Wikipedia:Peer review/Grand Teton National Park/archive1

Grand Teton National Park

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is one of the most visited U.S. National Parks, and has a vibrant history, especially in regards to the park establishment. I recognize the article is long but can't see any major things that should be removed. I've run citationbot and reflinks checks and it comes out well...it has 158 references...there has been some minor ce by others, the vast majority of the page was my development, so it mainly needs watchful eyes to see how it complies with MOS and to help on prose.

Thanks, MONGO 15:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, MONGO. I'm reading the article slowly (RL taking its toll), it looks very impressive so far! I've copyedited the first section, "Paleo-Indians and Native Americans", lightly, please check I haven't removed anything that needed to be there, or misunderstood. Please change anything you like back, of course. A couple of queries re that section:

The Shoshones continued to follow the same migratory pattern as their predecessors and have been documented as having a close spiritual relationship with the Teton Range. A number of stone enclosures on some of the peaks, including on the upper slopes of Grand Teton (known simply as The Enclosure) are believed to have been used by Shoshone during vision quests.[9] In 1868, the mountain dwelling Shoshone were relocated to the Wind River Indian Reservation east of the Wind River Range in Wyoming.[7]:

• It isn't known how many Shoshone resided semi-permanently in the region...however, the relocation was to the east slopes of the Wind River Range...and after I correct this guesstimate with an actual fact as far as distance...that it is less than 100 miles to the southeast.MONGO 20:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so well up on extremely ignorant of the geography involved — did the relocation mean the Shoshone were moved away from the area they had the close spiritual relationship with? Or did they remain in physical contact with the Teton Range? It's all in Wyoming, isn't it, so that description isn't so much help. Does the implied narrative end in spiritual disaster, or what? Perhaps that could be clarified with a few words.

‪Would it be possible to make some of the many synonyms ‬in this section ‪for ‬"probably", ‪"is believed to"‬, etc,‪ active instead of passive? ‬(‪Who believes it‬)‪? Is it perhaps in some cases actually *known*?‬ All the "believing" within the same passage sounds awfully cautious (though perhaps properly so?) and a bit repetitious, with the same form of words many times. Back later! Frutti di Mare 19:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC).

I will make these adjustments...had noticed this myself..kind of akin to weasel wording which needs to be avoided...thank you!MONGO 20:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

MONGO, you said before that the Shoshone "were relocated", and now you say they "relocated", which makes a whole different impression. Did you mean to change that? I suppose the move wasn't exactly their own idea? Frutti di Mare 17:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

You're right and I see you've corrected that. U.S. Government policy had always been to relocate Native American tribes to reservations...I haven't been able to find any information on precisely how many Shoshone were orginally forced onto the Wind River Reservation, but tribes usually followed their chiefs and this case, we're talking about Chief Washakie.--MONGO 01:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• This article is really very well written. Excellent flow! A couple of details in the next section, "Fur trade exploration":

The explanation of what the name means (="the big breasts") feels a little belated — it fits here, but how about just a mention in the lede, too, or right after it? (I realize that the sooner it comes, the more of a vandal magnet the article will become. Watch out for additions of Great Tit to the "See also" section. :-) )

Hehe...well, I hope not, but this is likely. I took a stab at adding this matter to the introduction.--MONGO 02:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

How was the struggle for control of the fur trade an offshoot of border disputes in the region? Wasn't the fur trade substantially the reason there were border disputes? Frutti di Mare 18:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

They were part of the disputes as the region was claimed by both the US and the UK...and not settled until the Oregon Treaty of 1846. Adjusting this for clarification.--MONGO 02:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Organized exploration and settlement":

Ranching increased but then the wolves were extirpated? Is there something missing here? I would have thought the connection was cause and effect, rather than opposition—if there isn't room to explain, might it be better to not mention the wolves at all in this section?

I removed this...good point...it was on a tangent to the section and has more to do with Yellowstone NP to the north since that is were the reintroduction of the species was done...--MONGO 02:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Doane "enhanced the aura of wildness for the region"—mm, what? Strange use of "aura"—not sure what you mean. Enhanced the region's reputation for wildness? Frutti di Mare 22:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC).

I reviewed the source again and feel that it is of minor significance to this article..so I simply removed it.--MONGO 02:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Establishment of the park":

Sorry, but I feel this section is rather too detailed, and might be shortened. Noting your special mention of the park establishment in the request above, I realize that shortening this particular section would amount to killing your darlings... but, while each fact separately is interesting, putting so many of them (so many US presidents, so many names altogether, and so much change back-and-forth of local opinion) into one section has made the text a little heavy. In other words, while it's long for a section, it still feels perhaps too condensed for comfortable reading. How would you feel about summarizing it, with more emphasis on results than process, and moving the present content to a {{main article}}? Frutti di Mare 20:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

What I want to convey is the "fight" for the development of the park against local interest groups which had a powerful lobby in Congress...there were three fights actually...the first was to incorporate the region into an expanded Yellowstone NP (which did not happen). The second was simply to preserve the mountains and the third was to keep save Jackson Hole and add it to the park...I do think your suggestion of streamlining this section and perhaps creating a main article on another page is not a bad one...I'll look at this tomorrow when I can dedicate more time.--MONGO 20:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Ah. I had trouble seeing that three-fight overall pattern (seeing the wood for the trees), I got distracted by all the people and groups and organizations putting their oar in. It might be good to emphasize the overarching narrative more. Frutti di Mare 21:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

:::On the obverse of this peer review request (the talk page), I have copied the section, adding a short intro before I create a new main article...I think I can trim out the following from section in the grand Teton article...1)discussion of the dam construction (which I will need to add elsewhere though) 2)stick to the emphasis of the struggle between environmentalists and local interests, and 3)simply ensure the dates for the original park (1929) the monument (1943) and the combination of the two (1950) are explained...that should eliminate two paragraphs from the section and I'll do this soon...?--MONGO 20:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've trimmed it some...will look and see if I can trim more and make it more streamlined and focused.--MONGO 00:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed it more...I think I have stuck with the primary details...and that the message is still conveyed. Creating a main article on this matter was a good idea...several entire books have been written just on this topic alone.MONGO 13:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Great work, MONGO; the section is much more reader-friendly like this. One cavil, though: to the non-US reader, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation isn't a household name, and not at all self-explanatory: so the second sentence sounds like it's heading in some different, unknown, direction. "Some agency built a dam; what about it?" Light breaks with the phrase "irrigation for agriculture" two sentences ahead, but it's an unnecessary stumble. Mention irrigation, or commercial exploitation or something like that, immediately after the first sentence? In every other way, this reads very nicely now. Frutti di Mare 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC).

Thanks...I added less than a sentence...I think it now explains who and why the dam was originally built...let me know if this is still insufficient...--MONGO 03:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Park management":

I've recast a couple of phrases in this section and moved the sentence about the many visitors, experimentally, from the end to the beginning. Please see what you think.

Looks better by far..thank you.--MONGO 03:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"…through partnerships with other entities, 10 million dollars is hoped to be raised to acquire private inholdings by 2016" — I'd really like to have an active subject there. What entity is primarily doing the raising and hoping, and being contrasted with some other entities? Frutti di Mare 23:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC).

Added a little to this...since some of these are current events and ongoing, its not going to remain stable overall...its actually of minor consequence to the article compared to other issues covered...MONGO 13:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• "History of mountaineering"

"Langford and Stevenson are believed to have only climbed to the location of The Enclosure, even though some believe they made the first ascent to the summit." "Are believed" and "some believe" are pretty much equivalent, aren't they. I suppose they can't be called weaselly, since there's a citation, but the way of putting it doesn't make the reader much wiser. It sounds a bit like a stage in an edit war about Bigfoot, if you see what I mean. What's the preponderance of informed opinion, if there is any?

What makes the first ascent controversial is the fact that Langford was also the first superindendent of Yellowstone NP...he said he and Stevenson "climbed" the mountain, but his descrptions of what he saw enroute have never been supported by others who we know did make it to the summit, including Owen in 1898...also, Owen had twice before failed to reach the summit and only succeeded with the lead climbing by an experienced mountaineer named Spalding...however, for more than 25 years, it was believed that Langford had made the first ascent and even Spalding was in disagreement with Owen over the matter...Owen was very influential in Wyoming politics and even after Langford died in 1911, Owen continued to discredit his claims...I'll try to. Further clean up the weasel wording later today.MONGO 16:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Glaciation"

Smooth! Very clear and well structured.

• "Fauna"

"Grand Teton National Park has four species of reptiles such as the wandering garter snake and the less commonly seen valley garter snake and rubber boa.. " Three out of the four snakes are enumerated under the rubric of "such as"; that's just tantalizing. What's the fourth? Alternatively, maybe you'd prefer to mention just one or two out of the four by name? Frutti di Mare 14:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC).

I just changed such as to which are...MONGO 16:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

But, MONGO. With that, you really need to name four species, not three. Frutti di Mare 17:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC).

I think I got this worded better...3 species of snakes and one species of lizard...MONGO 17:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Mountaineering"

Just a detail: does the reference say that overnight stay permits are free? On a quick check, I can't find any mention of it. Plus, if the actual permit is free, that's rather a technical point, as they recommend advance reservation ("The park backcountry is very popular"), and that costs $25. Skip "free", perhaps?

I am going to slightly expand this section yet and make one longish paragraph...--MONGO 05:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Camping and hiking"

I'm a little worried about the encyclopedic quality of the first two paragraphs here. The third paragraph has fine encyclopedic information IMO, except only the sentence "Hikers should be prepared to share some trails with horses", which is phrased as downright advice to prospective visitors — not what encyclopedias are supposed to do. The first paragraph, with all the specific figures about which kind and size of vehicles are allowed at which campground, certainly is close to being mere instruction and advice. That's useful when planning a trip, of course… on the other hand, the section contains links to the "Campgrounds" page of the "Plan your visit" brochure (which the info in the paragraph comes from). Wouldn't it actually be still better for the trip planner to go straight to that page? Of course it has even fuller instructions and figures than the article. But I'm really not sure about this. I see Mav, below, praises the section as "exactly on point", so perhaps I'm over-fussy about this kind of stuff.

You're quite correct...I've cobbled the sentences together better (?) I hope and eliminated the travelogue aspects of the discussion...it may need more tweaking yet, but wanted ot convey the various types of vehicluar access campgrounds available, and elaborate on how backcountry camping is regulated...in researching the issue, found that "front–country has a hyphen but "backcountry" generally does not...I took out the sharing trails wiht horses and just left the fact that horses are permitted on most trails...(from personal recollection though, horseback riding was rarely seen above the valley floor as the trails to the passes are quite steep...--MONGO 05:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Boating and fishing"

A little dubious about some details in this as well. I commented out the sentence "The license can be purchased at several places within the park and the permits are sold for yearly or one day access" as excessive for an international encyclopedia. The rest of the section is of general interest (perhaps not every word of it), in that it gives a sense of the protective measures in place to make sure the park isn't over-used; but that sentence seems to be only for the benefit of those making plans to visit. Advice/information of that type is easily available to them elsewhere on the web.

Trimmed as advised to emphasize conservation issues...--MONGO 05:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Accommodations"

"Exclusive" cabins is too much adspeak, IMO. There should be some adjective, no doubt.. I can't think of a good one. Actually "luxury" sounds more neutrally descriptive, to my ear. (Or, hey, how about "expensive"? :-)). Frutti di Mare 21:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC).

I eliminated this issue...--MONGO 05:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Lede

Oh, I forgot, I meant to copyedit the intro last. I wanted to spruce up the phrasing about the drive-in campsites ("more than 1000 drive-in campsites are in the park"), but realized I don't really understand the force of the sentence Backcountry camping is available by permit and is closely regulated to prevent overcrowding, while more than 1000 drive-in campsites are in the park. Does the term "backcountry" imply that it's not accessible by car, so that there's a contrast between "Backcountry camping" and "drive-in campsites" (hence the "while")? Is that it? I don't think everybody understands the term fully, however obvious it is to U.S mountain men such as yourself, MONGO. ;-) I've wikilinked it, for a start. You might want to make the whole sentence smoother and clearer; I feel a bit out of my depth with it. Frutti di Mare 20:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC).

Yes...front-country means sites can be driven right to or very near to, whereby backcountry means non-vehicular access sites...this needs to be made more concise yet explanatory...will attend to that shortly...MONGO 20:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Very nice. What a good idea idea to focus on the trails rather than on camping-and-permit stuff which was only dodgily encyclopedic to begin with. Frutti di Mare 08:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

Thank you...the hiking trails needed a mention in the lede for sure...Under history of mountaineering, I wanted to add a historical image and found one which was taken by a member fo the first unquestioned ascent of Grand Teton, but the ownership of this image is not clear though it does date from 1898...on another tangent, for brevity I was wondering if it is necessary to spell out Grand Teton National Park in every instance as if it isn't clear what the topic is after the name of the park is clearly delineated...it can't say just Grand Teton since that might confuse a the mountain with the park...the National Park Service abbreviation is GRTE, but that seems less than poetic...thoughts?MONGO 11:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the abbreviation GRTE is boring and spikey. (And not even an initialism, so it could be confusing.) It would take up less space, but that's hardly the point; it's harder to read, not easier. Your present practice seems fine. I believe you refer to the park area (or, to that area plus or minus a bit) as "the Grand Teton region" for the historical parts, before the park existed; as "Grand Teton National Park" the first time it's mentioned in a paragraph; and most commonly as "the park" in other places, where there's no risk of ambiguity. That's all good. A related cavil, though: sometimes the park is made to sound curiously like an agency, or even a human: "it" erects buildings and administers the Memorial Parkway thing.

.. the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, which is administered by Grand Teton National Park..

Grand Teton National Park, in partnership with other agencies, erected the first air quality monitoring station in the park in 2011.

The second quote amounts to explicitly calling the park an agency. That may be in accordance with the park authorities' own usage, I don't know, but it grates a little on my ear. Is there an administrative body which could appropriately be named as pursuing these activities? Frutti di Mare 16:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

Yes...very valid point...I will adjust that immediately!--MONGO 17:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by mav

Reading from the bottom up since almost everybody else does it the other way around.

Tourism

• Looks good as-is.

Recreation

• First subsection Mountaineering, is really a history of mountaineering in the Tetons and not about the recreation aspects of that sport. The text is also too wordy and flowery - example: "the peaks of the Tetons beckoned explorers looking for adventure". Text would be greatly improved by condensing it and moving it into the History section. Then a new subsection on the recreation aspects of modern mountaineering (established routes, permits, weather/seasonal considerations, safety, etc.) is needed.
  • Fine points...I had wanted to "tell the tale" about the climb to the summit of the grand only because it seems it is (least I see the same comments in numerous places) one of, if not "the" American mountaineering controversy that never ends...akin though less spectacular (if you're familiar) with the story of Mallory and Irving on Everest in the 1920's...did they make it or not...no one will ever know for sure. Likewise in this case...so shall the section be part of the human history section...in it's own section or simply mentioned briefly and linked to a short daughter article?--MONGO 02:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The way it is now is fine. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Mav...I moved the mountaineering section to human history, clarified some points, added some to the rock climbing history and will expand the recreation section on mountaineering in the next few days as you suggested...--MONGO 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Looks good. --mav (reviews needed) 22:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• "Camping and hiking" and the other subsections are exactly on point and well-written.

Ecology

• General comment: If this section gets much longer it will be a candidate for summarizing and moving to its own article soon.
• "Additionally, though not considered native to the immediate region, the mountain goat is considered an accidental species because it has only been reported once or twice and is not considered to be indigenous." Three "considered"s in the same sentence. Other than that, the section looks good.

More later. --mav (reviews needed) 00:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks for spotting that...hum...it took two edits..but managed ot streamline that here...--MONGO 02:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You solved the repetition problem, MONGO, but somewhat at the expense of flow and focus in those sentences, IMO. Please check out my tweak, it's wide open for further improvement.

@ Mav as well as MONGO: I'm a little worried about the map of the park. The ignorant really need to study it in order to understand the descriptions and relationships in the "Geography" section, at least if they're stupid like me, and it's a very good map.. but the finest print in it is quite difficult to read even at full resolution (789 × 1,112 px). The text of the section is probably as clear as it can be, but text on its own just isn't the best medium for describing complex spatial relations. Mav, you uploaded the map. Do you by any chance have it available in a still higher resolution? (I realize it was back in 2005 that you uploaded it.) It would be helpful if it was possible to access a big-ass version from the image page. It'll hardly help the seriously vision impaired, something that's difficult to do with maps (incidentally, how about some alt text, MONGO?), but it would help the merely myopic and closely-peering like myself. Frutti di Mare 13:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC).

I simply removed the mountain goat discussion and the elaboration on bighorn sheep since the primary large ungulates seen in the park are elk and bison...I'll look around for a new higher resolution map...do yu want one that shows surrounded regions or one that is simply very park specific at higher resolution?--MONGO 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I just added a link to the map image thumbnail...it directs to a pdf version of the park map that allows excellent expansion on the geography...does that help?--MONGO 17:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Yes, it helps a lot. Pity the park is the wrong shape for being conveniently viewed at high resolution on an ordinary computer screen.. but there's not a lot Wikipedia can do about that, no. ;-) Frutti di Mare 20:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC).

• Just a comment that I by over the next 4 days I'll create articles to eliminate all redlined links.MONGO 13:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  Update...still working on eliminating redlined links...will have this taken care of soon!MONGO 11:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Other than a general comment that the article is a bit on the long side and opportunities need to be explored about summarizing and spinning off detail. the article looks good. --mav (reviews needed) 23:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mav...also appreciate your image addition to the paleo-inidian discussion..that section looked pretty bare beforehand.MONGO 11:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)