Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geology of the Capitol Reef area
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Geology of the Capitol Reef area
Self-nom. Been a good article for a while and all feedback at its peer review has been addressed. I've been working on this article for a couple years; almost all the text was written by me and many of the photos were taken by me. I've pretty much completely exhausted all the cited references of all their information about the geologic history of this place and there really isn't much at all online about this topic besides what I've written here. Is there anything else that should be done before this can be considered to be one of our best articles? If so, what? --mav 23:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support, another great one of course. If there's anything this needs, it's beyond me to know. - Taxman Talk 02:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support: this is great, looking forward to Geology of the Colorado Plateau! -- hike395 05:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks :) - Geology of the Colorado Plateau will need to wait until after I've written about the geology of a few more parks on the plateau. --mav 13:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support I noticed that for some reason, those footnotes listed after number 46 in the article do not go to their reference when you click on them. Number 47-63 all end up half way between reference number 46 and 47. I looked for a glitch, but I am not familiar enough with this reference type to see what the problem is...otherwise, everything else appears to be excellent. I am impressed by your ability to detail so much information without being too wordy.--MONGO 15:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment :) I try to balance density with readability and *hate* text that goes on and on and does not say much. - As for the cite issue... I couldn't reproduce the error. Might be an issue with your browser and the cite function. --mav 15:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is because you're reaching the end of the article; the browser can't scroll down any further than #46. --BillC 09:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, my bad...I'm sorry I even mentioned this about not scrolling far enough.--MONGO 12:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support.
CommentExcellent article. I would give some thought to dealing with some of the redlinks, or at least those that tell the reader to "see redlinked article". (Though I note the comments on its peer review). My other thought was that the very first picture, which is the geologic cross-section, might be better as one of the more striking images from elsewhere in the article, and the diagram be moved down. To me, it looks a little intimidatingly dry for a first picture. --BillC 22:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)- Thanks for the compliment - good comments as well. I went ahead and moved one of my photos of the Reef up and move the strat column down to where it was before - next to the TOC. That way people see a pretty picture in the lead and see a strat column next to the TOC that has the same formation names but in chronological instead of stratigraphic order. Which reminds me that I need to edit the strat column image to include some group names used in the TOC. I also commented out the few cases where I told readers to look at an article that does not exist yet. I do plan to create those articles, but not any time real soon. I'm already creating stubs for each of the formations mentioned in this article and should be done sometime this week. --mav 22:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- (Vote now added) A couple more comments, which may not be actionable: Some of the imbedded pictures look a little small on my 1152x864 browser. Have a think about making them larger, or at least the first one. This might be something you can't satisfy everyone on, though. The other is, bear in mind that once it goes on the front page, all hell would break loose with editors and vandals going for those redlinks, so you would probably want to have closed off almost all of those by then. BillC 09:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the support vote. :) As for the image size issue; I’m using the standard thumb size for most images and a width of 300px for the first image. 300px is the max size allowed per MoS for any image with text flowing around it. I run my 20" desktop screens at 1600x1200 and my 15" tablet screen at 1400x1024. The images are kinda small but not too small to me. One thing you can do is reset your pref for thumb size from the default 180px to something larger (the standard default really should be 200px). That will at least take care of the thumb images. Good point about the red links - I will make sure they are all filled with at least stubs by the time this article is put on the Main Page. --mav 13:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- (Vote now added) A couple more comments, which may not be actionable: Some of the imbedded pictures look a little small on my 1152x864 browser. Have a think about making them larger, or at least the first one. This might be something you can't satisfy everyone on, though. The other is, bear in mind that once it goes on the front page, all hell would break loose with editors and vandals going for those redlinks, so you would probably want to have closed off almost all of those by then. BillC 09:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment - good comments as well. I went ahead and moved one of my photos of the Reef up and move the strat column down to where it was before - next to the TOC. That way people see a pretty picture in the lead and see a strat column next to the TOC that has the same formation names but in chronological instead of stratigraphic order. Which reminds me that I need to edit the strat column image to include some group names used in the TOC. I also commented out the few cases where I told readers to look at an article that does not exist yet. I do plan to create those articles, but not any time real soon. I'm already creating stubs for each of the formations mentioned in this article and should be done sometime this week. --mav 22:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Weak opposeSupport- I'd really like to see identical refs combined. Also, I don't think you need to go into such details as "paragraph x". At worst, just give the quote! Circeus 00:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Identical refs combined? How does one do that when the same ref is used for multiple sentences that are separated by other sentences? --mav 01:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- If you are using the <ref> style, you can combine repeated refs by adding a "name" - so the first is <ref name="xxx">Ref to XXX.</ref> and the subsequent ones are <ref name="xxx" />. See, oh, Simon Byrne for an example. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Neat! Done - ref count in ===Notes=== section was cut in half. Thanks for the tip. :) -- mav 01:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- If you are using the <ref> style, you can combine repeated refs by adding a "name" - so the first is <ref name="xxx">Ref to XXX.</ref> and the subsequent ones are <ref name="xxx" />. See, oh, Simon Byrne for an example. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Identical refs combined? How does one do that when the same ref is used for multiple sentences that are separated by other sentences? --mav 01:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'd really like to see identical refs combined. Also, I don't think you need to go into such details as "paragraph x". At worst, just give the quote! Circeus 00:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support. An excellently written article, extensively referenced, and containing well placed, free pictures. I wouldn't worry too much about the referencess; though it would certainly look a little more compact and organized if you combined them, to my knowledge you wouldn't be able to keep the details about page numbers and paragraphs. When I went through it, I found a broken wikilink (missing a bracket as [[Arches National Park]); though I didn't see anything else, it might be nice if another pair of eyes went over and see if there's something small that all of us have missed so far. No reason to oppose, though! Nice work! — Rebelguys2 talk 23:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. :) I went ahead and combined the refs anyway. The heading names in the books I've used as references give all the direction people need to confirm what I've cited - only page numbers are needed in most cases. Stating the section names and paragraphs is a bit of overkill considering that. -- mav 01:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support; this looks great. And mav, welcome back to FAC! Haven't seen one of your stellar geology articles around here in awhile. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 22:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
