Talk:Shenandoah National Park

Shenandoah National Park was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 22, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Virginia High‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Appalachia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Appalachia, a collaborative effort to increase coverage of Appalachia and the Appalachian Mountains. If you would like to participate, go to the project page to see a list of related articles needing attention.AppalachiaWikipedia:WikiProject AppalachiaTemplate:WikiProject AppalachiaAppalachia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Untitled

The info box says: Nearest city: Waynesboro. By what standard? This is a linear park, with headquarters in the Town of Luray (which is near the center of the park). On that basis, the nearest cities (to Luray) would be Harrisonburg (33.5 miles) or Winchester (44 miles). If you consider the two major attraction areas of Big Meadows and Skyland, you still come up with Harrisonburg as closest. Waynesboro is 58 miles from Luray, and a good ride from all but a very small southern strip of land (for the Skyline Drive to connect with the Blue Ridge Parkway).

I guess we could say who cares? Part of the reason for creating the Shenandoah National Park was to provide isolation from urbanization, or even human development. Vaoverland 09:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at actual city as a designation as such...if Front Royal is a "city" or Luray is one then thay would count also. I do know that in Virginia, unlike many states, the designation of City is oftentimes as what wouldn't qualify as a city in many states...the term city in Virginia applies to an "incorporation" as such an entity, apart from the country they lie in. I put Waynesboro, simply becuase to my knowledge, it is the closest designated and independent city to the park...but Front Royal would probably also apply if it is also a city, but can't see how Harrisonburg would. It's a quick change, so put in whatever you think is best.--MONGO 17:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Front Royal is an incorporated town, as is Luray. Because all cities in Virginia are independent cities, they must assume all county-level duties and expenses, whereas incorporated towns are still located within a county. Few growing towns seem to aspire to become cities. In fact, two former cities, South Boston and Clifton Forge, modified their charters and reverted to town status under a law created to address the problem about 20 years ago. So, I think I realize now that Waynesboro really is the best choice of "nearest city" for this template, since at least it is close the southern terminus of the Skyline Drive. As, as Emily Litella would say, "Oh, well that's different. Never mind." Vaoverland 21:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that Shenandoah is a long, narrow park. Waynesboro is indeed the closest city to the park borders, but it is an unlikely destination for anyone visiting the central or northern section of the park. On the other hand, neither Harrisonburg nor Winchester is particularly relevant to park visitors, either. Visitors to the north section who are seeking a populated area generally go to Front Royal. Those in the central section go to Luray. Those in the southern section do go to Waynesboro. And, just for the sake of nitpicking, park HQ isn't actually in the Town of Luray, although it has a Luray mailing address. It's along the highway between the park and the town. Rivertorch 05:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links vs. spam

The first link removed by Vsmith is to a book, Guide to Shenandoah National Park and the Skyline Drive by Henry Heatwole, which was for many years the definitive reference guide for visitors to the park. The author was perhaps the foremost authority on the history and topography of Shenandoah, and any potential hiker, camper, or mere sightseer who wanted to get the most out of his or her visit needed look no further than this book. Most of what it says is still perfectly relevant today. Mr. Heatwole passed away and the book, once published by the nonprofit Shenandoah History Association, went out of print, but the contents are now available online free of charge. How linking to the site that provides these highly informative contents could possibly constitute spam is beyond me. I am restoring the link.

The second removed link (photos of the park) also seems harmless enough—it's neither off-topic nor commercial—but I'll assume good faith here and let that one go. Rivertorch 07:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with keeping the link in the event there is any further debate. Meekohi 14:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spend most of my time each day removing spam, and I, too, agree that this is not spam. It is, in fact, just the sort of resource that external links are meant for-- too detailed to be incorporated into the article, but worthwhile additional info on the topic. See WP:EL. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I was a bit hasty there in assuming it was a book promotional link. Sorry 'bout that. The image link was commercial (they sell images) and has been spammed on most of the parks articles. Vsmith 16:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to note that the reason the book is out of print is that given current research findings there is quite a bit of mis-information. Users should be aware that while the hiking grid and log of the Drive can still be useful, the history in particular is seriously out of date and does not reflect the correction of many misconceptions that have ocurred due to recent researach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheninfo (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The article is a good, solid B-class article, but does not meet the Good Article criteria quite yet. It seems to be a little short on references, and the article is a bit too heavily dependent on the national park service websites for them. The attractions section only has one reference, referring to the pets issue, and nothing else. I also think that the attractions section is written a bit too much like a tourist brochure, and not really an encyclopedia article. I would recommend breaking this section up, and maybe having a section on trails, a section on lodging and campgrounds, and maybe even a section on Skyline Drive (which has its own wikipedia article, which could be linked to as a 'see also' reference, and a summary coming out of that article to be included here).

The lead is also a bit too short. It could be improved to provide a better summary of the article. See WP:LEAD for suggestions on this.

The 'ecology' section looks like a very good start, and very interesting. But it looks kind of like editors got lazy at the end with the bulleted list. Those items would be better off being better integrated into paragraphs. It could probably be expanded.

Those are the major issues with the article. Like I say, good, solid B-class, but not GA yet. Editors might want to review the manual of style, WP:LEAD, WP:CITE, and WP:EL, for tips on improving the article. Please renominate it at WP:GAC when the issues are addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 18:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History section

The wording in the third paragraph of the History section has a tone that is too informal for the article. This passage should be rewritten: "A little-known fact is that, while some families were removed by force, a few others (who mostly had also become difficult to deal with) were allowed to stay after their properties were acquired, living in the park until nature took its course and they gradually died. The last to die was Annie Lee Bradley Shenk who died in 1979 at age 92. Most of the people displaced left their homes quietly." A citation should be referenced to corroborate the fact that people continued to inhabit the park after it had been created. Ms. Shenk's death should be cited as well, as should the fact that she was the last permanent resident within the park's borders. The final sentence seems to be a superfluous generalization. 98.172.27.242 (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded and cleaned up the history section these past couple of rainy weekends, but lots more work is needed. I checked out and read a recent colloquial account of the modern and historic park by Sue Eisenfeld, Shenandoah: A story of conservation and betrayal, but don't feel comfortable citing pages, in part because of its colloquial endnote style that doesn't cite pages and the author's possibly limited knowledge of the newspaperman and politician Byrd and the Great Depression in Virginia. Someday I might be able to look up the thesis written on Will Carson and write an article on him, as well as on Rev. Neve and his Episcopal missionaries whose school at Simmons Gap remains, but right now this is my historic triage.Jweaver28 (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Shenandoah National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]