Talk:Sawtooth National Forest/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 23:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw this sitting with another reviewer for the longest time...it's too bad that this has taken so long to be reviewed. I'll take over the review, and should have initial comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Forest history, "processed daily with 99.% being deposited". Is there supposed to be a number after 99? If not, the period can be removed.
 * ✅ Checked source and changed to 99.5%.
 * Forest history, "The Forest Service proclaimed that due to the General Mining Act of 1872 they would be unable to protect the White Clouds from mining by anyone who has located a lode or placer." I don't understand this sentence...were they saying they couldn't do anything about it? ✅
 * Forest history, "This legislation included the White Cloud..." This sentence is quite long and gets a bit confusing towards the end. Perhaps split it up into two, and make sure that all of the punctuation is in the proper place? ✅
 * Management, first paragraph. I would think that using "|disp=comma" or "|disp=or" in the convert templates would be beneficial to readability. These separate the two values with a comma or the word "or", respectively, and would cut down on the nested parentheses currently in place. ✅
 * Wilderness, "Additional large areas of the forest are a part of proposed..." This paragraph needs to be restructured, as it currently switches back and forth between singular and plural. ✅
 * Wilderness, "the use of motorized equipment, including bicycles." The majority of bicycles are not motorized. Therefore, this might read better as "the use of motorized equipment and bicycles." ✅
 * Fauna, "Hunting and fishing are permitted throughout the forest, provided required permits are obtained and applicable regulations are followed." This was stated just a few paragraphs prior, and can probably be removed.
 * ✅ See comment on Recreation below.
 * Fauna, "Black-billed magpies are common..." Repetition of common/commonly within this sentence... ✅
 * Fire ecology - In most of the article, you have a conversion of acres to ha. Here you have acres to sq km. Why the difference?
 * ✅ Checked all areas in article and changed to acre/ha except in infobox where it is acre/km2.
 * Fire ecology - The second paragraph is really generic stuff - this same paragraph could be copied and pasted to any national forest article in the western US and not be out of place. Is there anything specific to this forest that could be used instead - number of engines, number of smokejumper/rappelling crews, number of hotshot crews, average size of controlled burns, number of fire districts that the forest is broken into, average number of fires on the forest annually, any deadly fires, have the pine beetle kill-offs affected average fire numbers/size... The second half of the paragraph is especially concerning, as it's unsourced and is basically a hoo-rah Forest Service plug that doesn't tell the reader anything about this specific forest.
 * ✅ Added some specifics that I could find on lookouts, helitack crew, and forest plan.
 * Geography and geology, "The Sawtooth Mountains have at least 50 peaks" We don't know the exact number?
 * This is not as straightforward as it may seem. Some people only recognize distinct peaks as those with at least 300 feet of prominence or some other arbitrary measure. The exact elevation of all peaks may not be known because of the accuracy of past measurements and lack of current measurement (see Mount_Whitney). This inaccuracy mean the difference in elevation measurements for several of the peaks at Sawtooth Range (Idaho).
 * Climate, "15 inches (380 mm)" - Would this be better converted into centimeters? ✅
 * Human history, "as mining towns around the 1880s". Were they founded during the 1880s or during the 1870s and 1890s. If the latter, just "the latter part of the 19th century" might be more elegant. ✅
 * Human history, "have never been removed and were not relocated until 1996." Do you mean relocated as in moved or relocated as in found again? ✅
 * Recreation, "but visitors should check with current restrictions before riding." This is getting perilously close to visitor-guide territory. Any way it can be reworded/resourced to something like "although access to trails varies with changes to environmental conditions" or something (whatever is accurate, I'm not sure if this is why access would change). ✅
 * Recreation, "Hunting and fishing are popular recreational activities permitted throughout the forest, provided that proper permits are obtained and the applicable rules and regulations are followed." This is the third time this information appears in the article...
 * A very similar statement was mentioned in the the Fauna section, and I removed it from there. Something similar appears in the Forest history section, but this mentions that hunting would be permitted under proposed legislation that never passed in the 1960s. This did not say that hunting is currently permitted, so I left it in place.
 * Recreation, "Many of the streams and rivers are excellent for fishing, can be legally fished from, and are rarely full during even the most crowded of fishing seasons." This is rather POV, and is not supported by the subsequent ref. ✅
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Two fact tags in Management section ✅
 * I added a fact tag in the Seismology section.
 * ✅ I moved the previous refs to the end of the paragraph since they covered this.
 * Added a fact tag and hidden comment in the Recreation section. ✅
 * Two dead links, see here.
 * These links work perfectly fine.
 * However, neither of these refs (ref #91, Oregon National Historic Trail Guide, and ref #114, City of Rocks National Preserve) provide any of the information they supposedly cover in the article.
 * The info about the City of the Rocks Byway is covered by the Idaho byways page, so I moved that source to the end of the paragraph. There is some mention of it on the NPS page, but it doesn't add anything, so I removed that source. As for the Oregon and California trails, that information probably came from the book cited, but I'll have to get it from the library to go through again before FAC. For the Oregon NHT site, I meant to site the map page. So I changed the title of the reference, but not the url because the "View Park Map" link is on the side of every page within the site, and it usually opens in a new window and has a url that doesn't look as stable as the main park url.
 * Ref #71 (Blatt, Harvey) has something screwy going on with the ISBN. ✅
 * What makes ref #99 (Untraveled Road) a reliable source?
 * ✅ Removed, see below
 * What makes ref #101 (GenDisasters) a reliable source?
 * ✅ Removed. Most of this paragraph's content was covered by the third reference, so I removed what wasn't and these two references.
 * If you are planning to take this article to FAC, I would suggest double- and triple-checking reference formatting to make sure everything's solid - that they're consistently and properly formatted, that all information (access dates for web references, page numbers for books, journals and large PDFs) is present, etc. This is not a requirement for GA status.
 * I used citation templates for all references and included accessdates for everything, so these aspects should be fine, but I'll check again. Page articles for sources other than journals may be a different story that I'll have go through later.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * See comments in prose section. I think there are a few spots that go off into visitor guide or USFS promotional brochure territory, but these are easily remedied.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Again, see comments in prose section regarding POV.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:Boxeldercounty.png needs a source (i.e., where did the author get the information from?)
 * It would be really nice to have a graphic showing the various parts of the forest and how they relate to each other, as well as to the towns/counties/states/other forests around them. This isn't a requirement for GA status, but I think that it would significantly increase the educational value of the article.
 * ✅ The two above comments have been dealt with. I created a forest-wide map that replaces the Box Elder County map in the article. I may still revise the new map, but the NPS GIS database is down for some reason and the files on Idaho state GIS database seem to have something wrong with them and don't work with my software.
 * Besides the above two comments, I want to say that the images are fantastic. I wish we had such beautiful, detailed, varied, representative images for all of our national forests and parks.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

OK, finished now! There are quite a few little issues, but nothing that can't be fixed with a little TLC. I think it's fairly close to GA status. Are you planning to take it to FAC afterwards? If so, I have a few more comments, but nothing that interferes with the GA nomination. Overall, nice work, and (although I said this above, I want to say it again), I love, love, love, love the pictures. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by another editor (who thought about reviewing it, but was pipped at the post). There seems to be something wrong with the layout of the pictures, particularly the two panoramic ones. "Sawtooth Mountains from southeast of Stanley" covers a significant chunk of the Hyndman Peak image on my browser. "Redfish Lake and the Sawtooth Mountains" covers part of the Thompson Peak image, and the caption as well. It seems to be ok on widescreen monitors, but not on my normal 1024 x 768 display. (I have just tried it on a 1280 by 800 display running IE, and at least the panoramas are below the other images, but that creates vast swathes of white space.) Bob1960evens (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How strange. I'm running Firefox on a non-widescreen laptop and don't have either of those issues - all of the images are lining up nicely with no overlapping or white space. Since I can't see it, do you think you could work with the nominator to fix it? Also, if you have additional comments (since you said you were considering reviewing it), I'm sure they would be welcomed! Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to fix it. The panoramas have a fixed width of 600px, so over-lap Hyndman Peak at screen resolutions below about 1100 when using Firefox. When using Google Chrome or IE, I get the three pictures down the right hand edge, with white space to the left, then the panorama, then the table below that. That layout persists with those browsers even on a 1280px widescreen monitor, where the panorama could easily fit into the white space. Setting the panorama width to 500px solves the problem with Firefox on a 1024px monitor, but it still looks awful with IE or Chrome. I'll keep playing. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As the nominator, I have viewed the page on several versions of both Chrome and IE on several different computers, but I have never had an issue with images overlapping. Another editor apparently had this problem and seemed to correct it (for him at least) on 25 June 2012, however I didn't notice any differences in the article's display. As a last resort some photos could be removed so there isn't overlap. I have all these photos and many many more on the Commons page for the forest. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by nominator I have added comments on some of my revisions above, so let met known if there are any questions about them. I probably will take it to FAC and would appreciate any other suggestions. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made a last tweak to the article, and everything now looks good to go for GA status, so I'm passing the article. Check the notes below for some comments on further improvements towards FAC status, and let me know if you have any further questions. This is a really nice article - it will make a great template for other editors looking to improve articles on national lands. Dana boomer (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great review and suggestions! Fredlyfish4 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Map suggestions?

 * I created a new map of the forest in that I placed in the Management section. I was hoping that some others can review this image and tell me what you think of it. Should there be more towns? Rivers? Perhaps the Craters of the Moon National Preserve? There will be a large relatively blank space through the middle of the image (Snake River Plain) unless I split image in to northern and southern sections. I'm looking for suggestions, and will only be able to make do with what is available to the public. I cant go into detail without compromising clarity, so I'll refer to official maps of the forest, new versions of which are now recently available online for the first time and old pdfs that I'll upload to the common. I only have access to ARC GIS Explorer, the free GIS program, so my capabilities for enhancements are limited. GIS data sources for suggestions would be appreciated. Nominator Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, that is very, very nice. Exactly what I was asking for! If there are major rivers/roads (freeways, big highways), adding them might be nice (especially the couple discussed in the text?), but not the little tiny by-ways and streams. The National Preserve is also a good idea. I don't think the blank space is a problem (it shows the reader that this isn't a tiny divide we're talking about), but a size scale might be nice, so that it's easier to see at a glance exactly how separated the different sections are. Dana boomer (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a new version of the map with major roads, a few additional towns, Craters of the Moon, and a few more details. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool! I keep meaning to get back to this...should have final strikes, replies, comments up tomorrow. Dana boomer (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

FAC thoughts
These are just some thoughts regarding a possible FAC run. They have nothing to do with the GA criteria, so don't worry about getting them done right away:


 * Could still use more specific information in the Fire ecology section. It's better, but could be further tailored with additional information specific to this forest. I realize that this information could be hard to find, but any possible additional answers to my points above (the list of them in my initial query on this section) would go a long ways towards FACs "comprehensive" criteria.
 * There are a mix of citation and cite web/book/journal/etc templates. These two sets of templates provide slightly different format outputs, and so the article should be standardized to one or the other before FAC. Getting pages in for books, longer journal articles, etc., is also important before FAC.
 * There are a few tag ends of paragraphs without references scattered throughout the article. Although they're not contentious information, they should have refs before you go to FAC.

More thoughts as I go along... Dana boomer (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)