Talk:Wolves and moose on Isle Royale

Verbatim from elsewhere? Need clarification on copyright
I get the feeling that this article is verbatim of an academic article of some sort. A Google search (normal, books, and scholar) didn't turn up anything. If you are the author of the work that this article draws upon, please respond here and let us know whether or not we have permission to use this text on Wikipedia. Thanks! -- Dachannien TalkContrib 05:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The author clarified the copyright status of this article. It is an original report done for a school assignment and is otherwise unpublished.  However, it contains no original research, and it cites all of its sources.  I am satisfied that there is no outstanding copyright issue here.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 10:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The current version of the article most certainly doesn't cite all its sources. For example, the claim in the introduction that the predator-prey relationship is unique. 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Expansion
This article should I think include some details on the scientific study. Dates the research covers, names, the fact that the scientists are the only humans to overwinter in the park, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Visitor numbers vs other National Parks
The article used to say,


 * The remoteness of Isle Royale leads to it having fewer visitors in one year than Yellowstone National Park has in just one day.

However, the source for this is not authoritative. According to NPS figures, Yellowstone received 3,066,580 visitors in 2008, which is an average of 8,378 per day (it was a leap year); Isle Royale received 14,038. Now, since the Yellowstone visitors will have been concentrated in the summer, rather than spread evenly through the year, I don't doubt that there was a day in 2008 on which 14,039 or more people visited Yellowstone. But, without a source that actually says that (or something from which that fact can be derived), we shouldn't be making the claim in the article. However, since Great Smoky Mountains National Park received an average of more than 24,000 visitors per day in 2008 (the only one with more than 13,000), I've altered the claim to that. Dricherby (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Old gray guy
Wonder if we could incorporate this news story or more preferably the academic papers behind it. 64.134.168.97 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The study group also puts out an annual report (pretty accessible) with a lot of detail on the wolf-moose situation. While a lot of it is too detailed for us, I think they are good stuff and one could even use the data from the few years of them to make some graphs versus time and the like. We do cite one of them, but from 2006. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.168.97 (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll start with something derived from that article that you linked. Feel free to join in, modify, build from there etc.  North8000 (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did it. Free free to modify, build etc. . North8000 (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I undid recent move
This was recently moved with zero discussion. I undid the move. The current title is the topic which has wp:notability in the sources, and which is the content of the article. If anyone is contemplating a move, please discuss here first. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, except that the "Other species" section is out of place in an article about wolves and moose. This article is about ecology of the island, and I changed the name to reflect that.  I didn't anticipate controversy on this, and there is no requirement for public comment on page moves.--Asher196 (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I propose the article name be changed to Ecology of Isle Royale.--Asher196 (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, this being a sparsely visited article, and there being no rush, lets give this a good amount of time for comments. If the consensus is to move, them I'm cool with that. North8000 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that it would best not to move this article. Within the field of northern ecological topics, the topic of the wolves and moose on Isle Royale is immensely notable. For I'm guessing 30 years (when wolves in the 48 states existed only there and nearby NE Minnesota) this was the perhaps most prominent wolf topic in the US, and with a famous (Mech) book specifically by that topic. When one visits the island (as I have several times) the wolves and moose are a centerpiece of all of the National Park interpretative materials. Without this notability, the ecology is just that of another great lakes island, where often even the overall island does not have an article, much less a sub-article on the ecology of the island. Answering the one point raised,  the "other species" material in the article is, in the article, all tied to the topic. Again, if there is a consensus to move I'd be cool with that, as long as the decision arises from such a process. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Structural and sparseness problems
The lead is supposed to summarize the contents of the article. The article has several topics which are covered only in the lead and only sparsely. The sparce-ness led to some tagging, and rightly so. I'm planning to work on that. I think that the first step will be to build sections in the body of the article in the subject areas. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)