Talk:Rocky Mountain National Park

Photo op: Jon Jarvis, Saturday, August 18, 2012

Anyone around the park this weekend? NPS Director Jonathan Jarvis will be in the park Friday and Saturday. Wikipedia could use decent pictures of him and the activities, as we have only official pictures of him so far. Jarvis will participate in a "BioBlitz" in the Estes Park area. Contact to the NPS press team for the event is via Kathy_Kupper@nps.gov or 202-230-2085 (cell). Anyone in the Denver area who might want to go there? --h-stt !? 09:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Template

Hello,

It doesn't look like there have been any posts in quite awhile, but here I go - hopefully someone watches the page.

I was looking to see if I could find a template for the Rocky Mountain National Park - and I didn't find one - to add to an article I just created, Bierstadt Lake. The only one I found from this query is NRHP in Rocky Mountain National Park.

I have thought about creating a template that would have sections for peaks, bodies of water, trails, buildings and structures... and whatever else might emerge from this query and Category:Rocky Mountain National Park. I con would be that categories help do that and pro is that it's an easy way to glance at related articles by topic without having to dive into categories and subcategories (I see there is just one here), and searching for articles that might not be categorized (but probably would be after this exercise).

Are there any opinions about that?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done, based upon the Template:Yosemite National Park.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Article changes

I am also thinking about

• Adding more content about the park itself - like getting into the four zones and what's found there
• Moving the history of the park into its own article

Any thoughts about that are appreciated as well.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm gathering notes here:

• For history, it seems that notable events from these images could be included
• I don't understand the amount of information about the Earl of Dunraven that is included here. Perhaps this could be trimmed down a bit?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The amount of Dunraven material here is not inappropriate. His brazen sense of entitlement was critically important in getting people to think of this as public land (as opposed to his private domain). It would be good, though, to see more about Enos Mills, who deserves his own header (parallel with Dunraven). The MacGregors probably deserve mention too. -- Elphion (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Elphion, I get your point about his viewpoints - and sometimes less is more in terms of bringing the salient points home, was all I was thinking. Since you're very aware of him, do you know of sources for the content in his section? I agree about Enos Mills and the MacGregors.

I think that there would probably be enough history to make it its own page... and then expand some of the info in this article about the park as well. Any thoughts about History having its own page?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is precedent for writing articles about the history of national parks. See, e.g., History of the Yosemite area. —hike395 (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, good, thanks! That is a lovely example - and more what I was thinking about. That is a lovely reference for sections/subsections, etc.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Carole, you may wish to review the guidelines at WP:NOTGUIDE -- some of the material you've added at the Access section reads like a travel guide. —hike395 (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hike395, yep, I see your point. I personally don't have a problem having that kind of info in an article - but there are much bigger fish to fry, in terms of meaningful content—so, I removed a lot of the content here. See what you think now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I also moved the "Access" section - I'm not sure if that's the right place, but geography, geology, history, etc. are usually top sections. I have never seen "Access" as a top section, but if I am missing a guideline, please let me know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, things like "Access" should be towards the end of the article, see, e.g., Yellowstone National Park or Yosemite National Park, featured articles about national parks, for example structures.

Thanks for putting all of this work into the article! —hike395 (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are both great articles and I like that they go into greater detail about biology, ecology, and a section I have a hard time writing - geology. But somewhere I have already written about ancient Rocky Mountains and the current Rocky Mountains, to avoid recreating the wheel - to make that a little more robust.

Perhaps we can get this one into Good article territory. If you don't mind chiming in every know and again on this article, that would be great! It sounds like you have good experience with national park articles.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Working list

I started a working list at one of my user pages. I didn't post them here, because they're not fully formed in my head right now. There are somethings there that I don't know enough about to suggest here - especially about the people. But if anyone wants to comment about them - here or on my page - that would be great (i.e., there might be some clarity that I have not gotten to / investigated yet)!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Gallery removed

Initial Hike395 and CaroleHenson discussion

Hike395,

I grouped the images in the Rocky Mountain National Park#Ecosystems of this version that way, to show the diversity in the ecosystems. Pictures can really bring articles to life. There are other articles, like Ukiyo-e, that use a number of images... and it is a featured article. I'm not thinking of that saturation level, but it would be nice to give a good sense of what the park is like. I've read that is one thing that attracts readers to articles.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Carole. The relevant guideline is WP:IG, which states:

Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.

Ukiyo-e is an article about an art form, so showing many examples helps readers understand the form. In contrast, individual images are enough to illustrate a national park. The galleries shouldn't be there to attract readers to articles or bring it to life. I left one image per section to illustrate the ecosystem, and pushed the rest to the Commons gallery. Hope this explains my edits. —hike395 (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is the part of the guideline that I had in mind when I worked on it: The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. I think that a small grouping does help give an understanding of an ecosystem.... emphasis on the "system", including the land, geological underpinnings, climate differences, flora, and fauna. It may be that there are other, better choices.

I hope my explanation helps explain the approach. Do you think that you could take a look at this version again with the guideline and portrayal of a multi-faceted system in mind?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There's also this featured article, that uses images in a similar way: Marojejy National Park.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't agree that an ecosystem "cannot be easily or adequately described by text". I believe that ecosystems are complex systems and can really only be understood through textual descriptions. I also don't agree with the use of image galleries in Marojejy National Park -- I think that article does not obey the guideline I quoted, above.

Perhaps other editors can chime in? We can ask for more opinions at WT:WikiProject Protected Areas, although that may not be very active. —hike395 (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it would be good to see if anyone else has opinions on this. In awhile, if there's no input, it could also be posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. There is a similar type of question in this using images discussion.

Another option is to rewrite the sections and break out the Fauna and Flora info - and then add related pictures back to those sections. That's a possibility, too. The downside is that the flora and fauna are related to the ecosystem. Another possibility is to add more content to the sections and have flora and fauna images within the applicable paragraphs - all still within the applicable ecosystem. That seems to make a little more sense. Are you interested in writing content for the article?

I like the ecosystem sections: I don't think we should re-organize the article just to fit more pictures in. Although, strictly, glaciers aren't an ecosystem, they're more of a geological feature.

Adding more content is often the right answer. I'll see if I can find more to add, although you've done a pretty good job already! —hike395 (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I've thrown out a couple of thoughts... do you have any ideas?--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments on gallery / no gallery

I think there are two issues here: the number of images, and whether to present them as a gallery. In the case of this national park, the terrain is so varied that we can expect a significant number. But scattering those in the text makes the format really annoying -- and it is harder to visually scan and compare the images that way. I think a gallery is the obvious answer. -- Elphion (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• @everyone - We should use galleries. I disagree with Hike's rejection of images for purpose of "bringing article to life" because that phrase is a just a colorful way of saying the same thing as our policy WP:IUP. "Content - The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." It is just as hard to describe an ecosystem in text only as it is to describe an artform, so multiple pictures help and gallery organization could easily lend itself to standardization across a project. I'd like to suggest, however, we might be confusing the tech terms. As I understand it, there are few main "ecosystem" types which are comprised of many different sub parts. A better term of what we're discussing might be "habitat diversity" (see also Habitat) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

I've copied NewsAndEventsGuy's comments from the below "ecosystem" / "habitat" discussion However it shakes out, I do have one observation... a generic pic of a Clarks Nutcracker isn't really relevant to an article about this park, but a pic of the same bird sitting on a Beark Lake trail sign, or even better on a tent in Moraine Park CG with Long's Peak in the background would be super cool. And while adding lots of pics to elaborate on the ecosystems/zones/whatever is a nice idea, I can see the point that we have sub articles to go into depth about them. But there are many things that could be added with images... history, anthropology, culture, recreation... I mean SHEESH!!!! and skipped the following funny comments.

Side comments about potential subarticles and minor response about images

Regarding your comments: For what it's worth, I believe the picture of the Clark's nutcracker was taken in the park. I do get your point, though, about not having pictures of flora or fauna without background imagery of the park. That makes tons of sense. The image of the Alpine forget-me-not, I think is good to use even though it doesn't have good background, because it's kind of unexpected. In general, it would be good to get flora and fauna images in the article, IMO. Yes, I wondered about subarticles, too - and "ecosystems" or "life zones", whatever term is used could absolutely be expanded upon. For right now, there are subarticles for History of Rocky Mountain National Park to work on - and List of peaks in Rocky Mountain National Park, but if you had some spare wikitime, perhaps you could start a subarticle of a notable topic. Anthropology and culture - might be taken more from a prehistoric (prior to about 1820 (Long) / hunters and trappers began to visit or live in the state to 1850s (when people began arriving in great number) perspective - or from the mid-1800s to the early 1930s. I am trying to figure out how it might go outside of that. I absolutely agree that it would be good to have more about recreation. I'd like to add a section - either here or in history about "Art of Rocky Mountain National Park", since that led to it having become a tourist attraction in its early days. Thanks for your comments!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC) NewsAndEventsGuy, I thought about it a bit more, and I can see how anthropology and culture could include more than Native American life in what is now the park and the period in the late 19th-century and early 20th-century when there were hunters, trappers, and visitors who lodged/stayed in the park for periods of time. In the early 1930s, there was a concerted effort to remove lodges and inns by the CCC and return the part to its natural habitat due to damage from that period (taste of that in Horseshoe Park. Since then, the park has embodied many facets of a recreational culture. That could be pretty interesting, if you wanted to start it in a sandbox, or as a stub, and pick at bit-by-bit when you have wikitime. Others might be interested and jump in, too. I'd have fun putting together a "Further reading" section of sources that you may want to use, if you or anyone else wants to go there. Well, and I'd be happy to start a stub to get it rolling.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a really good explanatory image found in the source provided by Hike395. Based upon use of that image, at the top of Rocky Mountain National Park#Ecosystems, I am so cool with having that explain the points I was trying to make. The image was added in this edit and readers can click on it to view and read the info. In other words, if everyone else is cool, I am good with closing out this issue if we use that image (or another better one like it).--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with hike395 & the basic image guidelines - use an image only if it (strongly) illustrates a relevant point in adjacent text; use Galleries as little as possible (tend to get overloaded with too many similar images, unless an editor keeps close watch, and they usually don't add anything to a reader's understanding); provide Wikimedia link for photo-hungry readers.

If you check page views, you'll find that only 1-in-100 to 1-in-500 readers ever clicks on any given image (vs. views for the article), sometimes less than 1-in-1000 when near bottom of articles. The large majority of readers may not be as interested in images as editors/photographers think, at least not in larger sizes than thumbnails, or they just don't realize they can click on them.

Tips - (1) check various screen shapes/sizes when adjusting layout of photos to avoid bunching & text sandwiching. Right now, page looks pretty good in narrow screen (smartphone/pad computer), medium screen (4:3 ratio) but not so good in widescreen (16:9) as they sandwich near the top (temporarily resize the window to approximate different screen shapes/sizes); (2) usually it's best to alternate images left/right throughout article - most featured articles do that and it lessens layout problems; (3) use the 'upright' param on portrait (vertical) and square images to shrink them a bit to approx the area of landscape (horizontal) images. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hike395 made tweaks for "upright" and alternating image placement, so we might be in good shape now. I'm not seeing the lack of perceived value that images make to an article based upon whether or not someone clicks on the photos. I only click on a photo if I have a specific reason (e.g., I cannot see it well, I am researching specific info for the image, etc. That generally has very little to do with whether I enjoy the image.)

A picture is worth a thousand words

(Forewarning: this paragraph is kind of mini-essay, which may not be of interest) It's probably very clear that I'm in the Adding images improves the encyclopedia category. There was something that I read quite awhile ago about how likely a person is to read an article - and enjoy it - based upon whether there are appropriate, applicable images. We're a visual world, and images can bring words to life. (Somewhat similar in paradigm to Albert Mehrabian's 7/38/55 rule - that only 7% of perceived interpersonal communication is based upon spoken words, the rest is tone and body language. In this analogy, people may skim an article, but miss points - even when they are looking for information. I definitely think tone comes across in written word - and images may bring the points to life) My feeling is, why not make articles enjoyable and help bring the words home? Perhaps improving the likelihood that the words will be understood? Just my 2 cents.

To that point, a new image added to the article ably illustrates the four ecosystems - and the associated plant and animal life. For those that said a gallery is a good way to go, does this address their thoughts? For those who thought that additional images are not needed, is there a concern with this image, bearing in mind that it may be a lovely compromise over the use of 3-picture galleries per subsection?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course, no one's implying that images in articles are bad per se, or that they lose value when not clicked by most readers - that was just a curious stat. Main point is that squeezing lots of images into an article is bad form because they often make it more difficult to read around them on various screen sizes/shapes, overwhelming the reader when all those extra images can be seen right over on Wikimedia, in 1 click. Keeping images to a reasonable, balanced amount against the amount of text is good form for any encyclopedia - unless it's a pictureopedia. That composite image would be very good if it was in sharp focus, but the upper image part is not, only the text part is. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it is a bit impressionistic - and this is a case where I did need to click on the image. There are two tacks to take: 1) See if there is another image like that out there - I doubt though that there would be one specific to RMNP, like this one. 2) Check in with the group that works on improving images. I forget who they are, but as I know think of you as "Image Guru", perhaps you know. I'll do a little searching both fronts, but if you know who I'm talking about that might be able to sharpen the image that would be good.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The illustration is a nice idea, but it's just so blurry: I don't think readers will get much out of it. I used TinEye to search for another copy of the image, but it found nothing. I'll try for a higher-resolution upload. This would be an ideal candidate for an WP:Imagemap, if you're up for it. —hike395 (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Imagemap - love it, too many small bits? The Imagemap idea is a very interesting one. I love how that works! I don't know if some of the images are too tiny, but that could be really cool. I like that hovering over a section produces a caption. I think it would be good to check in with the user/developer Time Starling about whether he thinks this could be a viable option, because the images are so small.
• Image does not appear to be a clean-up issue I tried selecting just the graphic area and I was able to get a very slightly better image, but then all the words would need to be typed out in a caption. The thing is, this does not appear as if it was ever meant to be a super clear image. It appears to have an impressionistic quality. I don't think this is an image clean-up issue.
• Other images that tell a story - I found two images that might be able to be used as ideas cool graphic of weather / elevation / slope issues and kind of a cool image, perhaps replicable, repurposed - but they aren't great
• Infobox template Another option, instead of a gallery, would be to create Infobox templates for a montage/collage of images like Template:Bierstadt Lake

It would be great to get your feedback. Do you think we need to vote on the options, perhaps: 1) remove the ecosystem image, 2) return the images (gallery or template / montage), or 3) use the ecosystem image as-is or with an Imagemap (preferred). Or, do you think we could make the imagemap work? something else?--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that we need to vote, just discuss. I would prefer something better than the existing ecosystem image. I started to work with the {{photomontage}} template, but got stuck because I could not find photographs of animals and plants in RMNP that match the species in the ecosystem image. I think using non-RMNP photos wouldn't be right? Or maybe we can use a less definitive photomontage. —hike395 (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hike395 I think you're wise not to pull species from other areas, because they might not be RMNP-flavored species. I went looking for some good images that showed off combinations of the ecosystem, flora, fauna, and/or streams. But there's not too much in commons and I didn't immediately find good ones on the nps.gov site. It seems to me that the ones that are like that, though, involve elk, moose, or longhorn sheep - you've probably already seen the elks ones and I think there are two longhorn sheep ones in the fauna folder.

But, we might be able to make this easy. On this page, there are links to each of the ecosystems and there are lovely, good quality examples of landscape, flora and fauna. So you could just pick which ones you like. I would be happy to create files for you, if you let me know which ones you'd like. There are also good quality examples in the ecosystems document that you found here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Images from the "gallery version" + a nice meadow, as an FYI
Moraine Park, with dense montane forest (left), grassland and meandering stream Horseshoe Park, less dense tree growth (right) and green grasslands Elk feeding on dry montane grassland in Kawuneeche Valley Meadow Sprague Lake Odessa Lake Odessa Lake from the head of the valley Clark's nutcracker Cow elk on the tundra Yellow-bellied marmot

Hike395, I thought you meant that you wanted to create the {{photomontage}}. Ok. I'll take a stab at it and see how it turns out. I have never used that template.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Before you do -- I think there may not be enough good ecosystem images to warrant a photomontage. The photos of Moraine Park, Horseshoe Park, and Kawuneeche Valley are not good examples of montane forest. The photos of Sprague Lake and Odessa Lake from far away don't show subalpine forest. The close-up photo of Odessa Lake would be OK, but it's poorly lit. The Yellow-bellied marmot photo isn't well-framed (the marmot is too small). So there isn't a lot here to work with. —hike395 (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Later: I just found the NPS gallery for RMNP here. I wonder if we can use some of these photos? And here are a bunch from Flickr that have license suitable for upload to Commons, using flickr2commons —hike395 (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hike395, Ok, cool! Did you see my comment at 14:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC), too?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I am sandboxing at User:CaroleHenson/NRHP - like my making sandbox a verb?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The NPS photogallery is excellent! Want to talk at User talk:CaroleHenson/NRHP? --CaroleHenson (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Classification of ecological and climate zones or systems

Hello, NewsAndEventsGuy, regarding the use of the term ecosystems - that came from the source - but I did some poking around.

• I looked up the terms, though: montane ecosystem is an ecosystem, subalpine is defined within montane ecosystem and as a subalpine climate, subalpine tundra). Alpine tundra is also natural region, a basic geographic unit. Usually it is a region which is distinguished by its common natural features of geography, geology, and climate - and natural regions are part of an ecosystem, from the geography sections. Glaciers do not fit as it's own category of an ecosystem.

• Life zones - or "climate zones" lists montane, subalpine, alpine areas.

• Subsets of climate and ecological zones or systems: Habitat speaks to "an ecological or environmental area that is inhabited by a particular species of animal, plant, or other type of organism." but does not speak to the climate and geological differences of a mountain ecosystem. I see no mention of montane, subalpine, etc. Instead it speaks to components of ecosystems, like grassland, etc. Habitat (like grassland) is a type of area within a zone or system. For instance, a montane ecosystem has grassland and forest habitats.

IMO, it seems the category is "ecosystem", "ecological and climate zone", or "life zone". Use of the word "system", I think also gets into the coming together of multi-faceted climate, geological, and habitat aspects. The definitions of ecological zone, climate zone, and life zone are sound narrower than ecosystem.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Made tweaks in strike-out and underline for clarity, particularly since this is an opinion and not fact.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Hike395 came to that as well, and that glacier is not an ecosystem. See this edit, which now has a different source.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Glad there is interest in verifying we're using the right vocabularly for whatever our goal is, and I'm not expert so go for it. See also this resource. Do we have agreement as to the goal? If no, verifying the word choice for the (undefined) goal would seem premature. Or not, if we need the vocab to discuss the question. I won't be much help given the time available, alas. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this resource your provided, "Any group of living and nonliving things interacting with one and other can be considered as an ecosystem. It's the way nature works together and depend on one and other: such as ants, anteater, soil, trees, forest and sun. Within each ecosystem, there are habitats." seems to match / summarize what I have said.

Yes, I 100% agree with the goal of ensuring that we're using the right vocabulary, as it is provided by secondary sources. Our changing how the terms are used would be original research, wouldn't it? I don't understand what you mean by If no, verifying the word choice for the (undefined) goal would seem premature. Or not, if we need the vocab to discuss the question.

Since we should be driven by the content from secondary sources - and how they describe the zones, systems or areas (whatever you'd like to call it), I'll take a bit of time and see how sources other than the National Park Service conceptualize the morane, subalpine, and alpine tundra areas for the Rocky Mountain National Park, and post that info here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Carry on, I need to resist the urge to let my wikipedia time explode. Glad you're doing a good job thinking about things here. However it shakes out, I do have one observation... a generic pic of a Clarks Nutcracker isn't really relevant to an article about this park, but a pic of the same bird sitting on a Beark Lake trail sign, or even better on a tent in Moraine Park CG with Long's Peak in the background would be super cool. And while adding lots of pics to elaborate on the ecosystems/zones/whatever is a nice idea, I can see the point that we have sub articles to go into depth about them. But there are many things that could be added with images... history, anthropology, culture, recreation... I mean SHEESH!!!! Where is the picture of the awesome open air solar/dessication toilet trap at the last backcountry campssite leading to Long's Peak? No stunning of rappels off The Diamond? Somewhere I have a photo of Mule Deer licking up popcorn and cigarette butts by moonlight at the visitor center along Trail Ridge Road. Of course that's all a long time ago. It's probably all changed. Anyway, carry on! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Here's a summary by looking at the books that came up at the top of this query: "Rocky Mountain National Park" Morane OR subalpine OR alpine OR tundra

• As you know, NPS / Rocky Mountain National Park calls them "ecosystems:
• Best of Rocky Mountains calls them "life zones"
• Hamilton's Rocky Mountain National Park calls them "ecosystems".
• Butterflies of Rocky Mountain National Park calls them "life zones".
• Birding Rocky Mountain National Park calls them "life zones".
• Outdoor family guide calls them "zones" - on page 55, the heading is "Wildlife Habitats of the Park", but uses "zones", as well as "ecosystems" in the rest of the book. It uses "habitat" to distinquish specific areas within the "zones", like grassland and forest (p. 52)

References

From what I can see so far, there seems to be a case for using either "ecosystem" or "life zone" -- and whichever approach is taken should use applicable source(s).--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Images for Park regions

Would someone be interested in adding images for the Park region section?

My thought is that there are quite a number of "peak" images, that it might be good to have images about a specific area within the region, but that's all I am thinking.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

NPS

Just as an FYI, once I finish the regions section, I'll circle back around and get alternate sources to many of the NPS sources. Although I am super strict about primary sources for other articles, I am not about getting content from NPS for national parks... but it is too heavy handed right now.

Having the framework (ecosystems and regions) from NPS really helped get rolling.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Biodiversity

The sentence "The park's biodiversity includes afforestation and reforestation, ecology, inland bodies of water, and mammals" looks weird to say the least. Biodiversity is defined as "the variety and variability of life on Earth". The above list includes actions by humans (afforestation and reforestation) a science (ecology), geography feature (inland bodies of water) and one class of animals (mammals). אביהו (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Ethics and the National Parks

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ellenmbruce (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Plutolunar.