Shoshone National Forest[edit]

I believe I have covered most of the areas that an article of this type needs to cover. The article has been fact checked and has undergone some revisions, espcially to the section on glaciers, over the past month. The hope is I can get the article to Featured article status so mostly I am concerned that it reads a bit like a travelogue. I am mostly looking for input on sentence structure, syntax and readability, but any suggestions will be warmly appreciated. I thank all for their assistance.--MONGO 20:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of things:

Generally history section appears 1st.

Through a quick glance-over, almost none of the statistics have been references, especially in sections like Fire Ecology that uses many percentages and numbers.

AndyZ 20:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I put the discussion comparing forests to parks first only so folks may know the differences, but I agree that history should go before that. I will get on the links for the fire ecology and other areas that need better referencing later tonight. Thanks for the feedback.--MONGO 21:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Some comments:

1. To me, the "forest uses" section reads like it's based only on Forest Service materials; I don't know any specifics for Shoshone NF, but I know that there is serious debate in much of the West over whether public lands grazing really occurs only on "suitable" lands, and whether the Forest Service really does protect against over-exploitation. I'd look hard for some outside views by environmental (and maybe Wise Use) groups about the activities and management techniques of the NF.
2. The Fauna section, while well-written, is a little long. I'd trim back some of the general discussion of animal behavior that's not specific to this forest. For example, mention the existence and numbers of the bear species and a few specifics about management of "problem bears" and their locations in the forest; don't go into detail about their breeding or general behavior.
3. I'd make "fire ecology" a subsection of the Biology section, or at least put them next to each other. Like the Fauna section, look for text that is too general and not about fire ecology/fire management in this specific NF.
4. The Tourism section reads like a tourist guide, not an encyclopedia article. It has several unsourced POV statements; "it may be best to fly" and "it is strongly recommended". If these statements can be attributed to a specific credible source of tourist recommendations, then do that; if not, remove them entirely.
5. I'd combine the Recreation and Tourism sections; isn't Tourism a form of recreation? So have a "Recreational uses" section, and subdivide it by type of use - something like "Developed visitor facilities", "Hiking and climbing", "Hunting and fishing", "Scenic roads", etc.

CDC (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with all those points. The article is a fair bit over the preferred size anyway and the discussion does need to be more specific to the forest itself. I'll start triming those areas. I also appreciate the mention on the tourism section, as I also felt it read kind of like a promotional tourism phamplet. I appreciate the feedback!--MONGO 20:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]