Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National recreation area/archive1


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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC).

National recreation area

 * Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 03:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Next in my series of protected places (after parks, monuments, memorials, and lakeshores and seashores) is recreation areas! I've only been to 5 of the 40 of these (and very near to another couple) but I sure hope to visit more! This was a fascinating bit of history as the concept of a place meant for recreation rather than conservation in a location that has been irreversibly changed by flooding really challenged and transformed the mission of the National Park Service. While they all combine recreation and preservation (with varying degrees of extractive uses), Congress got somewhat haphazard in designating these, and those managed by the Forest Service really differ in how much attention they get! I know the prose is longer than an average FL, but I think it's all interesting stuff that needs to be kept together. Looking forward to your comments. Reywas92Talk 03:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, overall a nice work. There is so much prose that this could in fact be a valid FA candidate as well, but FL works fine. A possible improvement would be a footnote in Visitors (2019), explaining why some cells are empty - there is a line above but one has to look for it. Up to you. --Tone 14:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "multiple-use management including both conservation and limited utilization of natural resources". I am not sure what "limited utilization of natural resources" means. Small scale mining but not large scale? This needs clarification.
 * Sort of, yeah. This is just the first paragraph and is discussed further later: it's often allowed provided it doesn't interfere with recreational qualities of the park. I'm not going to give details in the first paragraph because there aren't consistent rules for every area with different resources and many past activities have ended. For some examples, Flaming Gorge NRA's creation law said trona mining would be allowed provided it was underground. Mineral claims at Lake Mead and Gauley River have expired, but there was at least a 2009 proposal to drill in Spruce Knob-Seneca Rocks NRA; five of the NPS NRAs' enabling legislation specifically allowed for mineral leasing. Glen Canyon NRA is among those that allow grazing.
 * "exemplary recreation sites". What does "exemplary" mean here?
 * I think definitions 1, 3, and 4 here would apply, do you have a better word?
 * 13,200.11 km2. Rounding to two decimal places is excessive, especially as you only round to one in the sites. I suggest rounding to the nearest whole number.
 * Fixed the template.
 * "the National Park Service sought to balance its conservation and recreation efforts with dams". I am not sure what this means.
 * Should I add "man-made" before "dams"? Which are by definition not conserving the natural landscape. I feel like this should be clear in context of the sentence with "flooded a scenic valley" where a dam was controversially not balanced with conservation and recreation.
 * "Virgin National Park in the region" Which region?
 * Added Arizona and Nevada about the Boulder Canyon Project before that.
 * "inherent lack of a natural landscape" What does this mean? Too much farmland?
 * "Lake Mead, to then be the world's largest reservoir"; changed to "a reservoir's inherent lack"
 * "However, it contributed to the controversial proposals of Echo Park Dam and Bridge Canyon Dam in existing NPS areas that were canceled after considerable opposition from environmentalists." What contributed?
 * "This interagency partnership" of the previous sentence
 * "square them with the broader picture of the agency" "broader aims"?
 * Changed
 * "tour Fort Hancock and Sandy Hook Light, the country's oldest." Oldest what?
 * Lighthouse, added.
 * "The 25 miles (40 km) of the Gauley River downstream of the Summersville Dam and 5 miles (8.0 km)" More inconsistency in rounding.
 * This was the default of the convert template but I've forced rounding.
 * "of the Meadow River offer world-class whitewater rafting" "world-class" is touristic and unencyclopedic.
 * How about "premier", "superior", "adventurous", or just "technically difficult"?
 * "The urban waterfront area includes for history buffs the penitentiary of Alcatraz Island, the Presidio of San Francisco, the Sutro Baths ruins, and Fort Point. Across the Golden Gate hikers can wander through wooded valleys and among coast redwoods of Muir Woods National Monument" "for history buffs" and "can wander" are unencyclopedic.
 * Modified. I got tired of saying "you can hike" in every item.
 * "hikers look down from scenic overlooks on rim trails" More tourist hype.
 * Better than the boring and repetitive "There are scenic viewpoints" I've already used several times. Slightly modified, or suggestions?
 * I suggest linking "mesa".
 * Done
 * "244,814 acres (990.73 km2 (42,503 acres (172.0 km2) NPS, 202,311 acres (818.72 km2) USFS)" "1,000,000 acres (4,046.9 km2)" More inconsistent rounding. Rounding a million to one decimal place is absurd.
 * Changed template to -1 since it's the only one I couldn't find a precise number for. Reywas92Talk 21:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting article but some of the text is clumsy and unclear. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * has the nominator addressed your concerns or are some still outstanding? -- Pres N  16:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There are still some comments which read to me as touristic and uncencyclopedic, such as "the rest are other exemplary recreation sites", "offer world-class whitewater rafting", "hikers can wander through wooded valleys", and "hikers can look down from scenic vistas on rim trails". I prefer not to vote either way on this one. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Exemplary" is not touristic, it means "worthy of imitation" "serving as an illustration or specimen" and "serving as a model or pattern", which ties the lead to the line in the Management section "The Forest Service manages its NRAs as "showcases" of its management standards so that their programs, services, and facilities should be better than and models for its other recreation sites" so yes, they are exemplary and this is not unencyclopedic. "World-class" as a simple adjective is not unencyclopedic, it's a factual term consistent with the source and used in, etc. and even if those are overall touristic, the more neutral and  put it in the top in the world, so we need some adjective here. "Premier", "highly rated"? I excised "wander" and "look down" for you. Reywas92Talk 17:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRM
Plenty to do here after a quick first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "National recreation areas emphasize" use the abbreviation. ✅
 * "They are established by an act" vs "which was created by a 1936 agreement between" does this mean the first one (early ones) were not created by an act of Congress?
 * Correct, the history covers that the first several were agreements, but they have all since been formalized by Congress
 * Second para of lead is unreferenced. If it's covered in the main article, why is the first para referenced?
 * Because the fact at the end of the first para is not repeated in the article.
 * Link Hoover Dam for the many millions of non-US readers.
 * ✅ Sorry it's linked at the start of the history section and missed doing so there too
 * "NRAs are managed by the National Park Service" NPS. ✅
 * "Of the NPS's 18 sites,..." what about the last one?
 * Delaware Water Gap, which was intended to be at a dam but it was never built. I wanted to keep the lead concise but added something for it if that works.
 * "They are located in 26 states" The NRAs (the last "they" was the USFS's 22 sites).✅
 * "NRAs of the Forest Service" USFS.✅
 * "those of the National Park Service have" NPS.✅
 * "Service have a total area of 3,714,735" -> "NPS total 3,714,735" ✅
 * "The Bureau of Land Management's one" BLM. ✅
 * That sentence is unref. ✅
 * "to then be the " don't follow this, are you saying it was to be the largest at the time once complete?
 * Yes, it was not built yet, it would be the largest once complete, and it no longer is today; maybe "to be the world's then-largest reservoir"?
 * "sought to balance its conservation and recreation efforts with dams, and it could provide" doesn't scan for me.
 * "it" is the National Park Service in both uses, maybe "sought to better balance its conservation and recreation efforts with dams, and here it could..."?
 * "pushed by" promoted? ✅
 * "while Albright reluctantly agreed to support the USBR with visitor services." unref. ✅ also Rothman ref.
 * "a growing National Park Service" etc etc, if you have the abbreviation, use it. ✅
 * "His Mission 66 vision.." unref. ✅ also Rothman ref.
 * Link Delaware River. ✅
 * "The National Park Service, in" overlinked. ✅
 * "manage the NRAs" the 41 NRAs.
 * Hold on, the lead starts saying there are 40....
 * Yes, one is co-managed
 * "the United States Army Corps of Engineers primarily" overlinked and use abbr. ✅
 * "and it is generally permitted in... " unref. ✅
 * Use full date format, it's not like there isn't enough space in the column. ✅
 * Image column shouldn't sort. ✅
 * Table sorts three ways for me.
 * Not sure what you mean by this
 * Click on a heading (e.g. Area) and it should sort two ways, i.e. largest to smallest or smallest to largest. There shouldn't be three ways of sorting a numerical column.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I clicked area and it sorted smallest to largest, then I clicked again and it was largest to smallest, and on third click it returned to default, which is alphabetized by name. Every column on every table does this and you can see it in the little arrow symbol. Reywas92Talk 17:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "provides for excellent scuba diving" guide book tone. ✅
 * For blank attendance cells, put an en-dash or N/A or something, just don't leave blank.
 * I thought about that, but those imply to me that it's not applicable at all, not just that that particular data point isn't collected, so I marked them with asterisks
 * No ref for Ed Jenkins entry. ✅
 * Second half of Gateway entry unref. ✅ Oops it's the same one as the first half
 * "offer world-class whitewater rafting" guidebook.
 * I already covered this above, I'm not going to just say "offers whitewater rafting" because plenty of rivers do that but this is actually recognized as among the best, but suggestion for a better adjective is welcome
 * Well if multiple reviewers are concerned with tone then I'd suggest it's an issue. You could "quote" it, or describe who claims it to be "world-class" so we have attribution rather than such a claim in Wikipedia's voice.  Or evidence that supports the claim, e.g. are there world level events held there regularly?  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 07:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @The Rambling Man Made it a quotation. Reywas92Talk 17:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "agatized" what's that? ✅
 * "and mountaineering[44]" period before ref. ✅
 * Why isn't Challis actually "Salmon–Challis" per the article? ✅ It's two forests administered together
 * Ref 53 should be an en-dash not a spaced hyphen. ✅ Gotta blame Cornell and the ref autogenerator for that. I'm normally the one correcting others on this but I'm not sure when you're supposed to correct the source!
 * Consistency with format, see ref 7 has NPS in italics, mostly other not in italics. ✅
 * Also check ref 67 v ref 68 (for example). ✅
 * Finally, why isn't the article at "National Recreation Area" per all the names of the NRAs themselves and the template at the bottom of the page and the categories etc?
 * Same as National monument (United States), List of national parks of the United States, etc it's a common noun when used as a general term, a proper noun when used as part of the name of a specific one. I know there is some inconsistency among which of many types of pages (and templates) in different countries have been moved to do this or not, but I do understand the argument to present it as a proper designation too.
 * Thank you for your useful comments! Reywas92Talk 04:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @The Rambling Man Anything else? I didn't understand your comment on sorting three ways. Reywas92Talk 00:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support my main concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass
Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC) Reviewed version:


 * Formatting
 * Ref 6 and 38 missing retrieval dates ✅
 * Though, Template:Cite_book: "Not required for linked documents that do not change." Reywas92Talk 03:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For ref 38, I almost wonder if United States Department of Agriculture should be the publisher and U.S. Forest Service be the author. I think this makes more sense, thoughts?
 * That doesn't, the USFS is an agency within the Dept of Ag. USFS is the publisher, and the author would be its unnamed employees or the agency as well, but of course its typical for agencies to also list their department on their publications.
 * Wondering the same as above on ref 51 (except with National Park Service this time)
 * Same. It's not like departments publish things agencies write, the agency can publish something too.


 * Reliability
 * 24 is on the edge, but is passable, I would think
 * National Parks Traveler is a respected non-profit organization.
 * 57 is from a blog (so unreliable), unless you can prove the author is a Subject-matter expert. I would suggest finding an alternative source
 * I have no concerns with this source, Tom Kloster is a founder of Trailkeepers of Oregon and the Mount Hood National Park Campaign. Contemporaneous to that he was published in The Oregonian about Mount Hood and he is an expert on the subject.
 * You'll have to excuse my caution, would you mind proving a source or two to confirm that? Aza24 (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * . I'm happy to cite him that mountain biking occurs there. Reywas92Talk 03:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Splendid, thank you. Aza24 (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Verifiability
 * Suggest adding an OCLC (as a substitute for ISBN— just to "|oclc=") to ref 38 (found here) ✅
 * suggested OCLC for ref 51 (here) ✅ Reywas92Talk 02:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of this; if I seemed picky with the retrieval dates, it was only because you had them for other documents of the same nature (was just looking for consistency). Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Promoting. -- Pres N  03:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.