Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Petrified Forest National Park/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 SandyGeorgia 01:45, 15 November 2010 [1].

Petrified Forest National Park edit

Featured article candidates/Petrified Forest National Park/archive1

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petrified Forest National Park has a deceptive name. Although best known for its petrified logs, its attractions include colorful badlands, petroglyphs, pueblo ruins, sandy washes, abundant grasslands, and a wide variety of wildlife. My thanks to Chipmunkdavis for a helpful peer review. Finetooth (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Ref 5 "ProtectedPlanet.net": This source derives its text from Wikipedia. Although its use here appears to be merely to confirm a category, it may be advisable to use a higher quality sources for this purpose.
Publication date missing for the second Parker & Thompson work.

Otherwise, sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching these. The missing pub date was easy to fix, the IUCN category ref less so. I've replaced the Protected Planet link with one to a USGS map viewer that makes it possible to download a spreadsheet that includes the IUCN number for Petrified Forest National Park. Finetooth (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ just a few queries, otherwise excellent Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Your suggestions are most helpful, and I have responded to each of them below. Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, helpful suggestions, kind words, and support. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Park headquarters... Petrified Forest is — I read something recently saying that the definite article is disappearing. Are these examples?

Yes, but it hasn't entirely disappeared. I changed the second sentence of the lead to start with "The park's headquarters are... " and the first sentence of the third paragraph of the lead to start with "The Petrified Forest... ". However, in general my sources do not add "The" before "Petrified Forest National Park". If you see others that seem to need a definite article, please let me know. Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the 21st century, the Bidahochi Formation, laid down only 8 to 4 million years ago, rests directly atop — where was it before the current century, I don't understand this.

Thanks. I had not noticed this confusing construction before you pointed it out. I have deleted "In the 21st century" so that it does not clash with the 8 to 4 million? Does this make the meaning clear? Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...flora occur in the park, about 82 percent of which are native — native to what? Arizona? US? North America?

Good question. The authors of the source material do not answer this directly but use the phrase "non-native". In the context of the source material, which compares past floral surveys of the park with the 2005 survey, it's clear that the authors mean "not native to the park". I changed the sentence to read "A 2005 survey found that 447 species of flora, of which 57 species are invasive, occur in the park." (I'm glad I took another look at the source material because I had confused non-native percent of "new" species (about 18 percent) with non-native percent of "total" species (about 13 percent). Also, it may be more clear to say 57 invasive species than to convert to percentages. Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mariposa lily — isn't Mariposa a proper noun?

No. It's Spanish for butterfly, and in my English dictionary, "mariposa lily" appears without caps. It's capitalized in place names like Mariposa, California, but not otherwise. Finetooth (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - another fine article. Dincher (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch - I find this is well written, beautifully illustrated, and nicely referenced and meets all the criteria. I have a few questions / quibbles, which do not detract from my support

First sentence - I know "of northeastern Arizona" is grammatically correct, but "in northeastern Arizona" just sounds better to my ear (and is the construction used in the first sentence of the Geography section). Petrified Forest National Park is a U.S. national park in Navajo and Apache counties of northeastern Arizona. Your call.

I have adopted your construction, which is better. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence stopped me each time I read the article An older Highway 180 crosses the southern edge of the park, but like Route 66 it has deteriorated and is closed. Would "The former" or perhaps "The historic" work better than older?

Yes. I've now modified it to say: "Historic Highway 180, an earlier alignment of the modern route, crosses the southern edge of the park. Like Route 66, it has deteriorated and is closed." Is this more clear? Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~In Fossils, does Silica need to be capitalized?~~

No. I've changed it to "silica". Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add "coach" for clarity? In the late 19th century, settlers and private stage [coach?] companies followed similar east–west routes.

Yes. I've now added "coach" and linked the new word, stagecoach. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no dab links or dead external links. The images all have alt text.
Image review all images are all freely licensed, mostly by Finetooth or other Wikipedians, some freely licensed from Flickr, and one US government map.

I made a few edits as I read - please feel free to revert if I made errors or made things worse. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, helpful suggestions, minor edits, and support. Thanks also for creating, years ago, the state locator maps and for your many good ideas about map-making. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, and thanks for an enjoyable read. As for the locator map, the inset of the US in the corner threw me off, so I wasn't sure it was my version (in any case, the real credit goes to the US Census Bureau, whose maps I madified). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A great read with terrific images. Tiny nits only.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:* Petrified forest takes me to a disambig page.~~

Good catch. I have removed the link, which served no useful purpose. I think the meaning is clear without the link. Finetooth (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:* Should "maar" be italicized? I find it in my English dictionary.~~

Probably not. I meant it for emphasis, but that seems unnecessary. I have removed the italics. Finetooth (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:* The sentence "The dominant plants in the park are grasses, more than 100 species, many native to the region" reads oddly to me. Would a dash here be better?~~

Yes, or perhaps eliminating a comma would solve the problem. I revised the sentence to say, "The dominant plants in the park include more than 100 grass species, many native to the region." Is that better? Finetooth (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, support, and suggestions.Finetooth (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - No dabs, no link problems. --Pres N 23:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking these. Finetooth (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a spotcheck for WP:V, WP:COPYVIO, WP:Close paraphrase (I'd like to get those at least once on frequent nominators, For Our Own Protection :). Could someone verify? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now checked three refs cited a total of 12 times. I started with ref 24, the park's History PDF, as it is cited 10 times. I also checked ref 25 from The New York Times] and ref 27 on fossil sites. All the facts are backed up by the refs, but I did not see any copyvios or any close paraphrases in these refs. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Fisch! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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