the fossil beds..." come to mind as perhaps unnecessaryin a broad summary lead.
  • Capitalisation of Elk, Raccoons, Coyotes? Is this satndard?
I'm glad you asked because this question arises again and again, and I have tended to duck it. The Wikipedia guidelines for capitalization of names of plants and animals contain some variables. I rely mainly on the guidelines found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Animals, plants, and other organisms. The guidelines urge consistency within an article but list three acceptable kinds of consistency, only two of which might apply to this article. They recommend either (1) "title case for common names of species throughout, and lower case for common names of groups of species as in (the Golden Eagle is a relatively large eagle; see WP:BIRDS);" or (2) "lower-case initial letters for common names, which may work well for non-specialist articles that happen to refer to different taxonomic groups." In addition, the guidelines say "For particular groups of organisms, there are particular rules of capitalization based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms; for example, official common names of birds." What I've done in past articles is to follow guideline (2) plus the bird guideline because my articles are what I would generally call "non-technical", though some of the sections like the geology section in this article might fairly be called "technical". In this article, for no good reason except my usual uneasy feeling about which guidelines to follow, I followed guideline (1) plus the bird guideline, which makes the capitalization like that of Fauna of Scotland. This might be a mistake, since it makes lots of capitals stand out on the page, which I'm not sure is a good idea. I would be happy to follow either guideline, but I'm hoping to be nudged one way or the other. The answer to your specific question is "yes", but "elk, raccoon, coyote" are also standard. Is there any consensus about which is better in this particular article? I have no strong opinion one way or the other. Finetooth (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference, as an anti-capitalist (in a manner of speaking), is to minimise the use of caps, so my natural instincts would be for guideline 2. Even so, I think there will always be cases where caps are conventionally used - "Great White" rather than "great white" for sharks, for example, but I think these are few and far between. Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I minimized them, making the usual exception for birds. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geography
  • "The Painted Hills Unit, which lies about halfway between the other two units..." You could lose "units" to avoid repetition
History
  • I would add the word "tribes" after "groups such as the Warm Springs, Umatilla and Wasco..." Also, no details are given as to when these people inhabited the area. It seems quite a jump forward whenwe learn later in the paragraph that Northern Paiutes had moved into the region in the 18th century.
R: Agreed. I need to review my sources and see if I can answer the "when" question and make the sequence of events a bit more complete. I'll post another note when I've done that. Finetooth (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I revised this paragraph to include slightly more specific dates for the tribes for whom historic records exist. I deleted the sentence about the first 10,000 years because it did not seem to have anything to do with the fossil beds. None of the National Park Service material says anything about Clovis points or anything else really old in or near the monument. The rock art, which is not so old, is the oldest evidence of local human activity that is mentioned. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you "ascend" a river? I no you go upriver, but somehow "ascend" reads oddly
  • Perhaps a word or two of explanation as to why Oregon became a magnet for settlers? (maybe just rearrange the information at the start of the paragraph?)
R: Good suggestion. I'll add something either to the main text or to a footnote. I'll post a further note when I've done that. Finetooth (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Duly added to the main text. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Remote and arid, the John Day basin near the fossil beds slowly attracted homesteaders". It seems to me that the sentence needs an "Although..." at the beginning, or perhaps "was slow to attract homesteaders" if that is the intended sense.
Geology and paleontology
  • Maybe I am slow but, regrettably, I am unable to interpret the diagram. I am not even sure what information it is conveying. Also, I had to struggle a bit to understand the prose in this section - I found myself wondering what words like "uplifting" and "member" mean in this context.
R: Not your fault. I need to give this some careful thought and see if I can make the section clearer via a combination of links and a better caption for the diagram. I'll post another note here when I've done that. Finetooth (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made quite a few changes to this section in the hopes of making it more clear. I expanded the caption to better explain how the chart is to be interpreted, and I changed the word "Formation" to "Strata" in the main text to match "Strata" in the chart. I eliminated some terms like "member" that were not necessary, and I linked and briefly explained "uplift", and I linked a few other terms. Fixing this was harder than repairing the history bits, so I'd like to know if it is now OK or if it's still murky. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Flora
  • A very minor prose style point: adverbial beginnings to sentences are in my view best avoided. Thus: "Commonly seen at the Clarno and Sheep Rock units are..." better as "...are commonly seen at the..." etc
  • Is there a possible link to explain "riparian vegetation"?
Another one this far down in the article seems fine to me, so I added it. Finetooth (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fauna
  • If possible, avoid "commonly seen" in the first sentence (to avoid repetiton). "Frequently seen"?
  • The list of birds in the first paragraph is a bit overwhelming! Maybe shorten it a little? I also wonder what he convention is on capitals?
Yes, I got a bit carried away. I've shortened the list by nine. The capital convention is governed by the bird rule, which says to use title case for common bird names. They would stay as they are whether I used general guideline (1) or general guideline (2) above. On the other hand, if I switch to general guideline (2), non-birds like Common Side-blotched Lizard would become "common side-blotched lizard" unless (oh, dear) the name includes a word that by itself requires a capital letter, as in "Pacific tree frog." Finetooth (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "extirpated"; not the commonest of words. Perhaps "wiped out".
  • "reintroduced" is not a hyphenated word
  • "Commonly seen are..." again
  • Link seeps
Activities
  • "Except for the Cant Ranch, individual park buildings are open every day except Federal holidays between Thanksgiving (the fourth Thursday of November) and Presidents Day (the third Monday of February)." Some lack of clarity here. One way of reading this that the park buildings are closed except between Thanksgiving and President's Day. I assume this is not what is intended? Perhaps a comma after "open every day" would clarify.
References
  • Refs 46 and 51 lack publisher information. Check for others
  • I notice that the external link checking tool indicates that a large number of your online links are not working. I had no trouble with these, so I suspect the tool is misbehaving, though I thought I'd mention it.

That's all. Nice work. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the thorough review. Reading your suggestions quickly, I find myself in agreement with most. I'll work on making changes over the next few days and, following your example, I'll comment only on the suggestions that I don't immediately adopt. Finetooth (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All done except for the four that I comment on above. I plan to improve three (marked with R) more rough patches, based on your recommendations, but they will take a little more time. The fourth is the capitalization question, on which I waffle and seek guidance, as explained above. Finetooth (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More difficult bits now done too. Better, I hope. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree this is very well done and beautifully illustrated. As requested I have taken a look at the article and feel that it seems pretty much ready for FAC. Thanks for your work on it, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

  • Since all the fossil animals listed are mammals (I think), would it make sense to say something about that in the lead? WHen I see something more recent than 65 million years ago I know there are no dinosaurs, but I am not sure most readers have that number etched in their brains.
  • One dot on the locator map, but three sub-units.... I do not know if this would be useful or not, but I have added extra dots to maps for places with multiple locations - see the Exelon Pavilions map in its infobox.
  • Would it be better just to say "Midwest" (but keep the link)? Leaving drought, worn-out farms, and economic problems behind, they emigrated from states like Missouri, Illinois, and Iowa in the Midwestern United States to Oregon, especially the Willamette Valley in the western part of the state.[19]
  • What kind of mines? Settlement was made more practical by a supply route from The Dalles on the Columbia River to mines at Canyon City in the upper John Day valley.[20]
  • Is "to the Internet" needed in Both transmit continuous real-time images to the Internet; one shows the paleontology lab... (where else do webcams transmit?)
  • File:Joda geologic timeline.png seems a bit wide on my monitor - would it still be legible as "upright" (now just thumb size)?
  • I do not normally think of shale etc as flowing - assume it was as bits and pieces within the lahars? The flows of shale, siltstones, conglomerates, and breccias entombed plants and animals caught in their paths;...
  • Should the caption be Indian Paintbrush or Applegate's Indian Paintbrush?
  • This sentnece took me a while to figure out - not sure how to make it clearer Individual park buildings are closed on Federal holidays between Thanksgiving (the fourth Thursday of November) and Presidents Day (the third Monday of February).
    • I wonder if changing the order would help - if I understand correctly, the park land itself is always open (in daylight hours) and only the buildings are closed a few days each winter. So maybe if the order of the sentences were switched so that when the buildings are usually open came first that would help. Perhaps something like this
Hours of operation for the Cant Ranch vary seasonally.[64] The ranch house contains a cultural museum, restrooms, and a drinking fountain as well as park staff headquarters.[13] Other park buildings are open every day from March to October. They are closed on Federal holidays between Thanksgiving (the fourth Thursday of November) and Presidents Day (the third Monday of February). Operating hours for the main visitor center (Thomas Condon Paleontology Center) are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Its amenities include a fossil museum, theater, education classroom, bookstore, restrooms, and drinking fountains.[13]
Much better, thank you. I have adopted your wording. Finetooth (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your helpful comments. I'll use them to improve the article later this week. Finetooth (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've followed all of your recommendations except one. I'm not sure how to add two more dots or how to get them in exactly the right place. How did you do the extra ones for Exelon Pavilion? I could use blue for the Painted Hills Unit and green for the Clarno Unit and explain that in the map caption. Perhaps adding them by hand using Paint.NET would work. I could approximate the locations, I guess, and make something roundish pixel by pixel. That seems clumsy, though. Any tips? Finetooth (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see where the dots in the Exelon Pavilion caption came from: File:Red pog.svg and its cousins. Finetooth (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I recall I had to play around with them a bit to get them to be the correct apparent size. I think I added them to an article in different sizes in preview mode and just did screen captures to see which looked the right size. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the File:Red pog.svg and its blue cousin to the Exelon Pavilion map page as sources - thanks (and sorry). Please also let me know when this is at FAC, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll play around with the dots and see what I can do. I just didn't want to reinvent the wheel (or dot) if you knew of a quick fix. I'll be sure to let you know when this goes to FAC. I'm going to let it reside at PR for a while yet. Wehwalt or others may yet weigh in. Finetooth (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I might try a dot that is 10 or 11 pixels wide to start. I also realized it might help to say which unit is in which county. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found coordinates from Google Earth for each pavilion and then put those into the map finders here on Wikipedia (again probably with a coordinate template in preview mode). Once I had a good idea of where the dots should go, I added them. For this map I would look at features on county and state borders (vertically it lines up with this bump and horizontally is about 2/3 of the way above the southern edge of this county - that sort of thing). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent tips. I did not think of using the map finders in that way, and I had no clear notion of what pixel width to start with. Finetooth (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Fairly easy after reading your tips. I tried 10 and 11 pixels and then settled on 12 pixels. The blue dot looks smaller than the other two to me, but they are all 12 pixels. I also added a couple of sentences to the Geography text explaining which county or counties the units are in. The dots are a very useful thing to master. Thanks again. Finetooth (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, though I see what you mean about the blue dot appearing smaller. I suppose you could try making it 13 pixels and seeing how that looks (if you want). Could also add actual dots to the caption, so something like the following, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Location of the units of the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument in Oregon:   Sheep Rock;   Painted Hills;   Clarno. Inset: Oregon in the United States
I regret how slow I am doing it, and proffer the excuse that I am presently traveling and have had a touch of being under the weather. Expect the second half tomorrow, here is the first:
  • Lede
Somewhere in the lede should be mentioned that it is administered by the National Park Service.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the date of establishment be better at the end of the third paragraph?
Done. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"roam the units" Very poetic, but in actuality many of them have holes, like birds of the air have nests. Suggest rephrase that does not imply a migratory wont.
Not all of the critters stay in one place or necessarily have a home base within the park boundaries. I substituted "frequent" for "roam". Is that any better? Finetooth (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geography
"some of which are separated from one another by farms and ranches and other parcels of land that are not part of the park.[12] Too many ands. You might do well to split this sentence.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph with the distances seems difficult to read. Can you improve the prose? Or put this in a chart or something?
Unnecessary detail might be the problem here. I removed several of the distances in the hopes of making the prose less sleep-inducing. Finetooth (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • History
", Condon accompanied soldiers traveling through the region, where he discovered rich fossil beds" This is rather awkward, suggest "where" be omitted and a new sentence started after that.
Done. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was it only Condon's subsequent trips that caused interest? What about the ones in 1865?
You are quite right. I removed the word "subsequent". Finetooth (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " first State Geologist " Almost certainly lower case, but you may wish to check MOS.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was known when the John Day Fossil Beds were first called that. I would include that.
Agreed and done. I added a note saying that Othniel C. Marsh named the beds in 1875. Finetooth (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the Officers" Because of the unusual name, which is only mentioned once previously, I would say "from the Officer family" if the source will justify this.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "encouraged by Merriam," Merriam has been mentioned once, as part of a list. Can you say something brief about him here to explain his interest?
Yes. I've altered the first sentence of the paragraph to read, "Merriam, a University of California paleontologist who had led expeditions to the region in 1899 and 1900, encouraged the State of Oregon to protect the area." Finetooth (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. He wanted to protect the area. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After much planning and political debate, the national monument was established on October 8, 1975." National monuments just don't happen. One or two ways: either Act of Congress or the President exercising his authority under the Antiquities Act. You have to say which for this article to be comprehensive.
Quite right. It was an Act of Congress, but the authorization and the establishment did not occur at the same time. I added two explanatory sentences: "In 1974 Congress authorized the National Park Service to establish the national monument, and President Gerald R. Ford signed the authorization into law. After the State of Oregon had completed the land transfer of the three state parks to the Federal government, the monument was officially established on October 8, 1975." Finetooth (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would make the house itself, rather than the district it is enclosed in, the subject of the penultimate paragraph. That way, you avoid a little lurch when you switch from talking about the district to the house.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your suggestions. They look helpful, and I'll consider each one carefully in the coming days and post individual replies here. I, too, am busy with other things, and there's no reason to hurry. I hope you regain your full health soon and that your trip goes well. I look forward to any other suggestions you might make. Finetooth (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found myself in agreement with all of your suggestions above, and I've made alterations accordingly. Any other suggestions will certainly be welcome. Finetooth (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are the rest of my comments. I'll look back in in a day or so to see if there are any points that require discussion (I gather there are none above).

  • Geology
" had thus shifted to the west." I'd strike the thus. I'm not quite sure it is justified, and it doesn't sound right somehow.
I agree. Removed. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Preserved in places like " I'd strike "in places like".
Yes, seems unnecessary. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A date for the Rattlesnake Strata might be interesting.
Done. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Analysis of the John Day fossils" ... This sentence seems to be needing a good lead in, like "In addition to adding to our knowledge of past life, analysis ..." Not necessarily that exactly, just the general idea.
Changed to "In addition..." to improve the flow from one sentence to the next. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"within the monument." Isn't this implied by the "at the park" earlier? Suggest this be stricken, perhaps say "at the monument" earlier in the sentence. Whatever you think best.
Good point. I have reduced the instances to one, "within the monument". Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" for retrieval by researchers worldwide" I find this odd. How are they retrieved worldwide? Are images of them retrieved? If you mean they can apply to have them sent to them, perhaps that can be clarified.
None of my sources suggest that the fossils are sent to individuals, though I agree that the sentence seems to imply this. I changed the end of the sentence to say: "... stored in climate-controlled cabinets, and made available for research."
  • Climate
I do not quarrel with the technical accuracy of the first sentence but for the lay reader, can it be mentioned that this is an annual figure?
Done. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"At Mitchell" This jars somehow, it feels like you are setting up a comparison. Perhaps a gentler way to begin is something like "The National Weather Service maintains a station at Mitchell, near ...
It's meant to make clear that the numbers are specific to Mitchell rather than to the whole monument. I leave it to the reader to infer that the weather elsewhere in the monument is probably similar to the weather in Mitchell, but my source doesn't say that it is. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thought of a way to soften a bit, though. Better? Finetooth (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biology
"In other parts of the park," From what? From bare slopes? If so, there's a scalar problem with this comparison, you seem to be comparing a micro phenomenon (bare slopes) with a macro (other parts of the park). Some rephrasing seems in order.
Rephrased to maintain the same scale, surface to surface. Finetooth (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Important to many of these communities" This sentence took me a bit of time to puzzle out. I would suggest putting the black crust before the list of its constituents.
Done. I split the sentence in two and put the crust before the components. Finetooth (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Junipers are an invasive species? Perhaps a certain species of juniper? I thought junipers were indigenous continent wide.
You are right. This one is the evil Western juniper, Juniperus occidentalis. Added the common name and the link. Finetooth (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps throw the reader an word such as "drier" (or whatever it is) to explain why there are different wildflowers at the different areas.
The sources that I've consulted don't say exactly why the flowers differ from unit to unit. I would say that soil types, terrain (pitch, for example), and availability of water are important factors, and there may be other factors. I think readers will infer something like this from the first paragraph of this section, especially the first sentence: "More than 80 soil types support a wide variety of flora within the monument." Finetooth (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"were reintroduced to " Would this be "were reintroduced in"?
Yes. "In" is more accurate, and I've made the change. Finetooth (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I understand it's part of the name, there's entirely too much use of the word lizard in the third paragraph of Fauna. Can sentences mention the varieties of lizard, listing by pipes to the partial name without the word lizard?
Done. Finetooth (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Rattlesnakes, though poisonous, are shy and usually flee before being seen. Lizards feed on insects, and snakes help keep rodent populations in check by eating them" A fine natural history lesson, but I wonder if it should be included in this article. You are the editor, I merely point out my concern.
Removed the sentence with the unnecessary details. Finetooth (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" Chinook salmon and steelhead pass through the monument each year on their way to and from upstream spawning beds and the Pacific Ocean. " This sentence could be read to say that individual fish make a round trip in the same year, which is not the case. Perhaps break it up with the young fish and old fish.
Rather than adding more details, I deleted "each year". Finetooth (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Activities
"can be had from rangers at the monument." Odd phrasing, perhaps "can be obtained from rangers at the monument". But couldn't interested people just call? As land line service to the monument was not among the types of phone service excluded earlier in the article, I would guess the NPS facilities there have phone service.
I changed this to say: "Specific times, which are variable, are available from rangers at the monument; the visitor information telephone number is (541) 987-2333." Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Revised again to "Specific times for the activities are available from rangers at the monument; the visitor information telephone number is (541) 987-2333. Finetooth (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Nice article, should do well. One thing: While the conventional map showing the location in Oregon in the infobox is fine, consider adding the map from the NPS brochure I gather you have, showing the three units in relation to each other, as it will show relative size and also road connections, etc. Well down in the article, I would find a place.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I was map-making, I thought a lot about adding the conventional map and decided against. The article already has four maps, and a fifth would be largely redundant. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on the rest of your suggestions ASAP, but I have another commitment that I must attend to. I may not get to all of them until much later in the week. Finetooth (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's the lot, I think. In almost all cases, I took your advice. The fifth map is an exception, but if other editors think it's needed, I can always add it. Finetooth (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/John_Day_Fossil_Beds_National_Monument/archive1&oldid=1142590075"