Wikipedia:Featured article review/Carlsbad Caverns National Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Carlsbad Caverns National Park

"Brilliant prose" promotion. Messages left at Geography and Protected areas. Sandy (Talk) 22:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Message has also been left at Bevo. Sandy (Talk) 01:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Much of the "Geology" and "Bats" sections, and some of the "History" section, is copied off of [1], which is copyrighted. Needless to say, the referencing is poor and the "Rooms" section is not very comprehensive. --Schzmo 16:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Needs inline cites, and the copyvio info removed. Once left with the rest, there's a lot of work to be done in order to retain FA status. LuciferMorgan 22:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How do you know this article is the copyvio violator and not the external site? Maybe both use the same PD work. --mav 00:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The only indication of copyvio is an exact copy-paste from non-PD external site and the external site is not a fork from wikipedia. I'm not an author/editor of this article, so I ran google search test. There's not exactly copy-paste material, except from [2] for the Bats section. I'm going to run several tests again later. — Indon (reply) — 01:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict) I checked the Internet Archive of http://www.carlsbad.caverns.national-park.com/info.htm and it looks like the Bats section was written way back in 1998 (the other sections were added a few years later). Did some digging around in the history of this WP article, and it looks like the earliest version of it was a direct copy/paste job from the outside page. Unfortunately, no one ever bothered to reword some of the text :(. Yikes. Not good. Gzkn 01:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict too) Wait a minute... I checked again the site [3], and it turns out that there are some exact sentences from this site appear in this article. And I don't think that site is a fork from Wikipedia. Yes, it's not good. — Indon (reply) — 01:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      Damn! I didn't read it carefully the nomination text that it has pointed the original site: http://www.carlsbad.caverns.national-park.com/info.htm. So no need to run google search, it's a copyvio. :"> — Indon (reply) — 01:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      And some still wonder why we insist upon citing older FAs. Sandy (Talk) 01:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      At the bottom of the page, there's this note: "The initial content for this article was provided by the National Park Service Carlsbad Caverns Information Page." Unfortunately, whoever wrote that erroneously thought that the Carlsbad Caverns Information Page was in any way affiliated with the NPS. Gzkn 01:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      OK, I searched phrases from each section and I found out that the Geology section is not copyvio, as the text from that website was copied from this NPS web page, which is in the public domain. However, I could not find anything else for the other sections, so they may still be copyvio. --Schzmo 02:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      Hmmm, well that's reassuring. Maybe http://www.carlsbad.caverns.national-park.com/info.htm got all of its information from the public domain...I'll do some more research... Gzkn 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      This seems to suggest that the National Park Service website actually copied its information from there too, as the former appeared much earlier than the latter. Gzkn 03:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Cough - There were many things published before the Internet came along. :) --mav
Heh, true. Perhaps the best way to resolve this is to contact the NPS or that guy who owns www.carlsbad.caverns.national-park.com and wrote it? Gzkn 03:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to ask if there is any real reason to have a "Rooms" section in this article. Granted, some of the most important rooms should be described, but in articles on buildings we don't describe every room, so why should we describe them in a cave?
    • The geology sections should be broken off into an article along the lines of Geology of the Grand Canyon area.
    • The section on bats should be expanded to include other fauna (and may be even flora if there is any) in the cave.
Just a few suggestions of things I can see. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Geology of the Grand Canyon area (which I wrote) was never split off from the Grand Canyon article. It is a full article about the geology. The geology section at Grand Canyon (which I also wrote) is a several paragraph summary that should really be a wee bit longer. The geology section in this article is starting to get a bit long, but not long enough yet to warrant splitting and summarizing since the summary left here would need to be well over half the size of the full separate daughter article. Thus little point would be served by a split at this time. --mav 05:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_review_Carlsbad_Caverns_National_Park_955c.html"