Talk:Antelope Canyon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Suggestions

  1. I believe there are too many photos in the Upper Antelope Canyon gallery, given that this is an encyclopedic article and not a photography forum. Any suggestions on which should be removed from the article?
  2. The Geology section is a bit lame, as I'm not a geologist. Maybe somebody with better knowledge could contribute.
  3. There have been several commercial ventures shot in Antelope Canyon, including a Britney Spears video. Maybe there should be a section that describes this?

-- moondigger 17:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the photos. Why not pick maybe a total of three or four for the article as a whole. I like [1], [2], [3] and [4] as they help to show the scale of these features, how it looks from the outside, how the descent works, that it is a popular place for photography, etc. I think most of the rest are on commons and can be added to the gallery there, which is already linked to from this page. Then we could get rid of the photo gallery. Anyone oppose this? --MattWright (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
If an image is used in the main body of the article, it probably doesn't have to be duplicated in the gallery sections. That would reduce the number of thumbnails in the gallery by two. I'll make that change right now.
As for the rest... I don't think I can give an unbiased opinion of which images should be trimmed, since four of mine are present in the article. I can only comment on objective considerations:
  1. While the images with people in them are illustrative of the scale of the place, I don't know if they adhere to Wikipedia guidelines, since it's doubtful the people in those images gave explicit permission for the images to be published. Since Wikipedia requires free commercial licensing, explicit permission from each of the subjects is probably required.
  2. This image [5] demonstrates both the narrow passageways and the uneven footing present in Lower. Therefore I would suggest leaving it in the gallery section, though (again) I'm probably biased because it's one of mine. -- moondigger 02:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I made some of the edits we had discussed regarding images. I made the commons gallery link more prominent and added a link in See also, so that if people want to see more images, they can hop over there. I think it looks much more like an encyclopedic article now. As always, if you disagree with the image selection, placement, etc. feel free to move things around or revert my edits. Moondigger -- your images are very nice and contribute well to the article. --MattWright (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The geology section is lacking a bit - no blatant errors, just needs expanding. It would be good to have a bit on the stratigraphy, structures and topography (local relief & stream gradients) as well as info on the size of the upstream watershed. The structure seems perhaps most important - are the strata all horizontal or is this one of the monoclines of the area. The nature of plateau above the canyons is critical. However, I have no direct knowledge of the local area (I did some field work on the Kaiparowits and Bryce Canyon area years ago) and as yet haven't found any published descriptions of the local geology to reference. Will keep it in mind if I find sources to use. Vsmith 01:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)