Talk:Saguaro National Park

We need a writeup for Saguaro West -- the Tucson Mtn section. Hopefully, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know anything about Saguaro NP, but... "lying approximately 20 miles (32 km) east and 15 miles (24 km) west of the center of the city of Tucson, Arizona" - read that carefully... can someone fix that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.206.127 (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Note is one park with two sections. One is on the East side of Tucson and one is on the West side of Tucson. See the map at http://www.saguaronationalpark.com/maps.html for more detail.

Sagraro cacti? Not Saguaro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VonPalm (talk • contribs) 17:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saguaro National Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Knope7 (talk · contribs) 16:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'll review this article. My first impression of this article is that it is nicely organized. I like to be thorough which can take a little time but I do not anticipate major issues with this article. Knope7 (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Knope7. I'm slow to respond partly because I was traveling during part of July and had limited Internet access. I'm back now and working through your suggestions one by one. Finetooth (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think I've responded to all of your suggestions thus far. Happy to consider any others you might have. Finetooth (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Subheadings in History should probably be "Early history" and "History after 1920." Early is either an adjective or an adverb and should be accompanied by a noun or a verb. The Manual of Style advises against repeating the main words of a head by using them again in the subheads beneath the head. The noun is in the head. Finetooth (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply Ok Knope7 (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply The sentence "Elevations within the RMD vary from 2,670 to 8,666 feet (814 to 2,641 m) at the summit of Mica Mountain, and annual precipitation varies from about 12 inches (300 mm) at the lowest point to 30 inches (760 mm) at the highest." could be broken up into 2 sentences. Also, using inches to describe rainfall while also talking about elevation is a little confusing and I think it could benefit from rewording. Rainfall amounts in the park are directly related to elevation. The higher you go, the wetter it is. I might be able to find something in the sources that would make this relationship more clear. Finetooth (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply I split the sentences and altered the wording of the rainfall sentence to make it more clear that the low-elevation TMD gets a lot less rain than the highest elevations in the RMD. Finetooth (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply   DoneKnope7 (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply The last two sentences of the 3rd paragraph in'Geography and climate' could be more clear. "Visits to the park are most numerous" is a slightly awkward phrase. The next sentence, what is important is that the area around the park is being monitored for the effects of climate change and that the mean temperature is rising. I would recommend mentioning climate change specifically and removing the 19 miles detail. Good catch. I had a lot of trouble with the climate-change sentence. I reworked both of the sentences you mention. Finetooth (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply   Done Knope7 (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Second sentence of 'Geography and climate' ("Tucson Mountain Park abuts the south side of the TMD, and the Avra Valley lies immediately east of the TMD.") should be sourced. Sourced to a road atlas. Finetooth (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply In 'Early history' the following sentences could use a citation with stronger support: "Petroglyphs and bits of broken pottery are among Hohokam artifacts found in the park. Subsequent indigenous cultures, the Sobaipuri of the Tucson Basin and the Tohono O’odham to the west may be descendants of the Hohokam." Also, I notice elsewhere the article cites consecutive sentences which rely on the same source where as the first paragraph in the Early history section only cites the last sentence. I would recommend being consistent through out the article, either citing every sentence or only citing the last senetence where consecutive sentences rely on the same source. Added more sourcing. I've tried to be consistent with the citations: only one for a group of sentences all relying on a single source. Finetooth (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply First sentence of 'Geography and climate' could use a stronger source for the distance of each district from Tucson. Sourced to a road atlas. Finetooth (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply I recommend repeating the "Water in Saguaro National Park" (currently footnote 20) page as the citation for Mica Mountain being the highest peak in the RMD. It's easier to navigate than the current citation. Removed citation 19 as the RS here, which leaves citation 20 to cover the claim. Finetooth (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply The last paragraph of 'Geography and climate' could use more consistent citations. It is ok not to cite consecutive sentences that go back to the same source, but that should be consistent. There are a few sentences without citations and then there are a series of citations going back to source 19. Also, I wonder if there is a way to specify which slide is being referred to on source 19. Made the citations consistent. I think you mean the slides at source 20 rather than 19. Not sure how to handle that. I am seeking a solution. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply Switched to the short footnote (sfn) system for the map with slides. This allowed me to add the slide number as a page number, which should make checking the sources on these much easier. Finetooth (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply I think this helps. Great solution! Knope7 (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply Second paragraph of 'Geology', a citation can be added to the second to last sentence to source 27. For consistency, I left this unchanged. Source 27 covers both. Finetooth (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply "The earliest known residents of the land in and around what later became Saguaro National Park were the Hohokam, who lived there in villages between 200 and 1450 A.D." Needs citation to the same source as the following sentence. Ditto for this one. Left unchanged for consistency within the article. Citation 32 covers both. Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply The first few sentences of the third paragraph of the 'Early History' subsection are also not cited. Ditto here too. Citation 32 applies to them all. Finetooth (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply Multiple sentences in History after 1920 should have a citation (or again consecutive citations elsewhere in the article could be removed, it looks like it might just be easier to remove the repeated citations elsewhere). I agree on both counts. I think I have now removed the redundant ones, the pesky rascals. Finetooth (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply Awesome! I noticed a stray slipped by so I got rid of it. Those citations can be a pain and you certainly were very thorough in this article. Knope7 (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Excellent images!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Looks like all of my previous comments have been addressed. I previously left off mid way through the article. My remaining comments are related to the Recreation section.

I recommend adding "as of 2017" for the hours the park is open. I think scheduling is something that could change at any time and putting a time frame is helpful to orient the reader.

I would also recommend eliminating the second to last paragraph about the ranger guided parks. The source cited for the first sentence appears to have been updated. I suspect ranger programs are subject to change periodically. I don't think the article really needs that detail. Maybe instead something about ranger programs generally being offered without mentioning a specific program. You might even be able to use an outside source for that, if you would like to go that route. I do think that the section is informative enough and can stand as is with that paragraph removed.

That's all I see. Sorry for the delay. With the final tweaks to recreation, the article should be good to go. Knope7 (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Knope7: Thanks. I took your advice on both issues: added 2017 and deleted the second-to-last paragraph. Finetooth (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Everything looks ready to go, @Finetooth:. Great work! This article is thorough and well written. If looking for a place to improve this article in the future, I would recommend moving away from having so many sources published by the National Park Service. Based on my review of the sources, I think the sources are sufficient for this state. This article is very carefully sourced and accurate. I was also very impressed by the images. Overall a really nice article and I am happy to pass it. Knope7 (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the kind words and for your good advice. Finetooth (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply