Talk:Valley Forge National Historical Park

Chapel Section
Let's discuss here... I don't know who owns the train stations (there's another near Betzwood).

Actually the Chapel is more than a spiritual destination. The bottom of the Carillon tower houses a list of (all?) the patriots from the American Revolution. I'm thinking a park visitor perspective is needed on what needs to be mentioned in the Park article, i.e. someone with an interest in the Revolutionary war period. And the interaction of the park trail and the Chapel walkway would have equal ties to both articles. I'm inclined to add back exactly what I had about the carillon and trail/walkway. I was planning on adding the scrolls, after a bit of research, but the text had magically disappeared. --J Clear 03:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The scrolls stuff went to the chapel article (I think). I'll leave the section to you ... but I think it should be no more than a long paragraph - all the best features should be in the article. --evrik 03:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the work done on the chapel section, can you help strengthen that article? --evrik 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Photos
This is a source for good photos and information: If possible, we should upload more of the photos to Commons:Category:Valley Forge, like what was done with Image:Washington Memorial Chapel.jpg. --evrik 15:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC) --evrik 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.nps.gov/archive/vafo/structures/
 * http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/S?ammem/hh:@FIELD(SUBJ+@od1(++valley+forge))

Resource
Here's an excellent resource on the park: -- VALLEY FORGE:Making and Remaking a National Symbol http://www.nps.gov/archive/vafo/treese/treeset.htm Alphageekpa 23:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, which is why we used it already (see the footnotes). Seriosuly though, it has a lot of good historical information we haven't begun to use. --evrik 23:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Use carefully as it is not PD, NPS is using it with permission. --J Clear 00:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents of park
It is worthwhile having all these mini-subsections on the contents of the park (Visitor Center, et al)? They're all very short and it may be difficult to significantly expand all of them (if it's necessary; the important ones have their own main articles). Perhaps a more narrative description lumping it all together would be better. Or would it? Thoughts? --Midnightdreary 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We did it this way to encourage people to expand each section. --evrik (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting wait.svg|17px]] These numerous maintenance tags detract from the article's readability and have been there far too long, without any significant expansion. Better to have this on the Talk page as a link here.  JGHowes   talk  22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Size?
Greetings and felicitations. The infobox states that the area is "3,466 acres", while the second paragraph of the introductory section states "3,500 acres"; neither is sourced. Which is it? —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)