Wikipedia:Featured article review/Banff National Park/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC) [1].

Banff National Park[edit]

Notified: MONGO, WikiProject Geography of Canada, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject World Heritage Sites, WikiProject Alberta, WikiProject Geology

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's a 2006 promotion, and I don't think this still meet the criteria. Like I mentioned at talk page, there's still some paragraph lack footnotes.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mention it to the primary author...all I did was nominate it. You could of course look for some references yourself and help out, as I mentioned on the article talkpage back in May. Some things are generally common knowledge that wouldn't need an inline ref.--MONGO 02:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they were common knowledge, then this should be very easily done.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your meager contributions to en.wiki, you are not only too lazy to assist but also too lazy to list the issues. Looks like trolling to me.--MONGO 10:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... good for you.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come up with specifics troll or be gone. Surely you can come up with specifics....no? That should be easy shouldn't it?--MONGO 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, enough of the sniping here. Jarodalien, can you please specify which of the criteria you feel are not met and why? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already add cn tags more than 5 months ago, and mentioned at talk page. Lots of paragraphs have no inline citation at all.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, but just so we're clear - your only concern with FA status here is the state of the article's sourcing? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is my main concern, but shince you mention it, I also hope infomation like "As of the 2005 census, the Town of Banff has a population of 8,352, of which nearly 7,000 are permanent residents", "Climate data for Banff", "with 3,927,557 visitors in 2004/2005", "with 32 wolf deaths along the Trans-Canada Highway between 1987 and 2000, leaving only 31 wolves in the area" along with other data could least update to 2010s. Thank you.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources, and could update some of the information like the census numbers. Aude (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak close. I have fact checked the entire history section, finding no problems. Consequently, although the geography and geology sections are not fully sourced, I'm inclined to believe that the content of those sections is also verifiable. There don't appear to be any statements in the section that are controversial. Other editors have done some updating of the figures, and I've done a copyedit and review of the images. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has tagged the geology section for citation needed and clarification with some detailed comments in the edit summaries. So, that section needs looking at. DrKay (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the issue related to climate data, it is from 1971–2000 and there is none from 1981–2010 since the weather station closed in 1995 so only 15 years of data from 1981–1995 using the 1981–2010 data. Environment Canada did opened an automatic weather station from 1997 until the present (Banff Cs) though no climatological normals for that station is published so manually calculating the normals from that station would run into WP:OR. It would be impossible to update the data to 2010s for it if the weather station closed in 1995. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that too. I've asked for help at WikiProject Geology for the geology section. Pinging User:MONGO and User:Aude. DrKay (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

I have moved to FARC mainly because of the Geology section needing cleanup. Comments on prose also invited. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Geology section needs clarification, citation and cleanup per Talk:Banff National Park#Possible FAR. DrKay (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ Per unsolved problems. --Jarodalien (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hold delisting for 2 weeks please and I'll attempt to address the issues.--MONGO 11:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently working on updating geology section...any further questions would be helpful but I am nearly done.--MONGO 01:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Still working on improvements...another week needed.--MONGO 01:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MONGO has made a considerable effort to bring this article back to the high standard demanded of a featured article and I consider he has succeeded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay: and @Jarodalien:, given there's been some work by MONGO, just wondering if you feel your concerns have been addressed? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added specifics to the talk page so that other readers may help with fixing. The geology section needs major cleanup, imo. Even without a background in geology, editors inspecting the article should question mixed up facts, mountains trend this way then that, mixed up times, difficult geography (in and out and around the park), sensationalist claims about research unsupported, and other problems in a featured article.
There is no way I can edit it, because it is too difficult to follow, but, also, no one can be an effective editor once ownership of an article is established by calling other editors trolls for raising issues and pointing out problems. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:DC63:FC39:86B3:6D1E (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can continue to address some of your concerns and from what you posted at the article talk page there do appear to be some issues yet to address.--MONGO 18:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we move your comments from the article talk page to here?--MONGO 18:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Go ahead. I think it is better on the article's talk page, personally. Also, I have worked with you before on Western forest fire articles, and I think you're a good editor, so you can probably do this, but I think an outline of geological date and place, then moving from there in the writing to finer details would make it easier to write and wind up with something understandable. 2600:380:985F:CE86:C9B7:33E4:EA8:F7CF (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, if you do it this way, I am willing to correct errors as I catch them, but it's too jumbled up right now. 166.173.58.255 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cool, look as long as folks are actively improving these things then I am happy to leave them open for extended periods so take yer time to do it right..cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: and others: any outstanding issues here? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few cites and small update still to do in Glacier section and a deep proofreading yet.--MONGO 01:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: keep at it, happy to cut plenty of slack time-wise if folks are trying to keep it FA. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: et al, any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I've been real life busy and got sidetracked working on a few other things. I want to do more updates to the glacier section but not much newer info than about 2005 exists. I have every intention of continuing to update the article as an ongoing process. As one of primary original editors on the FAC (the article is actually almost all Aude's work) I remain committed to ongoing improvements. Are there any other issues anyone sees that prevent the article from retaining FA status?--MONGO 01:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO:? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...are there any other notable issues remaining?--MONGO 04:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay: how do you feel about it now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for this to close as a keep. There were one or two places where I was uncertain how to handle hyphens (e.g. Banff-Yoho border) and abbreviations at the end of a sentence (m.y.a.) but these are trivial. Thanks for the work done. DrKay (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had many family issues as of this year so my editing is way down...even so I am also going to deep scan for issues and do a proofreading over the next few days.--MONGO 17:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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