Talk:Leopold Report/GA1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Hi. Just a quick note: I'm going to begin my review sometime after July 15 (UTC) (later today). This review is not yet finished. When it is, I will remove this message.Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just let me know when you're ready for me to respond. María (habla conmigo) 12:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have this finished later tonight. Viriditas (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finished just yet. Viriditas (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoroughness so far, Viriditas. FYI, I will not be available over the weekend. I see you've already taken care of some of your own points below; would it be okay if I go ahead and start addressing things? María (habla conmigo) 02:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, María. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm in the process of finishing this review. I've set a goal of midnight, Tuesday, July 21 (HST) for either putting this on hold due to outstanding requests regarding prose and focused coverage, or passing. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be at least a few hours over this goal, but the review will be finished (either on hold or passed) within the next four hours. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've passed the article. Good job! Viriditas (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! Splendid attention to detail all around. I plan to implement your suggestions for expansion as soon as I get some free time. María (habla conmigo) 15:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • I think an NPS image of a wildfire burning in YNP is appropriate for this article. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm looking through some images I have right now. If they work, I'll add them to this page for your consideration. Considering the importance of Leopold's recommendations regarding controlled burning at the time of the report and from a historical POV, an image would work well here. Viriditas (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

  • There is another, separate but historically notable "Leopold Report" associated with Leopold's brother, Luna Leopold who studied the Florida Everglades. Surprisingly, neither the biographical article on Leopold nor the article on the Everglades National Park mentions it. I think we will need to disambiguate between the two reports. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it doesn't have an article on Wikipedia, there's no reason to disambiguate. María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bit more involved than that, although that's a good place to start: First, if there are only two topics, we don't create a disambiguation page. Second, my initial comment may have been a bit ambiguous and confusing, hence your answer. We have two notable topics (one currently lacking an article) that go by the name "Leopold Report", although both have formal titles. I think we can generally agree that this topic is more notable (or at least has more coverage) and could be considered a primary topic (although this is open to debate based on several other factors I would rather not go into right now). Assuming that this is the primary topic, we still don't have any coverage about the other Leopold Report. This means we can a) mention it in this article (and considering that both authors are related and are in similar lines of work, this isn't all that extraordinary), or b) create the second article using the formal title of the report while placing a {{dablink}} at the top of this article as a pointer to readers looking for Luna Leopold's 1969 report, "Environmental Impact of the Big Cypress Swamp Jetport", aka the "Leopold Report". Believe it or not, option a was once standard procedure (many moons ago), but AFAIK, has since been phased out in favor of option b, which is what I was attempting to describe in my original comment, i.e. a dablink. I'll try and get to this in the next day or so. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost done. Dablink is hidden for now in the header, and I've created the proto-stub in my user space. Viriditas (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • The Leopold Report is a paper composed of a series of wildlife and preservation recommendations that were presented to United States Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall by the Special Advisory Board on Wildlife Management.
  • the Report was officially known as "Wildlife Management in the National Parks" when it was released on March 4, 1963.
    • Need to check on this. See comments in reception and legacy below. Viriditas (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe Sellars 1999, p. 214 explains this as "reprints in several national publications." Perhaps the article should mention this? Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • removal programs at several other national parks had not been effective enough.
    • Isn't there an official term for a "removal program"? Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems you've already addressed this, and others. Could you strike through what has already been taken care of, so I can differentiate between that and what needs to be done? Thanks. María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not a fan of striking through tasks. I'll just place "done" in highlight. Also, you don't need to be concerned about this just yet because I haven't yet put this article on hold. If I did, then yes, I would make it very clear which tasks were open and which were closed. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only did the committee's recommendations state that active management of the Yellowstone's elk population was necessary, but that removal programs at several other national parks had not been effective enough.
    • This is a bit too wordy. Why not just say, "The committee recommended actively managing Yellowstone's elk population and observed that past removal programs at other national parks had been ineffective." Or something like that. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • and this philosophy was adopted by members of the conservation movement
    • I removed this from the lead because I feel it is somewhat ambiguous and not exactly accurate. It's also not clear what the "conservation movement" is, and whether the people behind NAS report, for example, would be considered part of it. I do not believe the conservation movement really holds this view today, and it is somewhat misleading to have this in the lead without explaining that newer concepts, such as biodiversity and genetic diversity have supplanted it. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • File:OPAL TERRACE with elks 1.jpg
    • Great photo, but it's hard to see on my end. Is there anyway we can make it larger? After all, the elk play a significant role in this article. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the National Park Service (NPS), an agency of the Department of the Interior, was created, Yellowstone and other parks were overseen by the Federal Government.
    • Can this be rewritten for clarity? It's a real mouthful. How about something like, "Before the National Park Service (NPS) was created as an agency within the Department of the Interior in 1916, Yellowstone and other parks were overseen by the Federal Government." Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to attract more tourists in the 1910s and 1920s, NPS managers within Yellowstone attempted to increase populations of elk and antelope—species thought of as major attractions to park visitors—by winter feeding and predator control.[3]
    • Doesn't it read better to split this up? Something like, "NPS managers within Yellowstone were interested in attracting more tourists to the park in the 1910s and 1920s. Elk and antelope species were considered a major attraction for park visitors, and an attempt was made to increase their numbers through winter feeding and predator control." Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason the background information from Rocky Barker's Scorched Earth (2005) isn't used here to fill in the gaps? Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I glanced at it and didn't see anything of note, although I may have missed something. What gaps are you referring to, exactly? María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you look at Chapter 12 and 13? The current article doesn't mention the core concept of "natural regulation" or discuss it in any depth. This is also part of what Chase is criticizing. I have some more secondary sources that talk about this as well. I'll try to help out. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite sporadic reductions of elk by hunters, the animals still posed a problem to the northern range ecosystems.
    • This is an important point for several reasons and should be expanded. First, the reader should be informed as to what type of problem the animals posed. Second, this "problem" is covered somewhat in the report (in abstract form) so it would make sense to speak in concrete terms here. Viriditas (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1962 Stagner Report needs to be mentioned here. Dilsaver 1997 describes it as anticipating the Leopold Report.[3] Viriditas (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations

  • Caption: The Leopold Report was primarily written and prepared by zoologist and conservationist A. Starker Leopold.
    • How do you feel about a more direct caption? Something like: "Zoologist and conservationist A. Starker Leopold (pictured) was the primary author of the Leopold Report." Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either way is fine for me, but since the subject of the article is the Report, not Leopold himself, I prefer the way it currently is worded. María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but keep in mind, an article like this can discuss the people behind the report, their beliefs, motivations, fears, etc. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and legacy

  • When first presented on March 4, 1963, the report was titled "Wildlife Management in the National Parks"
    • Meagher (Sontag, NPS) also refers to it as Wildlife Problems in National Parks, and you can see references to this as "Study of Wildlife Problems in National Parks". I don't know for sure, but it looks like the same report was also published under another name?[4][5] Viriditas (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, it looks like it was reprinted per Sellars 1999, p. 214. Perhaps this should be mentioned? Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The primary reprint (most quoted) is: A. Starker Leopold et al. (1963). "Wildlife Management in the National Parks". Transactions of the Twenty-Eighth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 29. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure what you're asking for now. The reprints are mentioned in the "Legacy" section. The official name has always been "Wildlife Management in the National Parks". María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • True, but several sources, including the NPS refer to it under different names. My understanding is that this kind of variability is to be expected, so I'm just going to ignore it for now. One thing that does stand out is how many secondary sources refer to it as the "Leopold report" (lowercase "r") whereas most of the official sources call it the "Leopold Report". Not a big deal, but I'm curious why the style changes so much. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Report was first presented on March 4, 1963, with the title, "Wildlife Management in the National Parks".
    • I would like to add, "and originally published in the Transactions of the Twenty-Eighth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference".[6] Viriditas (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quickly" is used twice, and once more in a previous section (three total). Viriditas (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more I look at this, the more I think that the reception and the legacy could be expanded into two separate sections. Obviously, this doesn't have to happen for a GA, but there is a lot of material on this subject. Some of the legacy information should probably be expanded, such as the importance of ecosystem management, and the influence of the report in the establishment of fire management programs in other national parks, and the status of park management today in contrast to the recommendations of the Leopold Report of 1963. (Agee & Johnson 1988) Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was my original intention to split this section into two, but I don't believe it's necessary in order to reach GA-status. GA only asks that the article is "broad in its coverage", not that it's comprehensive. Perhaps if I'm ever brave enough to take this to FAC... María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Effect of Bison and Elk culling after the report. (Keiter 1997)
    • Directly led to the 1968 management policy, 1971 policy change of natural-regulation model for ungulate management. This in turn influenced the introduction of "catch-and-release fishing, allowing lightning-ignited fires to burn, the closing of garbage dumps, and the prohibition against feeding bears." (Singer et al. 1998:376)
  • Native Americans: "The implications of the 1963 Leopold Report (Leopold and others 1963) for Indians in parks is much commented on and little analyzed. Sellars's discussion is an excellent place to start (1997)." (Sokolove et al. 2002)
  • Cain Report: The Leopold Report "evaluated predator management policies of the Branch of Predator and Rodent Control, formerly known as PARC...[the report] had little effect on the agency's practices." Later, the Cain Report (1971?) followed up on the Leopold Report and "criticized the predator control programs, charging that PARC and the livestock industry 'had fostered a mutually beneficial relationship ... that had `flourished over the decades without the objective information to warrant it, even in the face of public criticism.'" [...] The [Cain Report] concluded that predator control programs had "substantial public cost and very little if any public interest". (Li 2000:677; See also: Hampton 1997:173)
  • A House Divided: "From the beginning, the scenic beauty of national parks was promoted for economic tourism, especially by the railroads. Although George Bird Grinnell's campaign on behalf of the 1894 Act to Protect the Birds and Animals in Yellowstone National Park, John Muir's nature writings in the late 1800s, and George Melendez Wright's efforts in the 1930s to protect the integrity of natural resources all were visionary, it took the Leopold Report of 1963 from the National Academy of Sciences and the Wilderness Act of 1963 to solidify the foundation of ecological thinking in the NPS. Nonetheless, the National Park Service remains a house divided, caught between current political pressures to become a more scientifically and ecologically focused manager of NPS lands and its traditional purpose, to preserve scenery and promote tourism (Sellars 1999)." (Samson et al. 2001:869)
    • This should be moved into the legacy section, in some form. Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also

  • Added this section only as a temporary holding pen for links that should appear in the article.
    • Ecosystem management - This link should appear in the lead section as many sources describe it as one of the core concepts of the report: "The recommendations of the report formulated a general philosophy for ecosystem management in Yellowstone Park, which has been subject to a wide variety of interpretation and criticism." (Keiter et al. 1994:289)
    • Fire ecology (Lewin 1988)
    • Giant Forest Lodge Historic District - Mentioned in the report. Appears notable to discuss (or link).[7]
    • History of wildfire suppression - The Report was notable enough to change the way federal agencies used fire to manage wilderness: "For the NPS, allowing natural fires to burn was only part of a broad management redirection. The initial impetus for redirection was the 1963 Leopold Report...YNP has been a pivotal and controversial testing ground for the Leopold Report, and the fires of 1988 may have provided the sternest test of the practicality of maintaining biotic associations." (Schullery 1989:686)
    • Yellowstone fires of 1988

Notes

References

  • Leopold, A. Starker, et al. 1963. "Wildlife Management in the National Parks: Goal". National Park Service. Retrieved on June 18, 2009.
    • For public documents, Turabian/Chicago style uses italics. See also list style for publications of government depts. and agencies in section 19.9.1 and 19.9.4. Viriditas (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robbins Report should be added to references or further reading.[8] Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links

  • Is it acceptable to upload the full report to Wikisource? Just curious, but is there a reason you are using two different versions of the report? There's the nps.gov chapter you link to in the notes section, and the craterlakeinstitute.com version you link to in the external links section. Why not just link to one in the references section and use a shortened footnote? Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know anything about Wikisource, sorry. As for the two different versions of the report listed (one as a reference and the other in the EL section), I suppose I could cut the EL if it's confusing. The only thing is that the ref specifically links to only one section of the report, while the EL leads to the report's index page. That it's hosted by two separate websites is weird, I agree. Please advise if you would still like me to change per your suggestion. María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the report can be uploaded to Wikisource, and I'll place the link in the article after this is complete. As for the footnote and external link, my personal preference would be to 1) use a shortened footnote 2) Add the full citation to the report in the references section (with the link to the NPS site), and 3) eliminate the EL. However, the one advantage of the EL is that it includes the entire report on one page and for that reason, it might be useful. It also has links to a library of related topics and reports and this could also be helpful to researchers. So, with that said, my only suggestions here would be to change the footnote and move the NPS link into a full citation in the references section. I can help do this. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Leopold_Report/GA1"