Jump to content

Talk:Petrified Forest National Park: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
WPBS
Line 15: Line 15:
|maindate=June 22, 2012
|maindate=June 22, 2012
}}
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Palaeontology|class=FA}}
{{WikiProject Protected areas|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Protected areas|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=FA|importance=low|AZ=Yes|AZ-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=FA|importance=low|AZ=Yes|AZ-importance=High}}
}}
{{WikiProject Palaeontology|class=FA}}

==Sources==
==Sources==
Since the article currently has no sources, I've started adding some basic references for material already present in the article. [[User:Geologyguy|Geologyguy]] kindly pointed out the inadequacy of my original additions, so I've just replaced them with more appropriate ones. I'm sure there must be newspaper coverage of the park and the area, but a quick Google search didn't return anything. [[User:Forestgarden|Forestgarden]] ([[User talk:Forestgarden|talk]]) 00:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the article currently has no sources, I've started adding some basic references for material already present in the article. [[User:Geologyguy|Geologyguy]] kindly pointed out the inadequacy of my original additions, so I've just replaced them with more appropriate ones. I'm sure there must be newspaper coverage of the park and the area, but a quick Google search didn't return anything. [[User:Forestgarden|Forestgarden]] ([[User talk:Forestgarden|talk]]) 00:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:57, 22 June 2012

Featured articlePetrified Forest National Park 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 so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 22, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 3, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
November 15, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Sources

Since the article currently has no sources, I've started adding some basic references for material already present in the article. Geologyguy kindly pointed out the inadequacy of my original additions, so I've just replaced them with more appropriate ones. I'm sure there must be newspaper coverage of the park and the area, but a quick Google search didn't return anything. Forestgarden (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Good job with the cleanup, Finetooth. What class should this be assessed? serioushat 04:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know much about the assessments between start and GA. My goal is to get this up to FA, if possible. I have ideas for the Activities section, a couple of additional or better images, some filling in of the gap in the History section about research since the 1940s, something about petroglyphs, and maybe something about a couple of the park structures not already covered. Beyond that, I intend to create a map of the park showing where the main features are in relation to one another. When that's all done, I'll run the article through peer review at WP:PR, make changes based on recommendations there, and then nominate the article either at GAN or FAC depending on its condition. Meanwhile, I'd appreciate any suggestions for improvement (or direct help), and I have questions in my head that I have no answer for yet. For example, is the Western rattlesnake found in this park likely to be Crotalus viridis, which is what I've linked to, or should the link actually go to Crotalus oreganus? Finetooth (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the guidelines say about the sources section(s). Should the "Works cited" section be renamed to "Bibliography" or "References", and should the current "References" section be renamed to "Footnotes"? You can use {{cite book}} so you don't have to format the works cited by hand. serioushat 01:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What I've done is fine, though not the only way. I've already done FAs using "Works cited" below the "Reference" section. See for example Rogue River (Oregon). Or see one that is not mine, Mozart in Italy, that uses something similar. Splitting the long works out to a "Sources" or "Works cited" section lends itself to using short refs in the "Reference" section. The Manual of Style allows quite a bit of latitude in choosing reference methods, styles, and section names. The main requirement is that the system be logical and consistent. Finetooth (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

shutterfly?

Why am I being redirected to fluttershy.us when I try to click anywhere within the article? Is this some kind of joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.197.52 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on a page

This page is damaged by someone. There is a div element with 9000x9000 pixel size added to this page that link to some "fluttershy" site. It seems that due to this div block, all links on this page refer to this site and unusable.

195.208.49.60 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no such problem... LittleMountain5 17:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you were reading the actual Wikipedia article and not on another site? LittleMountain5 17:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. The Arizona Parks template was vandalized and has since been fixed. Thanks, LittleMountain5 17:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linus Torvalds

Why is Linus Torvalds in this article? 190.51.186.7 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was vandalized. It has been restored now. LittleMountain5 17:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]