Wikipedia:Peer review/Leopold Report/archive1

Leopold Report[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a relatively new type of article for me, so I'd be interested in other people's opinion as to my treatment of the subject matter. It was promoted to GA-status in July, and I'm toying with the idea of taking this to FAC in the near future, so any and all comments are welcome. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 20:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and informative and generally well-done. I have a short list of mostly minor suggestions for improvement.

I'd suggest working something about Yellowstone National Park into the first paragraph and moving the last sentence of the first paragraph into a third paragraph that elaborates a bit on the final two sections, "Reception and publication" and "Legacy".
"the Report proved influential for future preservation mandates and reports" - I don't think "report" gets a capital "R" on second and subsequent references. Ditto for "Board" in "The purpose of the Board... " and its companions. Ditto for "Advisory Board" in "The formation of the Advisory Board was historically important... " and similar uses.
"et al.", which appears in the main text and references, needs italics because it's Latin.
Because the text is rather dry, I'd look for ways to turn bureaucratic language into plain language as much as possible. For example, I changed "utilizing" to "using" in the "Reception and publication section", and I think the term "active management" would be more straightforward as "management". A fairly formidable sentence reads, "Touching upon other notable issues such as predator control and fire ecology, the Report recommended employing staff scientists who would manage the parks using current and ongoing scientific research, while also proposing that park management have a fundamental goal of reflecting 'the primitive scene... a reasonable illusion of primitive America' ". I think it could be recast as "Touching upon predator control, fire ecology, and other issues, the report suggested that the NPS hire scientists to manage the parks. One of their goals would be to preserve or restore 'the primitive scene... a reasonable illusion of primitive America' ". Or something like that.
To reach FA, an article's images need alt text. WP:ALT has an explanation, and you can visit WP:FAC to see recent discussions about them.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Finetooth! I'll get to this soon. María (habla conmigo) 13:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed per suggestions; just waiting on feedback regarding the alt text. María (habla conmigo) 16:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The alt text looks very nice; thanks. Just for future reference, it doesn't have to be quite that fancy; but I wouldn't abbreviate it now that you've written it. Eubulides (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, Eubulides, I'll try to be less verbose in the future. :) María (habla conmigo) 21:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement - this already looks pretty good andclose to FAC ready to me.

Per WP:LEAD If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance. so the official name of the park should be in bold too
NPS should be introduced as an abbreviation after the first use of the full name, so "National Park Service (NPS)"
WP:LEAD also says to start the article with an image or an infobox. I think the picture of Leopold would probably be the best, or perhaps the image of the elk.
I also wonder if the NPS arrowhead logo File:US-NationalParkService-ShadedLogo.svg could be added to the article, perhaps in the Background section (especially if the elk photo is moved elsewhere).
There is a free image of Sec'y Udall File:Udall.gif but the source info looks a bit sparse - could it also be added?
Just curious, but were the parks really just run by the federal government At first, parks were run by the Federal Government.? Usually things are run by a part of a smaller branch - someone lives in the United States, but in almost all cases they also live in a state and a smaller part of the state.
Isn't the NPS singular (a service / gov't agency?) if so this needs to be changed President Woodrow Wilson signed a bill creating the National Park Service in 1916, giving them [it?] the power "to conserve ...
The official title is given / explained twice (once at the end of the Advisory Board and reporting section and again at the start of the Reception and publication section - it does not need to be both places (or does it?). I think it makes more sense at the first place.
Is image the best word here? Would phrase be better? The memorable image of a "vignette of primitive America" drew popular attention from readers[21]...
Would poison be simpler than toxicants in which restricted the usage of toxicants such as strychnine and sodium cyanide for predator control.[30] (per Fientooth's suggestion above)?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It helps a great deal, thanks! I've made all the changes you suggested, only I don't think Udall's handsome face fits in the article without squishing the text. The NPS logo image has a better description, so I've added that to the background section. María (habla conmigo) 21:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]