Wikipedia:Peer review/Russell Cave National Monument/archive1

Russell Cave National Monument

Three days ago, the article on Russell Cave National Monument was quite small. I began reading about the topic and have researched it extensively other the past three days. I think the article is pretty good after the expansion but I would like the input of others. Thanks for your help. Leeannedy 13:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I have a few things
- The creation of the rock is explained but the creation of the cave is less clear.
  - I will add a couple of sentences explaining the formation of the cave and pertinent links to the articles on cave formation. Leeannedy 14:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have now added a explantion of the cavern formation. It is brief but has the pertinent links to other Wikipedia articles. I think it is enough but let me know what you think. Leeannedy 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Archeology and History need to be combined they are too repetative.
  - I have attempted to address your concerns in this area. Upon reviewing the area, the repetition was quite obvious. I have moved almost all references to the lifestyle of the native peoples to the history section. Now the archeological section only contains information about the surveys that were performed (dates and extent of surveys) and information regarding the analysis of the artifact distribution. I think this eliminates the redundancy but I would like to get your opinion again. Leeannedy 14:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I dislike the tone of the Visiting section. Also you could give more info on the "available activies" (but don't call them that). When was the vistor center built? Who paid for it? Was there anything controversial? Who extablished the birding trail? Is there and annual bird watching event? How many rangers are stationed there, have they been reduced because of budjet cutbacks like other National Parks?
  - I now use the phrase "diverse range of attractions" to refer to the features of the park. Does this sound better? Leeannedy 14:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will focus my attention on this section and try to provide more details regarding the attractions and where applicable their history. Leeannedy 14:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Visiting section has been retitled Visitation and completely reworked. I like it much better now. See what you think. Leeannedy 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any ideas were I can find staffing levels and funding information for national parks. I have been all over the NPS site but find almost nothing. Still seems to be a taboo matter. Leeannedy 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple small changes. Also I found two sentences unclear in the intro:

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, I did not contribute the introduction. I only made a few small corrections to it. I will work to clarify these two sentences (you are definitely correct about their ambiguity). Thanks for your help. Leeannedy 22:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your style updates to the article. They are appreciated. Leeannedy 23:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition to the Main Entrance, inside Russell Cave National Monument, there are several other entrances to this cave, including the Pig Entrance and the Canoe Entrance." - Does this mean that there are entrances not in the park? If so, it should state it more clearly (who controls these entrances?)

Until I can find more clear information, I have modified the sentence to reflect the fact that the cave has several entrances but have left their names and locations with respect to the National Monument boundaries unspecified. Leeannedy 23:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"As with all historic areas administered by the National Park Service, the National Monument was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on October 15, 1966." - this could make it appear that all Park Service sites were added to the Register on one day. Should be reworded. Rmhermen 22:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that several were added simultaneously on this day with an act authorizing the National Historic Registry but explaining this in a succinct manner (for example, distinguishing between existing monuments in 1966 and newer monuments) seems excessively complicated for an informational tidbit. I have chosen to simplify the sentence to eliminate the possible confusion. Leeannedy 23:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Formatting of units of measurement has been changed to utilize standard abbreviations for converted quantities. Non-breaking spaces have been introduced between the magnitude and units of measurement.
- One date in the text was linked to the appropriate day and year. One date in the references was linked to the appropriate day and year. All access dates for websites in the references were changed to the ISO date convention YYYY-MM-DD which automatically produces the appropriate links.
- Additive terms have been removed from several locations. I believe that all others are key to the meaning of a sentence or aid substantially in the flow of the article. Please feel free to comment if you see remaining additive terms that should be removed.

Leeannedy 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]