Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Death Valley National Park
Death Valley National Park[edit]
I've been working on this off-and-on for nearly 3 years now and have written almost all of it (I had a great deal of help from many copyeditors). So, what else does this article need to truly shine? If this article is already there, then I can switch focus to filling some of the red links in it and getting Geology of the Death and Panamint valleys area up to standard (the geology of this place is convoluted). --mav 08:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Object for now. This looks quite good, but since this is not a specialised article on geology, I'd like to see some more explanation where necessary. F.e. "alluvial fans", "tectonic deformation", are terms not understood by the average reader, but that could be briefly explained in a few words. Also, it may be useful to add time indications to the geological periods (Mesozoic, Paleozoic); the picture here helps a bit, but is not immediately clear. Other than that, this looks like another good NP-themed article by Maveric149. Jeronimo 09:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Will do for the terms (in fact I already started on this after my post-nomination copyedit) - but I need to go to bed now. However giving ranges for geologic time periods and eras is highly problematic. Its like saying that an event such as a death occurred last year but then in parenthesis after saying that you give a range of 1 January to 31 December 2004. This tends to confuse readers into thinking that the event occurred over a much longer period that it actually did. --mav 09:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- OK - made some edits along the lines of what I wrote above. Is this good Jeronimo? --mav 04:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, this is good; you solved the geologic time issue quite nicely too. Support. Jeronimo 07:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Will do for the terms (in fact I already started on this after my post-nomination copyedit) - but I need to go to bed now. However giving ranges for geologic time periods and eras is highly problematic. Its like saying that an event such as a death occurred last year but then in parenthesis after saying that you give a range of 1 January to 31 December 2004. This tends to confuse readers into thinking that the event occurred over a much longer period that it actually did. --mav 09:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Depth and breadth make this an example for all Wikipedia treatments of small, defined geographical areas— including US National Parks of course. This must be one of the Internet's best pages on the subject. --Wetman 05:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- What a nice thing to say. Thank you. :) Btw, the Britannica entry only covers the valley, is very short, and still refers to 'Death Valley National Monument.' Columbia and Encarta aren't any better (I checked all as potential references - but didn't use them due to their extreme brevity). --mav 07:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Lovely. jengod 21:28, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Gene Nygaard 17:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Truly an example of wikipedia's finest. Jun-Dai 07:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent article. Wish I had time to do this level of detail! My only suggestion is: Image:Geologic events in Death Valley.png is very difficult to read. I would either 1) convert it to an HTML or Wiki table (lots of work), or 2) don't include a thumbnail in the article, just make a link to the image page as a "see also". -- hike395 14:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent article. --L33tminion | (talk) 02:47, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)