Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chaco Culture National Historical Park

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:53, 10 February 2007.

---

Chaco Culture National Historical Park‎

Self-nomination. No peer review. Viriditas and WBardwin have also made substantial contributions. Looking forward to comments regarding prose, organization, flow, length, comprehensiveness, etc. Saravask 19:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, very nice - I did see one statement that looks speculative ("may") and could use attribution ("may" according to whom) and a cite:
  • Two miles down the canyon is Penasco Blanco ("White Bluff"), an arc-shaped compound built atop the canyon's southern rim in five distinct stages between 900 AD and 1125 AD. A cliff painting (the "Supernova Platograph") nearby may record the sighting of a supernova in July of 1054 AD.
• and a few missing retrieval dates on websources in References.
• Also, a runthrough for diacritics and ñ might be order (for example, I get an "ouch" when reading Peñasco as Penasco - two very different pronunciations). I'm not sure if Wikipedia addresses this anywhere in WP:MOS; if it doesn't we should. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy. Thanks for the critique. I uploaded some changes per your comments ([1]). Even after looking through this, I was unable to find guidance regarding diacritics; at any rate, I agree that we should use them in the Spanish terms here. Thanks. Saravask 01:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally it is not addressed b/c it is the subject of great controversy. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Any reason why there's a picture in the Citations section? It just seems kind of out of place. :) Gzkn 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No reason, except to use available space give readers extra views of Chaco. I've done the same thing in several other FA's I've written. Saravask 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Comment. I'm close to support. Here are some observations:
  • Am surprised at the lack of a section on flora and fauna.
  • I find a slight over-use of semicolons: e.g. "Chaco Canyon experiences four distinct season; rainfall is most likely between July and September; May and June are the driest months."
  • I believe the equivalency between "Ancestral Puebloan" and "Anasazi" should be made earlier than the last section (Usage).
  • The information in the last major section (Ruins) seems to come too late. As an example, the article refers to "kiva" eleven times before the thorough treatment of "kiva" in the last section. As one of the most interesting aspects of the park, I think it should come earlier.
• A good, interesting, article. (I am going to make some minor edits now, which I mention lest someone see my name in the history and think I'm "associated" with the article.) –Outriggr § 04:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. See this ([2]). I don't agree with point four (see a question of mine and this response), though I'm willing to discuss it further. I also need to get more comments on the quality of writing—e.g., is it turgid and boring? Do semicolons contribute to this? Other areas in need of improvement? These are not rhetorical questions. Thanks. Saravask 19:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support here's another drawing [3] - dvdrw 08:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment
  • I find the prose to be compelling and the current use of semicolons to be appropriate.
  • I don't care for some uses of passive voice, such as "The sites are considered sacred ancestral homelands of the Hopi, Navajo, and Pueblo people..." Considered by whom? Also, "The ruins of Chaco Canyon were first written about by...", etc.
  • I believe "Geology" and "Climate" should be subheadings of "Geography" - see Chicago, Washington, D.C., etc.
  • I'm not crazy about "Excavation and protection" being organized under History. The archaeological and anthropological issues should probably be in their own section. History, to me, should be the history of the sites' use when they were populated.
  • Good work! --Mus Musculus 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I need to think about some of your suggestions for a day or two before implementing them. Most of your advice sounds good, though, and I'll be making the improvements soon. Thanks. Saravask 00:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've added cites for the "The sites are considered ..." statement and recast the second sentence in active voice. Unfortunately, I disagree with your proposed rearrangement of sections: I think it's important to keep all history-related content under the same heading, and AFAIK that is how most geo FAs do it. Regarding "Geology" and "Climate", I think it's a matter of individual preference, not hard rules. As a comparable example, see Antarctica and Yellowstone National Park. Other than that, I'll try to hunt down more passive-voice sentences. Thanks for the input. Saravask 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This article is beautifully illustrated, interesting, and informs people of a priceless public resource. The only problem I can see is that the article currently does not address the modern-day operations of the national park - hours, usage fees, budget, number of visitors and so on. In one sense this is irrelevant to what it is, a piece of history, but in the other sense it is relevant to what it is, a national historical park. If you think it belongs, add it; otherwise, it still looks good to me. Mike Serfas 04:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. We have a sister project with a nice article on travel details related to Chaco. I don't think we should replicate their content, and if you have current info on fares, hours, etc., that is the place to add it. In the infobox, we do list the number of visitors. Thanks for your comments. Saravask 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment there is no section on the management of the park; this appears in several of the other featured US parks. Any reason for the omission? --Peta 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.