Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boise National Forest/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC).

Boise National Forest

 * Nominator(s): Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a U.S. national forest in Idaho, but otherwise is fairly typical for a western national forest. I have worked on this sporadically for the past two years and finally think it's ready for FAC. I'm working on red links. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red links are all gone. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review
 * Several of the images are CC-licensed from Flickr, but should actually be PD as US government photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All should be corrected now. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber
Will copyedit as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Boise National Forest is a federally protected area that administers 2,267,000 acres (917,000 ha) of the U.S. state of Idaho. - hmm, I don't think the Area "administers" the - would you not say "covers"?


 * I'd link understory and evergreen....


 * Sacajawea’s bitterroot (Lewisia sacajaweana) is a plant species endemic to central Idaho,.... - I'd have either all plnats with scientific names or none of them....


 * sensitive species  - is this an official term? Can it be linked somewhere?

Rest of it looks tight - will take another look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I made the changes you suggested. "Sensitive species" is an official term within the Forest Service, but since there's nowhere to link to I tried to explain it at the beginning of the natural resources section. The question is since I explicitly mentioned one bird (of 13) that are listed as sensitive, should all the others be included (as well as the mammals, fish, amphibian, and plants)? Or should it be removed? I don't think this one species is any more inherently notable than any others, and there's only so much utility to listing species. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As is is good I think - examples are good in general. Not sure about listing all, but some better than none. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Overall, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from HalfGig

 * In "", "U.S. Forest Service" redirects to the fulled spelled out article name. My understanding is this should be avoided.
 * Same thing with "U.S. Department of Agriculture"
 * Same thing with "ponderosa pine"
 * Same thing with "Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness"
 * The redirect tools seems broken, so it is giving false readings. Can you go through the whole article looking for these?
 * HalfGig  talk  13:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed all these. There were quite a few of them. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Thank you. I see no other issues, so I am supporting now.   HalfGig   talk  15:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Maky
Only minor issues:
 * Is the external link at the bottom needed since it's given in the infobox at the top?
 * No, I don't think it's necessary and actually would prefer to remove it. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some image captions, such as "Lucky Peak Nursery", tell me nothing, while the one labeled "The Elk Complex Fire in 2013" shows me a picture of a fire that's not discussed in the article. I'm okay with captions like "The Arrowrock Dam in 1938", though I do feel an article comes across more professionally if the image and caption say something relevant to the article. I'm just looking at this from the perspective of a person browsing Wikipedia who's mostly enjoying the pictures and reading the captions to decide if s/he wants to read the article.
 * I will work on these. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I really like the changes. I hope it's okay with you. It's not required for FAC, but I sincerely feel that it makes the article read better. –  Maky  « talk » 06:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Are there no maps of the scenic roads? It's one thing to read about where the roads go, but another to see them laid out graphically.
 * The roads are actually faintly visible on the map on the page. I had hoped to make a map of the forest similar to but better than this one I made. I no longer have the software or files I used to make any of these maps, so maybe once I teach myself QGIS or something I'll give it another shot. There is a map in the forest's visitor guide that shows several things well, including the roads, but I don't think the map itself it right for the article. But I think that's about it. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. If you'd really like such a map, you can always make a request at Graphics Lab/Map workshop. –  Maky  « talk » 06:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Support: Since these aren't reasons to hold up promotion, I'm going to give my support for a very comprehensive article. Good job! – Maky  « talk » 22:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Note -- I didn't notice a source review above; you can request one at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dudley

 * There is a variety of units used in the lead - acres and ha for area, miles and km for rivers. For such a large area I think sq miles and km would be more useful for the area. This also applies to 'Management', where the districts are described in acres and sq km, or acres only, apparently at random.
 * I consistently use acres (ha) for area (except for the infobox apparently), feet (m) for elevation, and miles (km) for distance. The Forest Service uses acres everywhere, so I adopted that in this article and others. Another user changed what's displayed in the management section. The ranger district areas (that the Forest Service provides) aren't specific acreages (which I can't find) but estimates, so estimating square miles from this can be problematic. I think the aformentioned user eliminated the converted areas for 400,000 acres in its latter two instances because it was previously mentioned in the same sentence. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the U.S. acres are also used for area much more regularly than square miles, but maybe a conversion to km2 than hectares would be more appropriate?
 * "Most of Boise National Forest is underlain by the Idaho Batholith and includes parts of the Boise, Salmon River, and West mountain ranges," Presumably Boise rather than the batholith includes mountain ranges, but not clearly expressed.
 * Both the forest and the batholith include the mountain ranges. Clarified. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "the forest supervisor, or the top forest official, is Cecilia Seesholtz." Presentism - should say as of date.
 * Fixed. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The meaning of administered area is obvious, but what is the proclaimed area?
 * Are you looking for more than what's stated in the second to last sentence of the first paragraph of the management section? Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This says that the proclaimed area is set by Congress. Is this just a maximum and the forestry service can choose what areas it actually protects? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed some of the wording in the management section. The second paragraph actually details what you're asking. Congress sets the proclaimed area boundaries, but since numerous forests border each other individual forests manage parts of other forests outside of their own proclaimed boundaries. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "An estimated 76 percent of Boise National Forest is forest, which is considered to be land that is capable of supporting trees on at least 50 percent of its area." Is this definition correct? It would mean that vast areas which have been cleared for agriculture and are still capable of supporting trees are still forest.
 * This seems to be a Forest Service definition, which I added. Since there are not agricultural areas or any other similarly developed areas in national forests this wouldn't be a problem with this definition. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Most of these natural lakes are tarns created by alpine glaciers during the Pleistocene." I cannot see where the source supports this.
 * Will look for a source. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Two references added. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Average snowfall ranges from 55 to 70 inches (140 to 180 cm), where greater amounts occur at higher elevations." This is unclear. Average at lower latitudes and greater at higher ones?
 * Please clarify. I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Is 55-70 the average over the whole area, or just at lower elevations, or just at higher elevations? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. Clarified. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "The first people entered Idaho near the end of the last ice age at the end of the Pleistocene about 13,000 years ago. A change of climate around 7000 years ago dried up much of the Great Basin forcing the Shoshone people northward into the mountainous areas of central Idaho." This implies continuous occupation for 13,000, which is very unlikely, and the source looks to me dated and carelessly worded. It states that there has been human occupation for 12-15,000 years, but then refers to semi-nomadic people entering Idaho 13,000 years ago. This would probably have been temporary and short term (a leading text book argues that similar evidence in England at this time was the result of occupation by one group for a short period). Human occupation of Idaho is (I assume) unlikely during the Younger Dryas ice age 11-12,000 years ago.
 * I understand what you are saying and may need to look into this further. However, Idaho was largely spared in recent ice ages with continental glaciers only in extreme northern Idaho, far from Boise National Forest, along with significant alpine glaciation elsewhere. See this map as an example. The Great Basin extend into southern Idaho, so it's possible it was continuously inhabited. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This paper suggests that the Younger Dryas did not affect North America as much as Europe. However, if Idaho was like England (and it sounds similar but with much colder winters) there was probably no permanent occupation before the start of the Holocene c. 11,500 years ago, just a few transient campsites of people based further south and occasionally following prey animals north. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reworded so that there shouldn't be any confusion now. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A first rate article. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, although I still have a couple of minor quibbles.
 * "the top forest official, is Cecilia Seesholtz, who has been in that position since 2008" This is still presentism, as it will become outdated when she moves on. It should say the top official as of 2015.
 * It says "as of 2015" earlier in that sentence. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah how did I miss that. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "human habitation up to 15,000 years ago". "up to" is strictly correct as it is the excavator's view, but as the figure is widely doubted by other archaeologists I would prefer 10-15,000 years ago. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant to do exactly this but forgot. Will do. Thanks Fredlyfish4 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld
I'll give this a good look tomorrow. Initially the content seems to all be there but some of the sections look in a backwards order. History and geography and climate I believe belong further up before flora and fauna for a start, not to mention management needing to be moved nearer the bottom, probably before or ever after recreation last. Forest and the other history ought really to be merged and sub split.♦ Dr. Blofeld  23:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The original order I had the article in was in that of the other national forest FAs. There are a few sections in the the order that you put the article in that seem really out of place. I think the start of the history section should be as it originally was with "forest history" which is distinct from the human history (things that happened within or around the forest, but not necessarily of direct relevance to the history of the forest itself), which could be a subsection within history. Or alternatively the last two paragraphs could be a subsection title "U.S. Forest Service" or something similar. The management section should immediately follow history since it is more relevant to that section than the others and provides a bridge between them. From there the everything else is fine geography & geology, climate, natural resources, recreation. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, move it back then if you must. It makes very little sense having history split into different sections at opposite ends of the article. History is history. I was going to to try to work towards supporting this but I don't think I will now.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator comments

 * I see Ian mentioned it about on 1/20, but this still needs a source review and spot-check. I have requested one here. -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Review by SandyGeorgia
Oppose; the prose needs a significant amount of basic work. These are samples only, not intended to be comprehensive, but suggestive that a thorough copyedit by an independent editor is needed: Sorry, but the prose needs independent eyes, and this is only based on wherever I happened to glance (not a thorough check); this prose should not have gained support at FAC, and most of what I have pointed out has been present in the article for years. But, there are problems beyond just prose: also MOS and sourcing issues.
 * "Temperatures in Boise National Forest are generally warm to hot during the summer with high temperatures often ranging from 80 to 90 F throughout the forest.
 * What does "throughout the forest" add? In fact, what does "warm to hot" add?  A simpler construct would be something like:  Temperatures in Boise National Forest are between in the summer, followed by a similar statement for the winter (to avoid having the paragraph bounce around as it does).
 * I clarified this. I understand what you are saying about "throughout the forest," but see more below. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Lower elevations can experience temperatures in excess over 100 F during the summer.
 * In excess over? And again, a simpler construct would be something like, temperatures may exceed in the summer, and then tell us something about how often that happens or how common it is.
 * Fixed this, but I don't have any specifics about how often this occurs. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the winter average temperatures are between 29 and 9 F.
 * An average is a number, not a range. What does this range depend upon-- that is, what is varying in this average?
 * Across such a large area and difference in elevation average temperature is a range. I combined this with the first comment above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Idaho’s mountain ranges can block cold Arctic air from moving into the area in the winter, but when it does, these cold air masses can stagnate in the Snake and Salmon river valleys, enabling very cold temperatures to persist.
 * There's a curly quote in Idaho's ... please review MOS:QUOTE, and this makes me wonder if a MOS review has been done. "Ranges can block air ... but when it does" ... tense doesn't match (basic grammatical issue).
 * I know about this issue but had trouble seeing them. I think I've fixed all of them now. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Summer and fall are generally dry, while intense short-duration thunderstorms often occur in late spring and early summer as moisture from the Gulf of Mexico interacts with warm temperatures and steep topography.
 * The topography comment is hanging there, unexplained.
 * Expanded upon. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Warm, moist air from the Pacific Ocean often brings rain at lower elevations in addition to snowfall throughout the forest during the winter.
 * Again, unsure what "throughout the forest" adds-- the prose is often unnecessarily convoluted and stilted.
 * In this instance I think "throughout the forest" is necessary because it distinguishes something that occurs in a specific part of the forest at a specific time (rain) from something that is applicable to the entire forest at that same time (snow). If you have a better way of explaining this please let me know. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Grand fir and western larch can be found in the northern part of the forest where there are moister conditions. Quaking aspen, a deciduous tree, can be found in stands among conifers throughout the forest at elevations above 5000 ft.
 * Repetitive: "can be found", "can be found", and "throughtout the forest" again (an audit of the entire article might be helpful).  Unnecessarily convoluted, for example, simpler:  Grand fir and western larch grow in the moister conditions of the northern part of the forest, and Quaking aspen, a decidious tree, grows above 5000 ft ...
 * Fixed this. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Understory vegetation can be sparse but include grasses,
 * Grammar again, includes ...
 * Corrected. "Vegetation" can be conceived and used a plural since "vegetations" is rarely ever used in modern English. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes peakbagger.com a reliable source? The author says he gathered the data as a child, and admits it has errors.
 * I have never found the information on Peakbagger to be incorrrect. That said, this was meant a placeholder until I got better sources, but I never realized I didn't fix this. Will do in the next day or two. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A MOS review is needed (see curly quote mention above, and WP:MOSNUM, sample ... "has seven chairlifts and 53 runs"
 * For this seven should be 7 if the terms are directly directly comparable, which I don't necessarily think they are. But I've changed it (and other similar instances) anyway. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why does this statement need five sources? The Ponderosa Pine Byway passes over Arrowrock Reservoir and through Idaho City and Lowman, where it connects with the Wildlife Canyon Byway. North and east of Lowman the byway partially follows the South Fork of the Payette River before ascending to the 7037 ft Banner Creek Summit at the forest's boundary with Salmon-Challis National Forest.
 * The first two sources are applicable to, and necessary for, the paragraph as a whole. Of the last three, the USGS map is needed to verify the Boise NF's border with Salmon-Challis NF is at Banner Summit and one of the other two is needed for the elevation of Banner Summit. Thus, I have eliminated the NGS reference since the elevation is covered by the Idaho Transportation Department reference. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Missing puncutation: The forest's Trinity Mountain Recreation Area includes the highest drivable (4-wheel drive recommended) road in Idaho, which ascends to the Trinity Mountain Lookout at an elevation of over 9400 ft One of the forest's ..
 * Fixed. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest withdrawal, since at almost two months in, it is apparent that previous supporters of this FAC did not engage WP:WIAFA. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your review, but I don't think withdrawal is necessary. I would encourage you comment further on the article. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response and that you addressed these items (which I haven't checked), but I do not intend to review further. My list was of samples only, and a full audit of sourcing and an independent copyedit is needed.  I would be pleased to see a restart of this FAC, so that editors who previously supported can explain why.  This FAC has sat here for a very long time and with the deficiencies I identified, should not have gained support.  I wish you the best of luck here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.