Wikipedia:Peer review/Glacier National Park (US)/archive1
This article has been substantially upgraded in both the level of information and the quality of information since mid-April. Any thoughts that may help us improve the article are most appreciated. As a side note, over thirty stubs were created including a Category to link them all together, in an effort to eliminate redlined links, as shown in the Category:Glacier National Park (US) at the bottom of the article.--MONGO 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- The lead is a bit jam-packed with images, otherwise it looks and reads quite well. Try and get someone who hasn't worked on the article to copy edit it. Also, I'm curious as to why you didn't follow the same article layout as your previous Shoshone National Forest?--nixie 00:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I mentioned the article to a few folks, but haven't been able to get anyone to proofread it. Do you think the format for Shoshone was better? It's longer and uses the somewhat outdated Ref|note style of citing. I created Shoshone from scratch, while this article already existed and I didn't want to make major changes to some of the existing wording out of respect for others hard work. I really appreciate the time you have taken to look this over...I'll relook Shoshone over and see how I can adapt some of that style here.--MONGO 01:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think the organisation of this one is probably better; something it lacks which the Shoshone article has is a section on management. If this park has something interesting about its management, it might be worth adding. Sorry I can't be more help on the copyediting, I'm only good at it when the English is really bad; I tend to miss more subtle grammatical things.--nixie 03:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks...I see your point and there are management documents I can sift through to see if I can add that....I did overlook this and there are definite differences in regards to how the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service manage their areas. Thanks again, and it's good to hear there aren't a lot of typos and what not.--MONGO 04:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've added a management section and I think that makes a difference, thanks again for pointing that out.--MONGO 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think the organisation of this one is probably better; something it lacks which the Shoshone article has is a section on management. If this park has something interesting about its management, it might be worth adding. Sorry I can't be more help on the copyediting, I'm only good at it when the English is really bad; I tend to miss more subtle grammatical things.--nixie 03:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I mentioned the article to a few folks, but haven't been able to get anyone to proofread it. Do you think the format for Shoshone was better? It's longer and uses the somewhat outdated Ref|note style of citing. I created Shoshone from scratch, while this article already existed and I didn't want to make major changes to some of the existing wording out of respect for others hard work. I really appreciate the time you have taken to look this over...I'll relook Shoshone over and see how I can adapt some of that style here.--MONGO 01:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)