Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sawtooth National Forest/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 15:44, 22 January 2013 [1].

---

Sawtooth National Forest

Sawtooth National Forest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Sawtooth National Forest/archive1

Nominator(s): Fredlyfish4 (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked on it extensively, and it meets FA criteria. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments Driveby for now Two points Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• There are 16 duplicated links in the main text, excluding the lead and captions. Please check whether they are intended/necessary
• The South Hills crossbill is a passerine bird in the family Fringillidae and is endemic to the South Hills and Albion Mountains in the Minidoka District.[61] The South Hills crossbill rarely interbreeds with similar crossbills that are present in its range, and it has been proposed as a separate species, but the American Ornithologists' Union failed to find consensus on the issue. Thus, the South Hills crossbill is still considered a subtype of the red crossbill.[10][62] — clunky and unnecessarily wordy. Suggest something like The South Hills crossbill is a finch endemic to the South Hills and Albion Mountains in Minidoka District.[61] It rarely interbreeds with similar crossbills that are present in its range, and it has been proposed as a separate species. However, the American Ornithologists' Union failed to find consensus on the issue so the South Hills crossbill is still considered a subspecies of the red crossbill.[10][62]

I made the crossbill changes as suggested. I think I fixed a couple of the multiple links, but others could be those links from the two tables that also appear in the text. There are also a few links that appear in earlier sections but are then listed again where I think it makes sense to have them linked, such as Alturas Lake. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Christ's Indian Paintbrush... South Hills Crossbill — caps issues, first is inconsistent with linked article, second with later use in this article

I think the AOU uses all caps for birds, but paintbrush should not be in caps.

• 8,000 BC and more recently by the Shoshone people after 1700. — inconsistent year format, also is 1700 BC or AD?

Clarified to AD 1700 as mentioned elsewhere in article.

• European descendents — mispelled, also not clear who they are descendants of, Shoshone is implied but doesn't make sense

I've tried to clarify this.

• Senator from Idaho — for Idaho?

From is used when describing the state a person represents as Senator.

• Too many bills die, vary prose a bit

Die is typically used, but I changed one "was not voted on," but I can't be more specific about at what point or how the bills died.

• About 40,000,000 pounds (18,000,000 kg) — what's wrong with using tons/tonnes?

Done. I meant to change this earlier.

• I don't think you need multiple links for Ketchum, conservation, oil, elk, Mount Harrison (three links), Basin and Range Province, granodiorite and horseback riding. Please check. I haven't included multiple links that seem useful

All should be down to one link.

• guard stations — link or explanation, to a Brit it sounds military

Linked to an article on Forest Service guard stations.

• a no net loss policy — a "no net loss" policy

Done.

• The only manners in — ways?

Done.

• douglas fir — cap Douglas. Is "Ponderosa" correctly capped?

Douglas is in caps, but I don't think ponderosa should be.

• 29 fish.[39][40][19]: — refs in numerical order

Done.

• In the early 19th century trappers and explorers arrived in southern Idaho. They established immigrant trails in the region by 1849, including the Oregon and California trails.[19]:I-16[93][94][95][96][97] — six refs just for this?

[19] was for the previous sentence, two others removed. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the "European descendants" just read oddly to a Brit, I would have put the (clumsier?) "people of European descent", but your edit clarifies. On the crossbill capitalisation, the AOU and the Birds project here fully cap, but it's accepted that generalist articles like this don't have to. The point I was making was that it was consistent within the article. Anyway, all looks good now, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments - reading through now. Will copyedit as I go and make straightforward changes (please revert if I inadevertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In 1960, Frank Church, a U.S. Senator from Idaho, first introduced legislation for a feasibility study to study the area for.. - do we need all the "study"s - can we trim one of them?

I changed the second to survey.

I'd list the affiliations of the various senators involved - helps give context to who supported what.

What sort of affiliations are you looking for? I'm not sure what to put.

democrat/republican I meant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I added these affiliations.

Sawtooth National Forest practices conservation of resources, which ensures a sustainable flow of some raw materials from the forest, - err, how?

Perhaps this is better: Sawtooth National Forest balances interests of different groups, such as those interested in recreation, preservation, or resource extraction. The forest practices conservation of resources, in some areas allowing for production of raw materials, such as lumber for construction purposes and wood pulp for paper products, and allowing only recreation.

Better, but need to think about this and read again gets the meaning across. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

About 47% of the forest’s land is forested, and up to 50% can support trees. - I don't get this - another 50% or (like) 47/50% is covered hence only a little bit extra...?

Changed to: About 47% of the forest’s land is forested, and an additional 3% can support trees, but do not currently have any.

The mountain pine beetle is a naturally occurring insect species - all insects are naturally occurring - do you mean native/indigenous to the area?

Naturally-occurring was meant to refer to that the beetle is native and naturally has large outbreaks. I revised the article to reflect this.

A large infestation occurred right after the start of the 21st century, - just put the date/year(s) here - more exact.

Done.

Most of the area's native mammal species are present on the forest, - "in the forest"?

Done.

It'd be worth adding (in the Geography and geology section) what type of soils are in the park (clay/sandy/acid/alkaline).

I'll try to find some info on this.

I added two general sentences about soils, but had difficultly finding any details. The NRCS classifies Sawtooth National Forest as a non-project area, so soil surveys are not available. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Make sure that scientific names are italicised in references.

Done. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise, looking good. Nice read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comments from Dana: I reviewed this article for GA status a few months ago, and it has only improved since then! I'm currently re-reading the article (as there have been quite a few changes made in the intervening few months), and will post comments as I go. Thoughts for now:

• Forest history section, "announced the addition of an additional 1,392,640 acres" addition/additional is a bit repetitive, can we mix this up a bit?
• Management section, "The forest practices conservation of resources, in some areas allowing for production of raw materials, such as lumber for construction purposes and wood pulp for paper products, and allowing only recreation." This sentence seems to end rather abruptly. Allowing only recreation where?
• Flora, "can support trees, but do not currently have any." Should this be "but does not"?
• Geography and geology - The paragraph starting, "The Boulder, Pioneer, Sawtooth, Smoky, and White Cloud mountains" is rather confusing organized. It starts off talking about mountains, switches to soil, then jumps back to mountains. The information on soils would probably fit better at the end of the previous paragraph, where you are already talking about geology.

• Will continue reading through later today - should have full comments up tonight. I know I've said this before, but you have done amazing work on this article :) Dana boomer (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I've finished my read through, and made a few edits. Please check to make sure that I haven't inadvertently changed any meanings or nuances. I'm looking forward to supporting once the above are addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I previously addressed all these concerns, but thought I'd mention that here now. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support...with pleasure. Fredlyfish4 has done wonders on this article since he started his expansion on it in 2012. I just noticed the other day I had stubbed this one out in 2005...so its wonderful to see someone else do so much with the article. I've done a few minor edits myself and cleaned up some white spaces and a few other odds and ends, but Fredlyfish4 is definitely responsible for the fine article we have today. Nice job!MONGO 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (own work, Forest Service, Flickr CC with no signs of problems). A nice collection of images with some great panoramas. GermanJoe (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Delegate notes

• First FAC, Fredlyfish? If so, welcome... I'd like to see a source review/spotcheck for the article, which I'll try and arrange shortly.
• For completeness I'd expect to see a citation at the end of the first para under Flora.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Source spotcheck

• Ref 2, OK

• Article text: "The area that is now Sawtooth National Forest was first occupied by people as early as 8,000 BC and more recently by the native Shoshone people after 1700 AD."
• Source text: "The first people to use the lands that are now the Sawtooth National Forest occupied this area between 8,000–7,000 BC. More recently (after 1,700 AD) the Shoshone—or Sheepeater people—lived in small bands..."

• Ref 7, OK

• Article text: "The Cassia Forest Reserve was established on June 12, 1905 and the Raft River Forest Reserve on November 5, 1906."
• Source text: Tabular data, verified

• Ref 61, OK

• Article text: "The South Hills Crossbill is a finch endemic to the South Hills and Albion Mountains in the Minidoka District."
• Source text: Various mentions, no problems with paraphrasing.

• Ref 80, fails verification

• Article text: "While not in Sawtooth National Forest, Banner Creek Summit is a 7,056 ft (2,151 m) mountain pass on Idaho State Highway 21 at the northern end of the Sawtooth Mountains at the border of the Boise and Challis National Forests."
• Source text: Lists elevation as 7,037 ft.

• Ref 84, OK

• Article text: "There have been 202 perennial snow fields mapped in the Sawtooth Mountains, and while none have been mapped elsewhere on the forest, some may still exist in the Boulder, Pioneer, and White Cloud Mountains."
• Source text: "Idaho has 208 glaciers and perennial snowfields, covering 2.6 km2, of which 202 are found in the Sawtooth Range in central Idaho." Mentions of snow field features in image captions for Boulder, Pioneer, and White Clound Mountains.

A few other quick checks didn't reveal other issues—please check the discrepancy in ref 80. --Laser brain (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked a USGS map and the national elevation dataset from USGS, and while I can't get an exact elevation it appears that the elevation of Banner Creek Summit is very close to 7037 and at least between 7000 and 7040. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Tks for that check, Andy. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

General comments - sorry, I haven't time for a full review, but a few quick comments:

• Image formatting: the very nice pic of Redfish Lake is overlapping the Boise River pic by quite a lot; the climate charts (which are nice) are displaying in a row of three, leaving the fourth in its own row and lots of white space; also lots of white space between the ski area chart and pics above and below; big bit of white space in the "Scenic roads" section
  • This was brought up by someone during the GA review, but I can't help with this. I have viewed this article on 7 devices using four browsers and have never had this problem.
• Any reason not to prosify the ski area chart? I'm not sure the coordinates are necessary. If prosified, you might consider mentioning that additional skiing is available right outside the boundaries of the national lands; i.e Dollar Mountain and Elkhorn.
  • I'm not sure what you're linking of by prosifying the table. I think the coordinates are useful, especially if someone views all of the article's coordinates in an interactive map linked at the bottom of the article. Dollar/Elkhorn and Rotarun are already mentioned in the text, but could be added to the table, although I couldn't find complete/reliable data on these areas.
• I'm not a big fan of trivia, but Sun Valley Serenade is quite iconic and filmed on Baldy. Bus stop, with Marilyn Monroe was filmed in the area - I'll need to check this but believe there are scenes up Galena Pass way.
  • I previously had info on movies filmed here, but couldn't find any reliable refs. I found one (from 1958) and added these two films and on other to the article.
• The flora section, imo, could use a bit more development. Some books have recently been published about Idaho wildflowers that are worth checking.
  • I added some info on dominant, characteristic species. I have tried to limit both the flora and fauna section to dominant/characteristic species, as well as those that are of special concern or are newsworthy. The problem with wildflowers and grasses is that there are just so many of them that choosing specific ones to include is difficult and arbitrary. Additionally, there is little mention of wildflowers in the forest's plan, except for species I've already included.
• Also in the "Flora" section, the third para mentions exotic species that are introduced by visitors (examples?) and then goes on the talk about the pine beetle. I don't seen the connection between the two and suggest splitting the paragraph.
• The "Human habitation" section should mention the Basque sheepherders if a source can be found
  • Done.
• The "Recreation" section should mention fishing and hunting.
  • It already does. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I've only glanced, so won't be supporting or opposing. I'm mostly concerned with the formatting issues. Nice to see the is work - it's a beautiful area. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• The changes are all fine, thanks. The formatting is a very big issue to me - I don't see how we can say it's our finest work with images overlapping eachother - the computer I use isn't anything at all out of the ordinary, so I'm surprised you aren't seeing it. If you don't mind, I'll play around with it a bit to try to make them fit. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Adding: the only way to format without Redfish lake overlapping is either to bring that image down in size - but it still touches the other - or to remove one. I've commented out the one of Boise river - it's up to you - but definitely needs some re-arranging. Also please check that the % is replaced with "percent" per MOS:PERCENT. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Removing an image was the what I was going to do if this problem came up again. And removing the SF Boise River is fine with me. I will fix the %s. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments (2) -- nearly there but:

• I notice now that the very last sentence of Fauna is uncited.
• Do we really need all those citations in the lead? If info in the lead is contained and sourced in the main body (as I'd expect, the lead is there to summarise the article) then there should be no need to cite in the lead as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I removed references that appear elsewhere from the lead. I also removed the mosquitoes because it's just common knowledge for anyone who has been there or in northern North America, and I might not be able to find a reference. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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