Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banff National Park

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Banff National Park[edit]

Renominating this article which was previously nominated almost two months ago but the major contributor disagreed with the nomination, wishing instead to make further improvements. Banff National Park has been at Peer review for a couple of weeks and no serious objections were made. No doubt, all the bases are covered here as far as information goes and I believe this article is well referenced, informative and encyclopedic.--MONGO 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we wait until next week, say Wednesday? I will pretty much be on wikibreak until then, and unavailable to address any objections. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(co-nominate) I have now gone through peer review suggestions, and will be around this weekend to address any concerns. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's a good article... :) Thankyoubaby 04:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A lot of work was put into this. It's beautiful. Bremen 06:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Footnotes go at the end of punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence. Suggest adding template coordinates, which will display lat/long in upper right of article page. See Baden-Powell House and Gilwell Park for examples of usage. If you fix these two things, I'll support. Rlevse 12:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and fixed references, and added the coor template. Now, there are a few instances where footnotes are mid-sentence, referencing a particular phrase, fact, or number (such as the first one, "...encompasses 6,641 square kilometres (2,564 mi²)[1]". According to Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags, that's fine. But, there were a few others, such as in the "Ecoregions" section that were clearly formatted incorrectly. These have been corrected. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to chime in that having the coordinates in the upper right at the top of the article page is redundant, and I usually remove this on sight in these types of articles...reasoning...the same coordinates are located in the infobox which is already at the top of the article.--MONGO 17:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AH, I hadn't noticed that. Agree they don't need to be in both spots.Rlevse 02:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now Rlevse 16:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The locator map in the introduction needs some work. At first glance the large green spots showing the locations of other national parks are quite a bit more prominent than the small red dot showing Banff's location. - SimonP 02:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure we can do anything better. What do you suggest? The locator map, implemented with the {{Infobox_protected_area}}, uses Image:Locator_Dot.gif and the background map, Image:Canadian National Parks Location.png. This map is used for all Canadian National Parks, and for consistency any change would need to apply to all Canadian National Parks.
  1. We could switch to a plain map with only province boundaries and no parks. See Glacier National Park (US) for comparison, which uses a plain map with state boundaries.
  2. We could keep the parks on the map. Though, maybe the green colour could be adjusted to make them less prominent?
  3. Much more complicated to implement, but we could change the dot symbol to something else, adjust its colour, or size. Though, this would break from consistency with dot locator maps across Wikipedia. This would also require a separate Infobox for just Canadian parks, and this new symbol/size/colour would apply across all Canadian parks.
  4. Get rid of the dot locator map, and come up with something entirely different. But, would loose consistency across park articles.
Which of these options would you suggest, or do you have some other suggestions. My preference would be to keep the map with the parks, as it helps to show Banff in relation to the location and size of other parks. Yes, some other parks happen to be much larger and thus more "prominent". But, I'm open to suggestions and other ideas. --Aude (talk contribs) 02:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any of the first three should work, though changing the dot is probably the best idea. - SimonP 12:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the map with more washed out park areas (change will affect all pages on all wikis using that image).--Qyd 14:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looks very good. I think the map is best with the dot, as-is. It's the same dot used on all dot locator maps, and good to use it here for consistency. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nice job by Aude and co. PDXblazers 18:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very good looking article—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 12:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It looks very impressive and has gone through proper process for becoming an FA. It would take serious objections on the factual content of the article for me to change my support.--Jersey Devil 20:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Banff_National_Park&oldid=1145612730"