Talk:Redwood National and State Parks

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Redwood National and State Parks received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

bring to featured article level

The tallest trees on earth need a better article. I hope others will assist me in my attempts to get this article to featured article level.--MONGO 09:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look. Feel free to revert or remove any or all of my changes. I think it reads better now though, and without losing any information. Hope you agree. --Guinnog 09:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine...I need all the help I can get.--MONGO 09:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I think it is looking better all the time. Also check out Save-the-Redwoods League, which I'm sure you can add to. I started it to fix a redlink on this article. Fascinating stuff. --Guinnog 10:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that....I was going to do it...I kept telling myself...but just kept putting it off.--MONGO 10:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Know what you mean. Here's another one to check; I don't have much knowledge of the terminology of US politics, so may have made mistakes in my creation of John E. Raker which eliminates another redlink. Please check when you can. Thanks.

Looks fine to me..I've only done one bio stub myself...so I thank you for this one.--MONGO 14:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Final redlink eliminated with creation of Franciscan Assemblage. Now I am going to kick back and watch the World Cup with a beer! Best, --Guinnog 14:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot quicker than I work..I must be getting old. Thanks for all the help.--MONGO 14:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really has been a pleasure to help on such an interesting and informative article on one of my favourite places. I would have uploaded some of my photos of the area, but the ones there are very good already. --Guinnog 14:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page:the History section

Thanks - I was fixing it as you were, so we had a copyedit. I'm going to try a slightly different approach.Sam 16:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple tweaks made and a paragraph split out - see what you think. Sam 16:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see the point of breaking out the gold rush into its own paragraph. It's too short, for one thing. More importantly, the logic of having the gold rush narrated in both the first and the second paragraphs was surely that it needed mentioning in the contexts of its impact on both the native peoples (=the first paragraph) and on the redwoods (=the second paragraph). If anything, I would rather integrate what are now all three first paragraphs, so as only to describe the gold rush once, than break it up like that, I'm afraid. Frutti di Mare 16:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, Gold Rush should be altogether, that would help it quite a bit! The two sentences now in the second paragraph do need to be fleshed out, but I found the "traditional Indian life" and "Decimation of Native Americans" to be two different concepts that did not read well together. I don't see the third paragraph as focused on impact on the Redwoods, since it includes fur trading, but I would see all of it improved by moving to a true chronology instead of jumping back and forth. Thanks. Sam 17:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's chronological now. Check it out, please. Frutti di Mare 17:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well, not quite, but I suppose it's only from 1850 on that there is any research into the state of the native peoples, so it can't be helped that that gets some mention ahead of time. Perhaps there could be less of it, though. Frutti di Mare 17:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I think that reads better. I don't think a perfect chronology is needed, and in historical articles I've argued against them, but I think the general chronology here helps lead the reader through a pretty packed section.

I would break out as a separate paragraph the thought the last two sentences, that start moving on to the deforestation/preservation discussion, but I think I like short paragraphs more than others. "Is known to have thoroughly investigated" has also been nagging at me, but I don't have a better suggestion right now. Sam 17:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Biosphere designation

Anybody have a source? This, linked from UNESCO Biosphere website seems to raise questions as to whether RNSP is actually in the biosphere. Niteowlneils 02:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking this over...the U.S. Government website states that the park is a biosphere reserve...bottom of their page:[1], but I believe that the biosphere reserve is for the northern California coast ranges...and area that includes the park.--MONGO 02:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The map[2] has two dots that both go to the coast ranges...the lower one appears more to be related to Redwoods...maybe their website is area specific rather than site specific...--MONGO 02:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]