Wikipedia:Featured article review/Zion National Park/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Joelr31 21:49, 7 February 2009 [1].

Zion National Park[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Mav, Tylas, Ratagonia, Vsmith, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject Utah, WikiProject Earthquakes. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily 1 (c) issues throughout. Most of the images are probably okay, but the article could use a comprehensive image review to make sure all the requisite info is on the image pages, and some images could also be moved to Commons. Was promoted to FA back in 2004. Cirt (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mav (talk · contribs) is usually good with fixing up FARs. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. For some reason I thought this had inline cites. Adding them shouldn't be a problem. --mav (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mav, would you like to ask to postpone this until the below FAR is done? I'm sure Marskell, Sandy, or Joel wouldn't mind. Or Raul for that matter. —Ceranthor 02:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other Mav FAR has been up for three weeks already, so he can probably handle both. Joelito will allow all the time needed: Mav has never let a FAR fail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like Mav is quite capable with these, I don't mind if it takes some time. Cirt (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First ref pass done. More later. --mav (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work so far. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second ref pass done. Getting closer. --mav (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third and final ref pass complete. Final copyedit and MOS pass still needed. --mav (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mav, will take care of the copyedit yourself? This article might not require FARC. Joelito (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I plan to work more on this article this weekend. --mav (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Copyedit, image and MOS fixes now complete (I hope). I think we are done now. --mav (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does everyone feel about this one? Is FARC needed? Joelito (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think FARC is necessary at this point, although I would prefer if some of the bullet point lists within the article were incorporated into the prose. Aside from that, the article is very close to, if not at, the current FA standards. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article looks much, much better. However, there are still a few uncited sentences in spots - I added {{fact}} tags to these to denote where some work still needs to be done. Cirt (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed a couple {{facts}} from uncontroversial info that don't require a source and are purely descriptive. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [2] and [3]. Please restore these two {{fact}} tags. This information at present is uncited - so who is making these assertions? Wikipedians? Cirt (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, actually. That information can be obtained by anyone at anytime. Furthermore, WP:CITE states that information that is likely to be challenged needs a citation, and saying a road closes in the winter is sufficiently uncontroversial. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But again, that's purely description information that anyone can obtain. However, I'll add it back in, as it's not really a big deal. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm out of town right now but will fix the last issues when I get back on Sunday. --mav (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the fact tags either removed b/c a cite was added, its sentence was deleted or b/c it was not needed. A few examples on where fact tags are not needed are listed below:
    Stream gradient sentence b/c previous cited sentence mentions uplift. One follows from the other.
    Services along Route 9 & in Mt. Carmel Junction b/c anybody using an online mapping service can confirm that. No need to provide cites to a sampling of commercial websites of these services.
    Hanging valley ; any detailed map of the area can confirm that and the example cited is not controversial or likely to be challenged.
    Anything else? --mav (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that sounds great. Excellent work. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave this a copyedit. A few remaining issues:
  • I left a couple hidden comments/questions.
  • I dislike the presentation of the 'Notable geographical features' section. The first item doesn't really belong in the bulleted list because it's not a named feature but rather a map (and an external link, at that); perhaps it would be better presented in an explanatory lead-in sentence. For the other list items, where a wiki article exists, wouldn't it be sufficient to link that article, rather than that article plus multiple images?
  • Do all the subsections of 'Historic period' actually belong there, or should some be moved up one level to 'Human history'?
Looking good otherwise. I really like the images in this one. Maralia (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the copyedit! 'Notable geographical features' subsection turned into a paragraph and no more than one (image) link is behind each named feature now. Subsections under historic period promoted to level 2 headings. I think I addressed all of your hidden comments - please take a look. --mav (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and prose. Joelito (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold Thanks for the kind words but I want to address Maralia's concerns before we close this FAR as a Keep. NOTE: I often don't have the energy after work to edit so it normally takes until the next weekend for me to address comments. --mav (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments addressed. I vote Keep now. If any other valid issues exist, I will address them. -- mav (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel that all prose and citation issues have been addressed. Maralia (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reference 8 is a broken link. Joelito (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed by removing it. I have no idea of who added that but the cite was not needed. I suspect linkspam trying to pass as a cite. --mav (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dabs need fixing. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neat tool - dabs now fixed. --mav (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good job Mav. Will add this to my to-visit list. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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_review/Zion_National_Park/archive1&oldid=1210510894"