Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yosemite National Park

Yosemite National Park
Self-nom. A bit on the longish side due to the fact that I'm in the process of building-up the geography section to a point where I can spin it off into its own article and leave an abridged summary at Yosemite National Park. But other than that, I think this article is a go. But if it is not, then please tell me what else is needed. History of the Yosemite area is already an FA. --mav 00:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I like the current state of the article very much. Someone (or I) should work on the number of red links in the article --- it's a little high for a featured article, methinks. -- hike395 01:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't think it's terribly long.  It makes an interesting read as it stands, and I don't think cutting it down is that necessary. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. A question: Under "Management issues", what is being done about invasive species, or if nothing is being done, why not? --Carnildo 07:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. See this diff. --mav
 * Object. Are there restrictions on who may enter or how many people may enter? Is there a fee to enter? Are there ecological restrictions besides food lockers? Further, one can infer from Activities that the park is open all year and that people may wander where they like provided it is not overnight, but this is unclear. That section is also a bullet-list. Minor POV or attribution, e.g. "has its own charm", "await excited hikers", "visitors are advised to check". 119 08:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Most of that is the type of info that would be more appropriate in the Wikitravel version of this article. But I'll see if I can somehow incorporate that info in the activities section. --mav 16:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Most of the above has been fixed. --mav 17:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. 119 21:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Great article. -Willmcw 00:25, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I like this a lot; definitely not too long. Filiocht 08:52, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Another great US National Park related article by Mav. Jeronimo 18:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Fantastic article, well presented --PopUpPirate 16:10, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object - The Park Features list is nice, although the images on the side pile up horribly on my computer and it is not clear which image goes with which feature. That is a poor representation of a featured article in my mind. Páll 17:51, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That table is going to be expanded and moved to geography of the Yosemite area once I create that article. --mav
 * Until then, I've commented the table out (never much liked that table anyway). --mav 02:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, I liked that table! Let's show little thumbnails of the park features. I made a gallery of popular features using the <gallery feature: that should look better on Páll's display. -- hike395 06:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does look nice. The parts of the table I did not like were the image placement and the missing precip and temp data for some features. I plan to expand the info presented and the number of features once I get around to creating geography of the Yosemite area. --mav 12:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If you're going to do the gallery like that, it needs to be taken off the article and moved into Commons, if it is possible with licencsing. I will support when they are removed completely, or the Geography of Yosemite article incorporates the table somehow. Páll 17:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Galleries are not restricted to the Commons. I've seen them in other en articles. What exactly is your objection? You originally objected because the pictures were confusing and smashed together: I fixed those problems. -- hike395 18:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What a petty thing to object to. I consider that objection invalid. --mav 18:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I just converted the gallery to a table, to squeeze out more white space, and removed the section header. Thought those might satisfy Páll. If more people like the gallery than the squeezed table, we can revert. -- hike395 18:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I just fixed the article up. I changed the image sizes, as this is a very long article and there's no reason to have such small images. Plus, I think it looks much more professional to have the images right-aligned. I moved the gallery to Commons, as i think that's the best place for it. If people want to see images, they can go there. After this, I now support.