Talk:Appalachian temperate rainforest

Some Fundamental Questions

Where is it? According to the article they're in the "Southern Appalachians", which would be approximately Tennessee and North Carolina. That's appears reasonable citing the Gulf of Mexico as a source of moisture. But they're also at "high latitudes", which I would consider somewhere around the Arctic Circle, northward. Then it mentions fog deposition in parts in Eastern Canada.

Is it a rainforest? The first sentence of the Rainforest article defines a rainforest as having at least 250 cm/year, which means that the Appalachian forests are missing the minimal criterion. So if it's not a rainforest, what's the point of the article?

I'm not fussing, I see that this is a brand-new article. So far it looks like it's coming along pretty well. Geogene (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Merger

I think that if more sources can be found supporting there being temperate rainforests somewhere in the Appalachian range, then some of the information on this page should be merged with Appalachian-Blue Ridge forests and this article be removed. That page is much more developed, covers a much broader area, and seems to have more reliable information. Otherwise, I just don't see any justification (so far) for this particular article. Geogene (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Nomination

I've nominated the article for deletion because it seems to be inconsistent over where the rainforest actually can be found, and does a fairly poor job of establishing it exists. It'd be very helpful if we could have a high-quality source, such as a literature review, that names at least one specific place somewhere in the Appalachian chain as being an actual temperate rainforest. Most of the sources used don't even mention any rainforest, and because of that the whole thing smells like original research. The article itself is primarily a coatrack for Great Smoky Mountains National Park and nearby areas, content which is already covered in detail by other articles. Geogene (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Poorly written

Several sections of this article, particularly the threats section, are poorly written and in need of review and revision. 205.170.183.242 (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Koo et. al (2015) indicates Great Smoky Mountains National Park is a temperate rainforest and Reinhardt et. al (2009) characterizes Southern Appalachian Spruce-Fir Forests as temperate rainforests. Those forests are found on the summits of the Great Smoky Mountains, Great Balsam Mountains, Plott Balsams, Black Mountains, Grandfather Mountain, Roan Mountain, and the Iron Mountains of Virginia.

These academic sources suggest that the rainforest climate occurs where Southern Appalachian Spruce-Fir forests are located, which is much less than the scope of the Appalachian Temperate Rainforest detailed in this article. However, Gorges State Park in North Carolina is considered by the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation as a temperate rainforest as well, even though the park does not have an Southern Appalachian Spruce-Fir Forest.

Morrison et. al (2004) and K.L. Webster et. al (2004) further indicate the existence of a temperate rainforest in the Great Smoky Mountains. They corroborate their claims with a Shanks (1954) study in their literature reviews.

This article is in need of revision. 162.245.131.81 (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for these useful sources! I am currently working on a revision, including rewriting most sections and decreasing the scope of the article. Especially the misleading size given in the lede. Brooklaika (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Appalachian temperate rainforest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Brooklaika (talk · contribs) 16:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs) 15:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Brooklaika: Hi Brooklaika! I've read through your article and am working on my comments. I'm planning to have them fully completed by the end of the day (EST); I will add a table assessment with notes and such when I've completed the review.

You've written a fantastic article which I've thoroughly enjoyed reading and learned a lot from. There are a few barriers to GA currently, but they are small fixes that can be easily rectified. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing your comments! Brooklaika (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Brooklaika: I've finally finished the review of the article; the source verification took me more time than I had originally anticipated. Your prose is very good and your sources back up the claims you make in the article. After going through the citations though, I've found some concerns mostly related to the scope of the page and, by extension, the source materials. I suspect that you could likely make the changes needed to pass within the typical week timeframe, provided you have the personal time to do so. But if you need more time, I can leave it open for a little while longer than that or I can fail it and you can ping me to re-review it once you've had time to fix and renominate it. Please see the following table for a more detailed report. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I have some free time this weekend that I will definitely be dedicating to this article, but there are a lot of things you mention that need to be worked on/changed so I think it might take me longer than a week to work all the way though. I'd like for it to stay open while I work through those changes though. The prose changes seem pretty straightforward to make. To me it looks like the two biggest issues are 2a: sources mentioning specific locations in the rainforest area but not saying "rainforest" or "cloud forest" explicitly, and 3b: the scope of the article being too broad. I think 2a will be relatively straightforward to correct (though very time consuming) but 3b is a bit harder to grasp. Is there any way you could point to specific article sections that are in violation? From what you wrote it seems to mostly be Climate and History, but I'm not sure how correct that is. Brooklaika (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Brooklaika: Okay, I can definitely keep it open then. If for whatever reason, someone comes through and closes it after a week, just resubmit it and ping me to review it again. With respect to your question, if you're able to fix 2a, it's likely 3b will be fixed as a consequence because the issues with the article comprise focus on the rainforest itself, not any factual or reliability issues; that is, all the information is correct but not constrained enough to the topic of the article, so if you are able to find sources that mention the rainforest/cloud forest explicitly to confirm what you've already written, then the scope is no longer too large because it's been confirmed by sourcing.

For example, you wrote the following: Below the spruce–fir forest, at around 1,200 meters (3,900 ft), forest composition shifts in favor of deciduous trees such as American beech, maple, birch, and oak., which is backed by source [13]. Source [13] doesn't mention the rainforest or cloud forest at all; it only mentions the trees indigenous to the Great Smoky Mountains as a whole. If you could replace source [13] with a source that confirms what you've written alongside an explicit mention of those trees within the rainforest's boundaries, then you don't actually need to change the sentence at all; that those trees are a part of the rainforest's ecosystem is now within the scope of the page. Does that make sense? I'm happy to explain more; I know it's a little confusing.

Also, if you'd like me to just take care of the prose issues, I can do that so you can focus solely on source farming. Just let me know! ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Lede: • By the 1880s, industrialization reached the region, leaving left the forest devastated by mining, Climate: • identified by Alaback – This needs to be clarified for the reader; this could be a person, an organization, etc. Try identified by forest ecologist Paul Alaback or something similar. • Hatnotes go at the top of the section. According to a tentative classification advocated by DellaSala, Alaback, Spribille, Wehrden, and Nauman in 2011, high-elevation temperate rainforest regions in Central Appalachia could be interpreted as "a southerly extension of Appalachian boreal rainforests from Eastern Canada", although this interpretation requires further study. – I think this probably violates WP:FRINGE, not because it's crazy, just because it's tentative and still requires further study. Ecology: • Yellow birch, mountain ash, mountain maple, younger spruce and fir and shrubs like raspberry, blackberry, hobblebush, southern mountain cranberries, red elderberry, minniebush, and southern bush honeysuckle make up the understory. is extremely difficult to follow; consider: The understory comprises trees such as yellow birch, mountain ash, mountain maple, younger spruce and fir. Shrubs and bushes in the understory include raspberry, blackberry, hobblebush, southern mountain cranberries, red elderberry, minniebush, and southern bush honeysuckle. • call the rainforest home → are endemic to the rainforest or live in the rainforest habitat. • Many species of salamander in this area do not have lungs, so they and breathe through their skin instead, so the wet environment [...] – Awkward phrasing • Animal diversity in the rainforest is not only limited to vertebrates, however. – WP:POSA History: • As intensive plant husbandry expanded through the introduction of corn, beans, pumpkin, squash, and tobacco by around 1000 CE, it fostered more complex societies centered around permanent villages in Appalachian river valleys. • with two major introduction events in living memory since the early 20th century. – Assuming "the early 20th century" is 1910–1930, this isn't really within living memory anymore. It's also not really in line with the encyclopedic tone the article should have. • rose one-hundred-sixtyfold → rose by 1,600% • Move Kristine Johnson's name and title to before the quote or paraphrase the quote and leave it out. I recommend the latter with something like: Foresters suggest that warm winters and dry summers could support a resurgence of balsam woolly adelgid outbreaks. General fixes: • Fraser fir needs to be capitalized in every instance and currently it's mixed. • spruce–fir needs an endash in every instance and currently it's mixed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	As per MOS:OFCOURSE: • ecosystem, however, though it continues to face • However, mMany large species once
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Source spot check (randomly selected by an RNG): Dispatches source confirms 800 number and high diversity, but does not mention the rainforest. Citizen Times source confirms chestnut and adelgid blights, but does not mention the rainforest. Terrestrial Habitats of Virginia confirms rhododendron in the understory, but does not mention rainforest. Drivers and Ecological Impacts confirms fire issues, but does not mention rainforest. Great Smoky Mountains Animals confirms mammal populations, but does not mention rainforest. Biodiversity in the Highlands confirms "most biodiverse", Last Ice Age migrations, high rainfall, skunk cabbage/common juniper claims, claims for 1400 flowering plants and 500 mosses and ferns, and does mention the rainforest. Proceedings from the Conference [...] isn't working for me now as I'm doing the re-eval, but my notes say that it confirms upslope extirpation claims (p.114), but probably needs page numbers for further verification (i.e., during an FA review) for other claims. Not sure whether it mentions the rainforest or not. Alaback 1991 is a good source with little bearing on the rest of the page (cf. 3b). A History of the Landscape is a great resource for Southern Appalachia, but – again – no mention of the rainforest
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Citations are needed on the final two sentences of the last paragraph of § Colonial
	2c. it contains no original research.	I'm concerned your map at the top may constitute a WP:OR violation. It's well-made and is interesting, but it principally cites Alaback 1991 (cf. 3b issues) and unless it's a direct copy of a map from Temperate and Boreal Rainforests of the World: Ecology and Conservation, it's probably a bridge too far for OR – and even then that might be a copyright issue. If I'm misreading something or if you come up with a compelling reason it's not OR, I'm happy to re-evaluate it, but as of right now I think it should be removed under that policy.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Prose clearly differs from the source material and rephrases, synthesizes, and structures in a way that does not lead it to violate any copyright.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Clearly addresses topics pertinent to the rainforest.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Too many of your sources leave the realm of the topic and are a better fit for Rainforests or Southern Appalachian spruce–fir forest (cf. 2a). Alaback 1991 is a good, reputable source on the ecology of rainforests... but it makes no mention of Appalachia at all; the map on p.402 explicitly ignores it. Similarly, The Southern Appalachians: A History of the Landscape is a great resource, which confirms a lot of what's being said about what's going on in pre-Columbian Appalachia... but it doesn't reference the rainforest at all. I'm willing to pass the threats to the rainforest because it's a threat to the entire ecosystem as a whole, but it still should have some threats unique to it and some of the sourcing is extremely broad or only focuses on a national park (the Smokies in particular usually). I'm reluctant to fail the GA entirely because, by and large, the information is correct. This page specifically just needs to be pruned to stay on topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Nothing stands out as violating this metric.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring or anything like that.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Definitely. All images were either released, in the public domain, or created by the nominator.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All look good and seem pertinent to the subjects at hand; even if the images themselves are not a part of the specific ecosystem, they indicate useful information for the reader. That said, can we confirm the photos are in the "rainforest zone", so to speak?
	7. Overall assessment.	Okay, so I know this is a harsh review, especially for your first ever GAN (and one you're hoping to eventually take to FA); I want to applaud that ambition. That said, we need to do some work to prune this article a bit to give it some focus. I think this article meets general criteria for eventually hitting GA status and certainly does not need to be collapsed into another article (as someone on the talk page attempted). That said, it is not GA quality as of this review. Please let me know whether you'd like me to hold this for a week, hold it for over a week, or fail it until you are ready for re-review.