Wikipedia:Peer review/Mount Rushmore/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mount Rushmore[edit]

Mount Rushmore has been listed as a good article, and is concurrently the US collaboration of the week. Recently, the article has been largely improved, and I'm hoping to bring the article to featured article status. Thanks in advance to all comments/suggestions/help. AndyZ 22:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consult WP:MOSDATE for date linking
    • I'm not too sure what is wrong with the date links here. Years are supposed to be linked with full dates. Since this is an US article, the commas are appropriate.
      • My bad. I should have read the thng myself in the first place >.> Circeus 15:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second images of the history section doesn't appear to serve any purpose. It's much higher quality than the other in the section, so I'd at the very least swap them around.
    • Hmmm... the second image was removed User:Willshepherdson because he thought it was less clear; I'll revert that. AndyZ 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • and is managed by the National Park Service, an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior.
  • The carved faces of former U.S. Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln are on the southeast face of the mountain, which in 1885, had been named after Charles E. Rushmore, a prominent New York lawyer.
    • This phrase presents two completely unrelated information: presidents carved, and origin of the mountain's name. The result is confusing at best.
      • I believe this was an accidental typo caused by another user; I fixed it. AndyZ 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • work took from October 1927 to October 1941
    • Maybe it'sbecause I,mnot a nativespeaker, but that sentence irks me. I keep wanting to read "work took place"
      • I tried fixing it. AndyZ 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the intro present various information without links between them. it hops from the project's initiation to the basic geo-ecologic info about Mount Rushmore
  • created the idea for Mount Rushmore in 1923
    • "created"???
      • I changed it to conceived of. AndyZ 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "history" section should be in chronological order. Starting with 1925 then going to 1924 is poor prose.
    • Good point, I'm surprised I missed that. AndyZ 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I first read In 1924, Robinson convinced Gutzon Borglum to go to the Black Hills region to ensure that the carving could occur., I though Borglum was a congressman or something such.That should be cleared up.
  • Is there an article that can be linked for "The Needles area"? If not, please expand on it.
    • No, the article is nonexistant (see the disambiguation page for Needles). They are several granite pillars. AndyZ 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a link. Even if it's read, it seems pertinent. And redlinks are not teh evil... Circeus 15:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sculptures are certainly not busts
    • Corrected all occurrences; in fact on the talk page it mentions an issue about that wording. AndyZ 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • but a rider was passed on an appropriations bill requiring that federal funds be used to finish only those heads that had already been started at that time.
    • Please provide an appropriate wikilink for "rider". It boggles me.
  • Borgulm died in the March of 1941 due to embolism.
    • Borglum died from embolism in March of 1941
  • The rock formation is carved on a sacred Lakota Native American site. A Crazy Horse Memorial, begun in 1948, is currently being carved out of a rockface nearby in South Dakota.
    • This paragraph comes across as completely random information. Did the factthe site is sacred impact on the sculpting? How is the Crazy Horse memorial linked to mount Rushmore?
      • It isn't; I came across it at first in the geology section and without thinking too much just moved it to the history section. I'll remove it. AndyZ 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the detail about it being a sacred place is very pertinent, but just appears out of the blue in the location it was. Circeus 15:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not state howmuch visitor comes tomount Rushmore yearly, a very pertinent information.
    • Good point; I saw the number somewhere, if I can find it again. AndyZ 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear whether the cleaning of the face is completed or still in process.
  • the bighorn sheep and Rocky Mountain goat were both from other areas,
    • It should be clearly stated whether they are artificial introductions or not.
      • They are; I'll clear that up. AndyZ 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coniferous trees surround most of the monument, which shades the trails from the hot South Dakota sun, mainly including the Ponderosa pine.
    • This sentence is choppy, and it is not clear whther the trees or the monument provide shade.
      • Oops, I'll correct that. AndyZ 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nine species of shrubs live near Mount Rushmore.
    • This sentence appears to serve no clear purpose. there are shrubs just about everywhere across teh United States...
      • Oh well, its verified, so I see no immediate reason for removal. AndyZ 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, only approximately 5% of the plant species in found in the Black Hills were indigenous to the region.
    • This sentence would be more useful if it stated how much total species are found.
      • I'll see if I can find that information.
  • The illustrations in the Geology sections serve no clear purpose.
  • The monument at night pic looks horrible.However, it might illustrate the fact the monument is lit at night well (if that is at all the case, but it looks so from the pic). Unfortunately, thatfact is not mentionned anywhere in the article.
  • The information about the height of the mountain ought to be presented much earlier in the article.
    • Where? Perhaps the lead. AndyZ 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was my thought. Circeus 15:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, the illustrations concentrate on Mount Rushmore itself, more pictures of the other facilities would be nice.
  • Is the Film appearances list supposed to be exhaustive? The faces are refered to in Ri¢hie Ri¢h, for example.
    • There is something on the talk page about that. AndyZ 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I only saw the movie, but there was a kind of parody of the monument with the family member's face carved in a mountain. Circeus 15:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please disambig the Team America link.
    • It was removed. AndyZ 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Circeus 00:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a lot for all of those suggestions; I'll be working on them (note: all of my responses are bulleted directly in your comment). AndyZ 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There are quite a few short paragraphs in History which should probably be merged. (Histories are really tough to do in this way I realize - I did a lot of this for Microsoft).
  2. Appearences.... I'm not quite sure about this, its a bit listy. Perhaps an explanation of why appearances of Mount Rushmore are more significant then other mountains would help.

Hope that helps in addition to the above! Just another star in the night T | @ | C 08:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the suggestions! It is going to be difficult to merge the 5th paragraph in the history section- perhaps I'll expand it. AndyZ 21:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a short paragraph on why Mount Rushmore often appears in media. AndyZ t
  • Are there any other comments before I send this to WP:FAC? Thanks, AndyZ t 21:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a lot better :). I'd like to see that short two-sentence paragraph in history merged or extended. Also, it would be nice to see the ecology section extended just a little more if possible (by a sentence or two, nothing major). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 00:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded that 2-sentence paragraph by adding information about an essay submitted by Burkett. I'll see if I can find more information for the ecology section. Thanks, AndyZ t 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple of paragraphs to the ecology section (water+fire ecology) and expanded the previously-existing paragraphs by a bit. Thanks, AndyZ t 15:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From above: "Overall, the illustrations concentrate on Mount Rushmore itself, more pictures of the other facilities would be nice."

The article did include a picture that shows the state flag prominade within the memorial

but it was removed. I just uploaded a photo of the main entrance

if Andy want to use it, he can. — Zaui (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the images; many more have been added to the gallery. Due to the relatively small size of the article though, I'd hate to overflood it with images, and since there is nothing in the article that deals with the facilities, there is no appropriate place to put them in as of now. AndyZ t 00:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Mount_Rushmore/archive1&oldid=1046410847"