Talk:Shenandoah National Park
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
 |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
Shenandoah National Park was a nominee for Geography and places good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||
|
||||
The info box says: Nearest city: Waynesboro. By what standard? This is a linear park, with headquarters in the Town of Luray (which is near the center of the park). On that basis, the nearest cities (to Luray) would be Harrisonburg (33.5 miles) or Winchester (44 miles). If you consider the two major attraction areas of Big Meadows and Skyland, you still come up with Harrisonburg as closest. Waynesboro is 58 miles from Luray, and a good ride from all but a very small southern strip of land (for the Skyline Drive to connect with the Blue Ridge Parkway).
I guess we could say who cares? Part of the reason for creating the Shenandoah National Park was to provide isolation from urbanization, or even human development. Vaoverland 09:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- I was looking at actual city as a designation as such...if Front Royal is a "city" or Luray is one then thay would count also. I do know that in Virginia, unlike many states, the designation of City is oftentimes as what wouldn't qualify as a city in many states...the term city in Virginia applies to an "incorporation" as such an entity, apart from the country they lie in. I put Waynesboro, simply becuase to my knowledge, it is the closest designated and independent city to the park...but Front Royal would probably also apply if it is also a city, but can't see how Harrisonburg would. It's a quick change, so put in whatever you think is best.--MONGO 17:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Front Royal is an incorporated town, as is Luray. Because all cities in Virginia are independent cities, they must assume all county-level duties and expenses, whereas incorporated towns are still located within a county. Few growing towns seem to aspire to become cities. In fact, two former cities, South Boston and Clifton Forge, modified their charters and reverted to town status under a law created to address the problem about 20 years ago. So, I think I realize now that Waynesboro really is the best choice of "nearest city" for this template, since at least it is close the southern terminus of the Skyline Drive. As, as Emily Litella would say, "Oh, well that's different. Never mind." Vaoverland 21:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem here is that Shenandoah is a long, narrow park. Waynesboro is indeed the closest city to the park borders, but it is an unlikely destination for anyone visiting the central or northern section of the park. On the other hand, neither Harrisonburg nor Winchester is particularly relevant to park visitors, either. Visitors to the north section who are seeking a populated area generally go to Front Royal. Those in the central section go to Luray. Those in the southern section do go to Waynesboro. And, just for the sake of nitpicking, park HQ isn't actually in the Town of Luray, although it has a Luray mailing address. It's along the highway between the park and the town. Rivertorch 05:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Links vs. spam
The first link removed by Vsmith is to a book, Guide to Shenandoah National Park and the Skyline Drive by Henry Heatwole, which was for many years the definitive reference guide for visitors to the park. The author was perhaps the foremost authority on the history and topography of Shenandoah, and any potential hiker, camper, or mere sightseer who wanted to get the most out of his or her visit needed look no further than this book. Most of what it says is still perfectly relevant today. Mr. Heatwole passed away and the book, once published by the nonprofit Shenandoah History Association, went out of print, but the contents are now available online free of charge. How linking to the site that provides these highly informative contents could possibly constitute spam is beyond me. I am restoring the link.
The second removed link (photos of the park) also seems harmless enough—it's neither off-topic nor commercial—but I'll assume good faith here and let that one go. Rivertorch 07:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with keeping the link in the event there is any further debate. Meekohi 14:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I spend most of my time each day removing spam, and I, too, agree that this is not spam. It is, in fact, just the sort of resource that external links are meant for-- too detailed to be incorporated into the article, but worthwhile additional info on the topic. See WP:EL. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- My bad, I was a bit hasty there in assuming it was a book promotional link. Sorry 'bout that. The image link was commercial (they sell images) and has been spammed on most of the parks articles. Vsmith 16:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
The article is a good, solid B-class article, but does not meet the Good Article criteria quite yet. It seems to be a little short on references, and the article is a bit too heavily dependent on the national park service websites for them. The attractions section only has one reference, referring to the pets issue, and nothing else. I also think that the attractions section is written a bit too much like a tourist brochure, and not really an encyclopedia article. I would recommend breaking this section up, and maybe having a section on trails, a section on lodging and campgrounds, and maybe even a section on Skyline Drive (which has its own wikipedia article, which could be linked to as a 'see also' reference, and a summary coming out of that article to be included here).
The lead is also a bit too short. It could be improved to provide a better summary of the article. See WP:LEAD for suggestions on this.
The 'ecology' section looks like a very good start, and very interesting. But it looks kind of like editors got lazy at the end with the bulleted list. Those items would be better off being better integrated into paragraphs. It could probably be expanded.
Those are the major issues with the article. Like I say, good, solid B-class, but not GA yet. Editors might want to review the manual of style, WP:LEAD, WP:CITE, and WP:EL, for tips on improving the article. Please renominate it at WP:GAC when the issues are addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 18:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
