Wikipedia:Featured article review/Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve/archive1


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

The article was kept by User:Marskell 10:42, 24 September 2008.

Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve
This article, promoted in 2005, has not a single inline citation. I think that is the primary issue. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Notified Wikiproject Protected Areas, National Register of Historic Places, Volcanoes, and Idaho
 * It's not just the lack of citations, but the whole article is sub-standard for featured level. Of course it got featured in 2005, when standards were different. The official website at http://www.nps.gov/crmo has so much information that is lacking here and a huge amount of Public Domain images. The history of the park could be easily expanded from this document compiled by the wilderness society. Some additional stuff can be found in the (unfortunately outdated as from 1992) administrative history of the Monument. I have the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia on my to-do-list and when I get to it, I will try to improve the English one along my expansion of the German article. --h-stt !?  16:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The history is already several sub-sections long, which is standard for FA class articles. See below for more. --mav (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am beginning the process of adding inline citations to the article. I have ordered several print reference books and will begin reviewing those for inclusion / attribution. Any preferences for citation formats? --Robbie Giles (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with above comments by and. This article is not up to snuff in accordance with current WP:FA standards. Cirt (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep - standards have increased since this article was promoted. I'm already trying to address concerns at a FAR for Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyon area but will make sure to help cite what I wrote here before. H-stt - I don't think the article needs to be expanded at all; especially the history section (which already has 4 good-sized sub-sections. But a History of the Craters of the Moon area, along the lines of History of the Grand Canyon area, is most welcome. --mav (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Many cites added. A couple minor sources still need to be checked to finish. A MoS and copyedit pass still needed as well. If not beaten to it, I'll finish this up sometime in the next week or two. --mav (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don think it is not up to fatured standard. It is inbalanced, some tiny details are elaborated as the mule deer studies, while the preserve part, its specifics and its use are barely mentioned. Some of the images are either bad or way to small (due to panorama format) to get an idea of the landscape. The plants section suffers from mostly uncommented lists of red links. The part on recreational activities is just copied from the loop drive booklet. History is good, geology is certainsly on featured level. Overall I would oppose if the article were up to FARC. --h-stt !?  06:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the ==Biology== and ==Recreational activities== sections could be improved and I'll see about doing that. However, I don't think we need to cut down the mule deer part much since the behavioral patterns of the Craters of the Moon herd have led to it having the highest fawn survival rates of any herd in the species. That needs more than a sentence, me thinks. The article does have more emphasis on the pre-2000 monument extent since that is the most accessible part and has the highest concentration of notable volcanic features. Do you have specific things you want added about the larger fields? In the meantime, I'll take a look to see what PD text can be incorporated from the NPS and BLM websites to help address your concerns. As for images; please feel free to swap out some with better examples and crop what you think needs to be cropped. --mav (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Animal part of biology section expanded with some PD NPS text. More later. --mav (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Images rearranged and made larger as needed to make them more presentable. The preserve part is covered by non-trivial descriptions of the Wapi and Kings Bowl lava fields. Other than that, general info about geography, geology and biology shared between all three lava fields is given. Of course, more info is given about the Craters of the Moon lava field, but that is b/c it is the biggest and the one with the most visited features on it. Also, any mention of the 'Craters of the Moon area' is not specific to the Craters of the Moon lava field; in fact, it is a term for the whole parkland. ==Biology== section expanded to improve balance. The ==Recreation== section is not copied from the loop drive booklet, but the booklet was used as one of the references. --mav (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked for and couldn't find the 'Around the Loop' booklet in my stacks-o-books; the primary ref for the ==Recreational activities== section. Some of the info is in a USGS site and other places. I'll try to confirm the info from those sources. If needed, I'll re-buy the Around the Loop booklet to finish that up. But the damn thing has got to be around here somewhere... --mav (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to self (or anyone who wants to help): I did MoS cleanup through History section, have to resume with Geology.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been chipping away on MoS items, but the prose and content need a lot more beef; the article is very listy, there's some prose that's hard to follow, and still some citations needs. Mav, is it in your plans to save this one?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I most certainly plan to save this one. The list in the recreation section can be fixed rather easily but the list in the biology section is needed b/c it, well, lists adaptions unique to this type of environment. What other lists are there? And what else is needed, beef-wise? --mav (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I realized after I posted this that one of the bulleted lists referred to locations on a map. OK, if you're still working, I'll keep at it.  In terms of "beef", a lot of the article seemed to focus on recreation (hiking, etc.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll keep that in mind when I copyedit. The recreation section does seem a bit long; maybe some of the material can be moved to the geography and geology sections... I plan to cite that section the best I can; anything left after that simply must be from the "Around the Loop" booklet I can't find. --mav (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need the "Around the loop" brochure, because the little content of the Recreation section can be verified by the official park brochure "Map and Guide" and/or the NPS website. I have the Map & Guide (an older print) and two more brochures of the Cave Trail and the Devil's Orchard Trail in my hands but they offer very little information that is not more easily available elsewhere. --h-stt !?  12:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE: Referencing more or less done now. Please add fact tags to ID anything else that needs to be either cited or removed. --mav (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note, can we please get some more eyes on this? I've done all I see that needs doing.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Convoluted sentence alert:

"Located in south-central Idaho midway between Boise and Yellowstone National Park, the monument includes 53,545 acres (217 km2) in the Developed Area (the extent of the national monument before the preserve was added) and the visitor center is 5,900 feet (1,800 m) above sea level."

"...the extent of the national monument before the preserve was added..." seems to imply that there's more acreage that isn't being mentioned. And why tack on the sea level point rather than have a separate sentence? I'll go through the rest of the prose. Marskell (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nixed during my copyedit. --mav (talk)

I just completed a section-by-section copyedit and deletion of some still-uncited sentences that aren't needed. I'm now pretty happy with the article. --mav (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Has anyone looked for images at the various NPS archives? The first and maybe the third on http://photo.itc.nps.gov/storage/images/crmo/crmo-Thumb.00001.html seem to be appropriate. --h-stt !?  13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this article now meets the FA criteria. I don't think it needs to go to FARC. maclean 02:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am reasonably pleased with the prose now. Given above comments, this can go. Marskell (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.