Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bryce Canyon National Park

Bryce Canyon National Park (16 Jun)
Self nom. OK, what else needs to be done? If it's good enough for featured already, then so be it. :) --mav 08:03, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * The article has good pictures, enough references and comprehensive information. But I have just a minor reservation: since much of the article gives measurement in both the U.S. and metric systems&mdash;"50 miles (80 km)"&mdash;the format should be applied throughout. The lead and "Creation of the park" sections, as far as I can see, are the only ones that do not give metric equivalents in parantheses. -- Emsworth 10:43, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --mav
 * I withdraw the objection, and support the article. -- Emsworth 18:24, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yummmm. Bryce Canyon. Definitely a topic and photos worthy of a featured article. It needs some copyediting (e.g., in the Geology section, perhaps other places). Also, I heard that it wasn't a "dandy" place to use a cow, but a "helluva" place to lose a cow . I think you may want to redo some of the Geology section, which contains lots of material about the region outside the park, but not much about the park itself. For example, you may want to mention that the Claron formation is Paleocene. Saying more about the Claron lake would be interesting, and about the erosive processes to make hoodoos. From my memory (and double checking with Halka Chronic), there isn't any Dakota Sandstone or Tropic Shale in the park -- it is all lower down and to the east in the Paria Amphitheatre and over at Kodachrome Basin. I would drop those. Also, the Laramide orogeny doesn't have much to do with the park proper.
 * Your photos are nice. It looks like you went on a overcast day, and took the photos mid-day. Notice that the NPS photo is much redder --- photographers tend to take photos near dawn, to bring out the contrast and the redness of the rock. Would you consider substituting more NPS photos for the article, if they are more dramatic? Don't know if more are available. (No offense intended: your photos are fine, just trying to maximize the goodness of the article).
 * Overall, looks good -- just a little tweaking will make this a great article. -- hike395 04:47, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, a couple of more things I noticed: I think the horseback riding photo is kind of generic and just takes up space. I also don't belive that the park has the darkest sky in North America --- the arctic wastes of Canada are probably extremely dark. -- hike395 05:04, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I amde some medium edits and it is now polished. Great article. Neutrality 05:03, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the feedback. :) I'll work on those points. However, I strongly feel that the geology section should have a more regional focus. Let me explain: While some formations you mention are not found in the park, they are found nearby and we know that they did at one time overlay the area of the park - the fact that they eroded away should at the very least be mentioned. Also, a the intro to Hoodoos and the Claron lake system is at Geology of the Bryce Canyon area, but a few more sentences at the park article wouldn't hurt. I can increase the contrast and redness of my photos and add other NPS ones (I lost about half my Bryce Canyon photos due to a bad memory stick). The dark sky bit was direct from the NPS, but I agree it does sound a bit odd and should be researched more and qualified as needed. --mav 05:31, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * OK - pretty much all your points addressed except for the regional focus. --mav 10:12, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Support: informative and well-illustrated. A minor comment is that the first part of the article seems a little crowded, layout-wise, with two photo thumbnails, an infobox and a table of contents competing for space. Not sure how this could be improved, though. &mdash; Matt 23:04, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Support. Great article. Very informative. -- Decumanus 13:24, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)