Talk:Glacier National Park (Canada)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Keihatsu (talk · contribs) 22:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to review this one, though I need to warn you that it may take a few days. I'll post some initial comments shortly. Keihatsu ^talk 22:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It is 1,349 km2 (521 sq mi) in area and was established in 1886." — when I first read this, I thought the "it" was referring to the Trans-Canada highway, which is mentioned in the preceding sentence. I made an attempt to rearrange a little for clarity.

Try to introduce more diversity in the structure of the sentences, especially in the introduction. Many sentences there begin the same way, either with "it" or "the park". I didn't see this problem in the rest of the article.

Going to do a re-write on the whole lead. The Interior (Talk) 18:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead re-written. The Interior (Talk) 15:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Due to its location near major transportation routes" — It's not located near transportation routes, is it? It's transected by major transportation routes.

Changed. The Interior (Talk) 15:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing a wikilink to Canadian Pacific Railway when it first appears in the body text. You should also probably add the CPR acronym there, since it comes up frequently later in the article.

Done. The Interior (Talk) 19:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple different styles of English used. For instance, I see a "kilometres" (used in UK and sometimes Canadian english), but also "traveler/traveling" (used in American English). I suggest sticking to Canadian english for this article.

Changed the instance of "travelling" - any other CanEng issues you see? (I blame Firefox's spellcheck!) The Interior (Talk) 18:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the "kilometres" spelling is a product of the convert template. I'd prefer "kilometers", but I'm not sure how to tweak the template ... The Interior (Talk) 18:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use the |sp=us switch to give kilometers. I've added it. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Bob! The Interior (Talk) 01:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph in the Geography section seems like it might fit better in the introduction. At a minimum, some of that content could be incorporated into the intro. Something to think about.

Have added some of this to the lead, but I'd like to keep this for general facts on geography that don't fit into other sections. The Interior (Talk) 15:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several spots that could use more wikilinking. I noticed this most in the Ecology section, where things seem to be linked inconsistently or not at all (don't want to over overdue it, of course). Some things are linked, but only on the second or third appearance (eg. Stellar's Jays).

Have done some work on this for the Ecology section, I'll do a full article review of the wiki-linking. The Interior (Talk) 18:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there wolves in the park? Worth mentioning if there are, along with the other large mammals listed.

Woods mentions a single observation of timberwolf tracks in the Park, with no live sightings. Not sure why they don't like the park, might be that the sharp ridges make inter-valley travel difficult. The Interior (Talk) 18:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Climate section, it uses both millimeters and meters to measure snowfall. Might want to make this consistent.

Changed to meters. The Interior (Talk) 18:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The climate data table is compressed by default. Is there a reason?

I'll have to look into this. Maybe I'll try to use the new notification system to get Ssbbplayer (talk · contribs)'s attention (they're the climate table expert!). The Interior (Talk)

Overall, the article looks great. Well done! Keihatsu ^talk 23:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt and in-depth review. These changes all seem reasonable, and I should be able to address them in the next few days. I'm thinking of re-doing the lead now that you point it out; it could be at least three full paragraphs. Also, I've just received a 2012 "Glacier inventory" from a Parks Canada information officer I wrote to - the glacier data I have currently is badly out of date (the new data is scary in terms of glacier reduction). I'll be re-writing that section, so I'll need you to check over that when I'm done. The Interior (Talk) 18:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article has improved over the past few days. I was going to suggest expanding the intro and more wikilinks but you seen to have attended to that already. I'd standardize how the park is referred to...you could call it "the park" in the body of the article, but not too often. Other possibilities is to simply call it "Glacier" or "Glacier NP" to shorten, but you should pick one or the other to standardize. I'm not a reviewer so just consider my suggestions to be ones you can adopt or ignore as you choose.--MONGO 16:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The changes made look good to me, and the introduction is much improved. I am going to pass the article now, but I encourage you to continue making improvements. Keihatsu ^talk 21:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

"The park has 131 glaciers over 0.05 square metres (0.54 sq ft) in size" That would be a largish ice cube! Surely something has been lost in translation here. Half a square foot of ice? I don't have the referenced article but this does not pass the basic credibility test. There is no way half a square foot constitutes a glacier. Chann94501 (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, that should read square kilometers. Good catch. Wording in source, "The inventory identified 147 glaciers (GNP 131, MRNP 16), with a minimum size of 0.05 km2." with GNP meaning Glacier Nat. Park. I can email the PDF if you'd like to see it. The Interior (Talk) 18:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]