Wikipedia:Peer review/Peneda-Gerês National Park/archive1

Peneda-Gerês National Park
I've just expanded this stub. Any contribution is appreciated but mostly I would like you to review the spelling and grammar (I'm not an english language native), and the article structue. It needs an image, or more, I'll try to get some soon. --Nabla 23:30, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
 * My idea:
 * organisation:
 * 1 Human history
 * 2 Geography
 * 3 Geology
 * 4 Biology and ecology
 * 5 Tourist information
 * 6 References
 * 7 External links


 * the park has really a touristic aim? It sounds very shocking to me. They even forbitted to create roads in it. That's a good thing! once I used the Romam road. it was the only avaiable in the centre of the park. In the way back I had to go throw spain, cause I would die if I had to do that again. But it was great!
 * Plus, the park has dangers, in the winter mornings ice is formed in road areas were the sun doesnt reach. There should be info about dangers in the park.
 * Sounds a bit too much like a travel guide entry to me. I don't know what "Tourist information" means in this context, but it sounds like the same thing. How about "Tourism" instead? / Peter Isotalo 09:51, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * The article doesnt talk about its clear and famous waters (the park is intended also to protect it). There are various small waterfalls, in very hided places.
 * It needs a map, places to rest nearby.
 * There are also little villages in the mountains.
 * We need pictures of animals/plants, and describe them a little.
 * The park has History, it was a place where some kings went to hunt.
 * look at this article: Yellowstone it is not great, but it is a start.-Pedro 23:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yosemite National Park and Death Valley National Park are better FA examples. --mav 01:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look.
 * Structure: I've looked at the suggested articles, and some more, before I made this expansion. I chose the topics based on those but as it looks like there is not a standard sequence I used what I thought best. First Geography, essential to locate the park. Then I followed a somehow chronological sequence: Geology, Flora, Fauna, Human history. Sure, these can be in reverse order but I've kept it as was.
 * Tourism, and education: I should have written a section on these, since they are declared goals of the park. I just did so.
 * Dangers: Yes, dangers are a fact. The one mentioned and there are also wolves, so don't get lost in the mountain by night or you may end up as someone's dinner. Anyway I assume the reader is clever enough to assume it presents the normal dangers of any mountain. But that reminded me to add a little bit about the climate in Geography, it was a major gap.
 * Waters: Added some waterfalls info.
 * Map: I'd appreciate help with that... are maps copyrighted? Or can I just pick one?
 * Villages: There were already some implied info although scatered through the article (terraces, maize, oxes, dogs). I added some more about them in Geography and Human history. I personaly like the human info spread over the article as I find it in agreement with the park's spirit to consider the human presence as one of its normal and integrated features.
 * Pictures and Descriptions: I'm just about to add some original pictures taken by a professional fotographer friend of mine. I will not add descriptions of any particular animals or plants which have wikilinks. The authochtonous species would deserve such description though, or even better an article, but I am not the best person to do that, at least for now.--Nabla 01:44, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)