Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve

Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve
Self nom. I wrote almost all of this and took many of the photos. --mav 04:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * well done! lovely photos. support--Deglr6328 05:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. A good article both for readers and actual visitors. The only tiny complain I could have is that it is not connected to Wikitravel. Not that it should stop us from making it featured, but it would enhance it overall usefullnes, don't you think so? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you. :) Unfortunetely there isn't a Wikitravel article on Craters of the Moon yet, so I can't link it. Once one is created I'm sure somebody will add a link. --mav 17:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Good article over-all. I would like to see a bit more detail on the geology section: dates of those eight eruption events, detail on the chemistry of the eruptions, and maybe a tie in to the Columbia River Plateau basalt fields to the west. Maybe I'll put that on my to do list :-). It is good as it is. Vsmith 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Sadly the two sources I had did not go much into the geology and there isn't much on the Internet about that either. I'll see if I can buy a book on the subject. --mav 22:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Book bought, but it will be at least 4 days for it to arrive. Hopefully there is enough info for me to create a full article on the geology as well. --mav 07:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sadly the info you want was not in my new source, but I was still able to double the size of the geology section. --mav 02:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Opps! I missed a large public domain source for this at http://www.nps.gov/crmo/geology/geology.htm . But it will take some time to adapt that into an encyclopedia article on the monument's geology. --mav 04:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Good article. Support. Neutralitytalk 07:06, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Interestingly written and informative text which is logically ordered so that one can know as little or as much as they need.  Quite useful as an enclopedia reference. :)--Sketchee 14:36, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, wow, nice work. But for some of the external links it is noted they were used as references.  Then just format those properly as in Cite sources and put them in the references section too. - Taxman 19:33, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. :) I didn't use the BLM site for much info at all and there is already an NPS ref entry, so I just removed the ref note from the external links section. --mav 23:52, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm impressed by (and grateful for!) your hard work, including the pictures you've been kind enough to share.  Nicely done. Beginning 01:58, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Objection, but should be an easy fix. [and was, too; nicely done. --Michael Snow 04:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)] History section starts off, "There is no archaeological evidence that Native Americans ever lived on the Craters of the Moon Lava Field." To begin the discussion of a topic with its absence is awkward unless it is patently obvious that its presence is to be expected. I don't think the article establishes such an expectation, so some kind of rewrite is called for. --Michael Snow 06:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Need the bit mentioned by Michael Snow tackled. --JuntungWu 06:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, but very. Filiocht 16:04, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Great article, but I have a small problem with the following sentence: "There are excellent examples of pahoehoe, slabby pahoehoe, shelly pahoehoe, spiny pahoehoe, aa, and block lava, as well as rafted blocks, tree molds, lava tubes, and many other volcanic features." I don't know what most of theses things are.  "lava tubes" is linked so I can figure that out. "pahoehoe" and "aa" are explained in lava (which is linked to two sentences above &mdash; perhaps these terms should also link to "lava") but I can find nothing which explains "slabby pahoehoe", "shelly pahoehoe", "spiny pahoehoe", "block lava", "rafted blocks", and "tree molds".  Also some more pictures might be appropriate, perhaps some of those in "lava" (there are some there from Craters of the Moon). Paul August  &#9742; 17:15, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good points. I will fix those when I expand the geology section (still waiting for the book to arrive). --mav
 * Fixed. --mav 02:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact, now that I've thought about it some more (and keeping in mind that an FA should be "comprehensive") perhaps this article should have a section "Lava fields" where a description of the lava fields at Craters of the Moon is given, including an explanation of the terms mentioned above? Paul August &#9742; 17:30, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * That would go in the geography section. And that very expansion is planned (as soon as I get a good source for the info). --mav


 * Abstain . A very good article, but 1) Mention of controversies (or lack thereof) relating to land use and creation or expansion of the park would be useful.  2) I would like to see info on the finances (or lack thereof), especially in context of the poor state of the park system in general, e.g. is it losing rangers, services, etc. 3) What is the park's economic impact on the surrounding area?  Is it the base of a small local tourist industry with bed-and-breakfast spots for young backbackers?  Are there hordes of pensioners on group holiday staying in rows of motels just outside the park entrance?  18:51, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Economic impact probably is not discussed because it's negligible (my personal assessment, so it's anecdotal). This park/monument is fairly remote, not very well-known, and accordingly relatively small at least in terms of facilities, paved roads, and sightseeing. Except for backcountry stuff, what's described in the article is about all there is. (Not that I'm knocking the place, I enjoyed going there.) --Michael Snow 04:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, that's about what I thought it implied but I couldn't be sure. A seasonal town forms to support the tourist industry at Denali National Park, so I got worried when the article didn't touch the subject.  I'll change to support, but mention of any land issues and the average number of annual visitors would soothe me.  :) BanyanTree 05:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The number of visitors has been fairly steady for some time now (already in the park box). I did not uncover any info about land use controversies. The lava fields themselves are worthless for almost everything except recreational activities and the land between is only of marginal use for grazing, so I imagine that is why there wasn't much of a fuss when the monument was hugely expanded. But I'll look into it. --mav
 * I really should read the boxes in articles more carefully... Thanks!  BanyanTree 08:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Turns out there was a bit of controversy, but was fixed in 2002 when most of the expanded area was redesignated a U.S. national preserve (that info is now in the article). --mav 02:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)