Talk:Lac des Neiges

Tone is a bit too promotional/puffery, possible original research
Reading this version as of a few minutes ago makes me think I'm reading a travel guide. Portions are way too promotional for Wikipedia's standards. For example, phrases like This exceptional forest ecosystem has not been seriously affected by severe natural disturbances (fires, insect epidemics and high winds); which is exceptional for such an old coniferous forest and the following sentences can be re-written to something like This old growth forest has not been seriously affected by natural disasters[citation goes here]. If there is no reliable source making that claim, then don't say it at all.

Also, avoid drawing conclusions like The forests... are unlikely to evolve... or The glacial deposits are important..., that is considered "original research" which Wikipedia does not allow, see No original research. If a reliable, independent source makes such a claim, you can put it here, but include a citation. Otherwise, leave it out. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  14:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been mostly fixed. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  22:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Pierre-Michel Laure
There is a stub article on the French Wikipedia for fr:Pierre-Michel Laure. Creating an article about him would "get the red out" of the redlink to his future article.

However, if he does not meet the notability guidelines for the ENGLISH Wikipedia, do not create the article, just de-wikilink it. Makers of notable maps are not necessarily notable. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  22:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)