Talk:Glacier National Park (U.S.)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Glacier National Park (U.S.) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is part of WikiProject Protected Areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected areas worldwide. It may include the protected area infobox.
Flag of Montana
Montana Portal
This article is within the scope of the Montana WikiProject, a collaborative WikiProject designed to improve articles related to the U.S. state of Montana. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Former featured topic candidate Glacier National Park (U.S.) is part of the National Park Service series, a former featured topic candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the topic for featured topic status.

Contents

[edit] Title change

Discussion about the title of this article and its recent change can be found at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (acronyms)#Changing article titles from XXXXX (US) to XXXXX (United States). Feel free to contribute. -- hike395 16:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Given that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (acronyms)#Rethinking this decision is 5-1 in favor of using (US) for disambiguation, could we move this article back to Glacier National Park (US) ? Thanks! -- hike395 05:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

That picture is too large and covers over the template. It should be tweeked to fit, but know not how to do it myself so I thought I'd bring it up here.

-E. Brown--Squawk Box 12 July 2005

[edit] Map error

The location indicated on the map is the location of Yellowstone National Park.

[edit] Map error

The location indicated on the map is the location of Yellowstone National Park. Wavelength 18:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Working to FA status

Will be working on trying to get this article to Featured Article level. The core of the article is excellent. I see major weak areas being a discussion of the glaciers themselves and how this park has had a lot of research done over a long period of time which clearly demostrates that the glaciers are retreating rapidly and may all disappear in a few decades. Expansion of the history, Native American issues of the park, flora and fauna, as well as recreation is in order as well...hope to target the article at less than 45 kb, but I am currently working on supporting stubs that can be simply linked from the main article within the text. I have stated accumulating existing and needed stubs here as follows:

--MONGO 20:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • There's also Granite Park Chalet, the other remaining chalet from the Great Northern Railway days. I'm not sure if it needs a stub or not. Actually, I don't think there's much mention of the lodges (like the Lake McDonald Lodge, Many Glacier Hotel, and the Glacier Park Lodge) or inns (Village Inn, Rising Sun, and Swiftcurrent). The lodges are historic, in keeping with the era in which they were built. There's more on the park concessions at glacierparkinc.com, but I'm not sure yet how much of this needs to be in the article. --Elkman - (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I think a brief mention is warrented...I read that the park has 6 structures listed that are on the national register of historic structures, or somehting along those lines. Probably best to expand on them in the recreation section....?--MONGO 23:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The main Glacier National Park page says that there are 350 structures on the National Register of Historic Places, and six National Historic Landmarks. Here's what I've found for National Historic Landmarks:
Great Northern Railway Buildings - covers Many Glacier Hotel, Sperry and Granite Park Chalets, and Two Medicine Store
Lake McDonald Lodge
Going-to-the-Sun Road
A query of the National Register database for Flathead County, MT lists several other structures, like the Harrison Lake Patrol Cabin, Huckleberry Fire Overlook, Kintla Lake Ranger Station, and others. I don't think a list of all 350 of these structures is necessary, but the National Historic Landmarks are worth covering. --Elkman - (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Whoa...place is historic...350 though, that surprises me...I agree that those that are National Historic Landmarks should be mentioned, maybe even stubbed. Thanks for the links too...also take a look at the cited references format...is this the style you think is best or do you think it is better with ref|note style. This style the reference is embedded in article text as shown if you click edit this page....in ref|note, there is just a small link and then the reference is as usual in the bottom of the article...it's a non template versus template deal...I used ref|note in Shoshone National Forest and it worked fine there...but thought I would try this style here, and see how it works.--MONGO 01:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the cited references format, as opposed to the ref/note style. It's convenient to be able to put the reference right into the text where you're working, instead of having to add a {{ref}} in one place and then match it up with the {{note}} later. It's a little less error prone, as well -- there's less risk of forgetting to put in the corresponding note later on. --Elkman - (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Found this article (list actually)....List of Registered Historic Places in Montana but it may be incomplete. Have a look at the manner in which I did the first three references...I comnpletely eliminated the template and it seems to render fine...but should I instead be using the cite web, etc template in article text...I just think it takes up too much room in the editing window...thoughts? Also, just stubbed Kintla Peak and Granite Park Chalet as well as Lewis Range and Livingston Range.--MONGO 06:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm not overly concerned about using the {{Cite web}} template -- I'm not going to force it on anyone. If someone reviews the article later and insists on it, the template can be added later. The important part is just getting the reference in there in the first place. --Elkman - (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and as far as List of Registered Historic Places in Montana goes: That certainly is a long list, isn't it? It may actually be a complete list; I'm not sure. I've barely scratched the surface of List of Registered Historic Places in Minnesota, my home state. --Elkman - (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images in the Commons

I've uploaded some images to the Commons, in commons:Category:Glacier National Park. I also took the liberty of tagging the existing images there with the category, so they can be found and used more easily. --Elkman - (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very pleased you did that...I was going to do just as you did over the weekend...you even found some images I hadn't seen before. We need an image of a mountain goat...one from the main article on the animal is fine...it's the Park symbol animal...and maybe one more image f wildlife. I'm not sure we should have agallery of images at the bottom of the article...we can't use these without permission, but you may want to examine the ones from summitpost...they are pretty good...[1]--MONGO 23:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Climatic changes heavily studied in Glacier

Have a look at this gif and let me know if it is useful in this article...I think it may be within the public domain but it is based on a few hypothesises that would need to be adequately clarified. gif is midpage: [2]--MONGO 01:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure it's in the public domain, because the animation was the result of work done for a research paper that appeared in the journal BioScience, and copyright is assigned to the American Institute of Biological Sciences. Also, the image is pretty large (more than a megabyte), which would take a long time for a dialup user to load. There might be a way to resize it or take out some of the predictions after 2010, but that doesn't really alleviate the licensing concerns. It's an interesting topic, though, and the GIF really makes the problem of climate change evident. Maybe there's a way to illustrate it using still images that aren't part of the BioScience article. --Elkman - (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I just saw that it's not from the USGS website and hadn't takne into account the size...the associated website may be useful I guess for reference.--MONGO 02:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

Also, how do you feel about the map I uploaded...one must click the map and then open the full resolution version to actually see details...maybe this can be corrected? Also, shoule the map be moved and maybe put an image up higher in the article...lastly, I think the images in the gallery should be incorporated into the text or better even if they are left in the commons gallery. I haven't seen a lot of FA's with galleries, but maybe they exist more frequently than I am aware of.--MONGO 02:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The map poses a dilemma, I think. At the full resolution, it shows all of the detail of the park, but as you mentioned, you have to open the full resolution version to see everything. I have the DeLorme TopoUSA software, which allows display of maps at various resolutions, and lets you add notes to them. I have a sample map at [3] that shows what a map at intermediate resolution would look like. It doesn't display nearly as much place detail as the current map does, but there's a compromise to be made there. Also, it's showing the Flathead National Forest west of the park in the same shading as Glacier National Park, which doesn't really explain the whole story. If you think it's decent resolution or appearance, let me know and I can play with it some more. --Elkman - (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and it doesn't display Waterton Lakes National Park at all. That's the disadvantage of a program named "TopoUSA", I guess. --Elkman - (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, even though this article is concentrating on Glacier NP...any map should show Waterton as well. In fact, well, I am wondering if more discussion of Waterton isn't warrented. Anyway, your map is nice in that it demostrates the mountains better, but lacks some details and does blend into Flathead NF too much...is there a way to take our existing map and resize it somehow so that it can be used? I simply am not very good at imagery or dealing with this kind of problem.--MONGO 03:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I took the original map and scaled it to 70%. Here's the result. I don't know what the maximum image size is that MediaWiki will display, without viewing the high resolution version, but this is about as small as I can make it without making all of the original text unreadable.
Also, here's another idea: Maybe we can have higher-resolution maps (like sections of the full-size map) within sub-articles for the popular sections that are hiking trailheads, like Two Medicine, St. Mary Lake, Many Glacier, Lake McDonald, and Goat Haunt. Come to think of it, Two Medicine, Many Glacier, and Goat Haunt still need articles, or at least stubs. --Elkman - (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not bad...I looked over Yellowstone National Park...it has a map similar to your Topousa one and another very basic map and that is all. Bryce Canyon National Park has the same set up this article has...a large file map and one must open the high resolution version to see the details, and it doesn't seem all that bad there. Carlsbad Caverns National Park has no map at all. Lastly, Zion National Park has a map courtesy of the USGS that is both descriptive and shows physical relief. These four parks are the National Parks in the U.S. that have become featured in case you wonder why I mentioned them. I guess the way we have it isn't bad, but as it sits on the page now, the placenames look like a lot of smears on the map and they can't be read at all. I am not sure how to proceed so I will trust your judgement. I'll work on those stubs later on tonight and get a few of them done.--MONGO 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I took a quick look at them, and I'll see if I can find the featured article reviews tomorrow to see if anyone commented on maps. Of the ones you mentioned, I think the map for Zion National Park looks the best as a thumbnail -- it shows the major areas of the park in the thumbnail, without being overly complex or overly vague. I'll see if USGS or NPS have any maps that would work in a thumbnail resolution. (But not tonight -- I should get some sleep.) --Elkman - (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional links

I added some additional links but none of them seem to be working so I may delete them in a day or two if they don't fix themselves.--MONGO 09:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, they seem to be fine now.--MONGO 10:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To-do list

As far as I can tell, the following articles still need to be written (according to the list you had on your user page and the redlinks in the current article):

(We can just strike these out or delete them as the links go blue.) Anything else that should be created?

Also, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to create a Glacier National Park (US) category for the articles related to Glacier National Park. What do you think? --Elkman - (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have a ways to go...we need to ensure they are all linked into article space too. I see some further expansion is still need in the article regarding a mention of air quality and few other areas and I'll get to those tonight. I also do not think we should have the gallery at the end...it looks unencyclopedic...I contacted a few of those that uploaded the images and hope we can get them to commons and simply have them there. We also need to make sure all related images are in commons...from the daughter articles and from this main page. Maybe another week of fine tuning and finishing up these stubs and off to peer review this goes.--MONGO 03:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if the gallery is unencyclopedic, necessarily, but it does look a little bit out of place -- like it's hanging there, unexplained. I think we could probably move the pictures to the appropriate sub-articles, and save the best (most explanatory) pictures for the main article. --Elkman - (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status

Article is at 40kb...and shouldn't get a lot bigger unless we dicide to expand some areas. Been doing some fact checking and found a few misleading facts and have been working on correcting them. We still have the stubbies above and some wordplay here and there, but I think the article is close to being able to get it over to Peer Review in about a week or less. Any thoughts?--MONGO 08:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's looking really good. I hope that the Peer Review / FAC process makes it better (as opposed to simply different). One (minor) thing: I think that Glaciers are part of Geology, should that be a subsection? In fact, usually when we write geology sections, they're in chronological order, so that glaciers would come last. Although, they are what the park was named after, so I can see wanting to put them first.
Overall -- I think you've done a great job shepherding this article! -- hike395 12:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a good point...I'll subsection glaciers under geology and maybe recreate geology as a geography and geology section..thanks for the input!--MONGO 12:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the organization of the article is looking good at this point, and the information is basically complete. I don't see any glaring omissions or anything like that. Of course, I've been working with this article (and the series of sub-articles) long enough that it's hard for me to spot anything missing. A fresh set of eyes looking at it through peer review might come up with any additions or changes needed, but probably nothing too serious. --Elkman - (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a new reference that is good for the glaciers with repeat photography. It does not contain any real new information on the glaciers just nice paired photographs [[4]]Peltoms 15:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job sir....the images of Grinnell Glacier taken that are newer than the 1981 shot, namely from 1998 and 2005 are dramatic...I may use this over at Retreat of glaciers since 1850 as well...good show.--MONGO 08:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Your retreat rates are too high where did they come from. If you multiply them out you end up with an unrealistically long glacier to start with.Peltoms 12:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I looked over the information, and what I had was accurate according to the source which is here [5], but I agree with you, there is no way that the galciers could have lost that amount of ice...they would have disappeared conpletely years ago, so I took out the numbers and left only the periods and the area lost which seems more realistic.--MONGO 16:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acres to hectares or square kilometers

My understanding is that while acres is more commonly used in the U.S., hectares is actually only used by a relative few in those areas that use the metric system. Usually, those who use the metric system use square kilometers for larger areas. I can see why some would want to have square miles convert to square kilomters and acres to hectares, but it isn't that simple is it....in the U.S., few people I know identify area as square miles and most prefer the term acreage since they have a better concept of how big an acre is...you know, 40 acres and a mule, etc...they didn't say 4 square miles and a mule. My understanding of those peple who use the metric system is that hectares isn't widely used...comments?--MONGO 16:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The standard I have tried to keep for all National Park articles is sq. mi. and sq. km in the text and acres and hectares in the infobox. This allows us to use all four formats which are used by various park authorities. They wouldn't have said 4 square miles and a mule unless they had really high expectations (that's 2560 acres). Rmhermen 16:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand. I know you've been around since Wikipedia was a baby, so I just wanted the clarification. I have been using acres and square kilometers when comparing the two measurements as I always thought that most folks in the metric speaking world had a better grasp of square kilometers than they did of hectares. I persoanlly do not comprehend the measurement of square miles, and understand acres better, being much more familiar with that measurement. Appropirately, it is best to compare acres-hectares and sq. miles to sq. kilometers...but as I surf around U.S. government websites, they rarely use square miles when discussing their protected areas. For non U.S. websites, what is the standard?--MONGO 17:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Both hectares and kilometers are used by parks bodies. Rmhermen 18:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bird Woman Falls

We have bird woman falls listed as "perhaps the tallest waterfall" in the park. "Perhaps" seems odd phrasing--one would think it either would be or wouldn't be the tallest. The reference just gives a height, and [6] would seem to indicate that it may not in fact be the tallest. Unless I'm missing something here, we should probably remove the claim. --RobthTalk 01:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find a listing of tallest waterfalls for the park. I'll change it if it hasn't been done so already.--MONGO 02:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing ref

The article has been missing a ref since this edit of March 22, when the glaciers gone by 2030 statement was sourced to a named ref "retreat", but there is no named ref "retreat". Was there supposed to be a different ref named "retreat", or should the original source be restored? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Duh...I finally fixed it. I'll try and watch this better...thanks for pointing it out.--MONGO 05:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

This page should be moved to Glacier National Park (United States). "US" is not very encyclopedic and should generally be avoided if possible. Funnyhat 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)