Wikipedia:Peer review/North Cascades National Park/archive1

North Cascades National Park


Seeking advice as to if this article is comprehensive enough and covers the topics of the subject adequately. Please post any suggestions even if they seem trivial. I appreciate any and all feedback.

Thanks, MONGO 02:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mapreader
I thought this was an interesting and well written article. It is certainly comprehensive, if anything heading for too much rather than too little information. Some specific comments:
 * The lead seems a little long; the second and third paras contain detail that doesn't need lifting into the lead.
 * From past experiences and what MoS states the lead should summarize much of the article. See also some other leads I have done at Grand Teton National Park and Yellowstone fires of 1988 as examples.
 * The MoS abbreviation is US not U.S.
 * Went and changed these and think all are now fixed. A few I changed to United States to comply with MoS as well.
 * In an article about National Park I would expect to read about the natural geography, flora etc. before the human history; might be worth reviewing the section order? I'd do Geography/Geology, then Climate, then the other physical sections, flora and fauna, with human at the end (history then foundation then recreation)
 * All valid points and I have considered this issue myself. Previous National Park articles I have brought to Featured Article level follow this format here almost identically and the one at for instance Grand Teton National Park is very very long. I do feel that the sections on fauna and a few others could be expanded and perhaps the history reduced.
 * On section order, I was sharing my own views. But, having dug about a bit, it seems the WP consensus is to deal with human history first in articles about places. You might want to check any US-specific guides, but nevertheless ignore my comments about section order as they don't appear to reflect consensus.  My personal view is that it makes more sense for geography to come first, especially for a national park, but there we are.  The history section however does unbalance the article because of its length and detail, in comparison to other sections.MapReader (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Is BP a recognised abbreviation?
 * Good catch! Changed to BCE.
 * if BP was intended to be 'before present', you can't just change it to BCE?
 * Thank you. Since the paragraph was contradicting itself to adjust to the newest evidence I have removed that sentence entirely.

MapReader (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The human history section is very detailed for a National Park article with material of wider relevance to the sub-region, not just the park. Doesn't some of it belong in an article about the history of the state?  Currently the length and detail unbalances this article.
 * I think some of the history can be trimmed. Right now roughly a quarter of the article is about human history.
 * The geography, geology, mountains, glaciers etc. sections are concise and well-written. Perhaps some of the longer paragraphs could usefully be split to improve readability.
 * At a scan, referencing appears very comprehensive indeed. I didn't do any checking of refs.
 * The most recent robo-check I did the urls all came back as working.
 * The fire section is lengthy and I am not sure how much value it is adding. A sentence referring to the impact of fire on the landscape/vegetation and another in the human history section is probably all the article really needs.
 * I am most appreciative of your comments here! Only through the wise input of persons such as you can this article be as good as possible. I will continue to look into each of the matters you have mentioned!--MONGO 14:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

 * The external links checker tool indicates that all links are working (although it can't be guaranteed 100% accurate)
 * However, I did notice that one link (ref 14) doesn't go to a page entitled "Geology Fieldnotes". Can you check?
 * Also, in ref 6. p. 323 is not in the google preview so the link is meaningless
 * Refs 35–38: "Wilderness Connect" appears to be a work of the University of Montana
 * Ref 129: source is behind a paywall, so you need to add the template
 * General point: ISBNs should be presentled uniformly, preferably in hyphenated format

I notice that about three-quarters of the refs are to sources published by the National Parks Service, which I suppose is inevitable with a topic like this. Subject to my points above, the references look well ordered and of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Brianboulton...thanknyou for the feedback. This article is at FAC if you wished to add your thoughts there...the link is here. If not I will attend to your comments here if you prefer.--MONGO (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)