Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/June 2016

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 8:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC) [1].

---

Notified: Saros136, Fotaun, JorisvS, Ckatz, Kheider, Serendipodous, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy

The article has undergone major change since the latest FAR in 2008 (e.g. [2]). It no longer looks like the same article. There are a few issues that pop out to me - there is an over-use of images and not always in the correct context (one example "Pioneer Venus Multiprobe"). Some sections are very brief and refer to secondary articles without a summary that reads well and fits in well on the Venus page itself. The intro is a little brief and could be better written.Anon 09:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed this review on hold at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coordination for the moment because I was unable to locate the first phase of the review ("Raise issues at article Talk"). DrKay (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the talk page Anon 21:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

• Some of the images have no alt= text. And some images have alt text the same as the caption. Being the same is not useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Serendi^podous 08:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ref "Nature of the Magnetic Field in the Neighborhood of Venus" is fairly incomplete, and with a typo, correct details are here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969CosRe...7..675D
  • I improved this a little before noticing the FAR; it now appears consistent with what's available through the bibcode, though, sadly, it appears online records for the journal only go back to 2000. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 02:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• it would be good to links some more journals, and publishers in the references - on first occurrences may be.
  • I notice some are now linked, but not most. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Serendi^podous 09:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• dead link for "Venus Close Approaches to Earth as predicted by Solex 11"

• Fixed with archive link. A2soup (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• dead link for " Numbers generated by Solex"

• Fixed. This just served to explain the source for the prior ref, so I combined them and gave an archive link. A2soup (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• the "Compare the Planets" references neither of the facts linked to it.

• Fixed by finding old version of that ref with relevant link (now dead) & providing archive link. A2soup (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ref "A. Boyle – Venus transit: A last-minute guide – MSNBC" missing information and is a dead link.
• ref "See Venus in Broad Daylight!" no retrieval date (it is still there though)
• ref "The Pentagram of Venus" is a blog, and is missing info, cannot tell if this is reliable or not.

Fixed. The guy has a wiki page, so he's probably reliable. Serendi^podous 19:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ref Fegley, B (2003). Venus (Treatise on Geochemistry ed.). has "ed.", no page number or ISBN. added
• ref "title". Retrieved 4 January 2015. is missing detail. added
• ref "РАН: запуск "Венеры-Д" состоится не ранее 2024 года" should have an English translation of the title. (perhaps an English language source is available)
• ref "Atmospheric Flight on Venus" is a dead link for me and missing info
  • Rescued via Archive.org. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 03:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• refs 166-175 look to be web references and miss retrieval dates and other information.
• ref "The Magellan Venus Explorer's Guide" appears thrice, but the first time has no page number, and the second time has even less info. (there is no ISBN on the book so its absence is a non-issue) found page numbers in the book, linked online version, and made consistent.
• This article should link to Venus in fiction possibly with a short sentence on the topic. Look at Observations and explorations of Venus#Impact on literature which belongs more here, than in that article.
  • I've added a prototype. It may need some holes filled. Serendi^podous 20:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it good enough? Please let me know before I spend a day at a library. Serendi^podous 10:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the summary is OK. However we should not be using primary references for the first three documents, secondary references that mention the facts would be more appropriate. Whenever the popular culture section develops in other articles, material only referenced to the work it is in gets the chop, and only if others comment on it, is the mention worth having in Wikipedia. I will add these as an issue down below, so that this one can be resolved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Nowhere does Venus tell us that it appears as a white star. The colour is a basic fact that should be mentioned.

• Added this fact (with ref) to first sentence of observation section. A2soup (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "thick clouds" composition does not match what the sources say. The sources also mention aluminium chloride, ferric chloride, and "sulfates", partially hydrated phosphoric anhydride and octasulfur. sulfur dioxide looks to be an atmospheric gas rather than a cloud droplet material. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Sky and Telescope" is used where the correct name appears to be "Sky & Telescope" fixed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Page is in this category: category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls so there may be an error hidden in there somewhere.

It apparently isn't any more. Serendi^podous 10:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation needed for "Venus's opaque clouds prevent observing the Sun from the planet's surface"

added. Serendi^podous 10:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=2and http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=229 are two different references that seem to result in the same page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Use of thinspace, is this OK? (in the info box)

removed. Serendi^podous 08:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ISBN format dashes or not?

fixed. Serendi^podous 13:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More fixes; I wrote an in-browser ISBN tool a while back that can properly hyphenate ISBNs, and I've verified most of the ones currently in the article. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Calculate/show" should this read "Calculate and show"? The page is called Apparent Disk of Solar System Object.

Fixed. Serendi^podous 13:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In one place we say Cassini–Huygens and another Cassini.
• Since we use British English, should "center" be replaced by "centre" where it is not a proper noun, or title?
• " Colonization -> Colonisation
• " color -> colour (three times)
• "co-orbitals" sounds a bit jargon-like.

fixed. Serendi^podous 15:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• fixed Dawsow name error.
• " destabilize -> destabilise
• Encyclopædia or Encyclopedia? two different things used for Encyclopædia Britanica. "æ" look right here.
• Britannica online encyclopedia needs capitalisation anyway - and is not the name the site uses also
• fly-by or flyby? (also fly-bys or flybys)
• Hitran or HITRAN?

Above spelling issues resolved. Serendi^podous 10:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Lightnings on Venus studied on the basis of Venera 9 and 10 data" reference is actually in Russian. Did anyone actually locate a copy and read it? In any case the journal title ( Kosmicheskie Issledovaniia) and article title would be in Russian, so see if we can get original. Google suggests " Космические Исследования" An English translation is also published with bibcode=1980CosRe..18..325K

• I found and read a translation. It looks like that journal was regularly translated and republished in America as Cosmic Research. I changed to ref to the translation. A2soup (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Should "false colour image" be "false-colour image"? (with hyphen in adjective)

fixed. Serendi^podous 13:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Three primary references used in the "In fiction" section should be secondary sources instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

secondary sources added. Serendi^podous 11:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• V.A. Krasnopolskii or V. A. Krasnopolsky — likely the same author with two transliterations.

Possibly but I don't see how we'd prove it. Serendi^podous 13:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed it anyway. 23:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Serendi^podous

• MESENGER or MESSENGER ?
• midday seems preferable to mid-day
• Should "Planet-C" be "PLANET-C"?

Spelling issues resolved. Serendi^podous 13:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "in false-colour" should not have a hyphen as colour is now the noun, not part of adjective. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Serendi^podous 21:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now run this script: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/view/Peer_reviewer#page:Venus
  • It has identified some spelling issues that are not in British spelling:
  • Sterilization
  • realization
  • civilization
  • Venera program (should this have "me" on the end?)
• Headings that contain the word Venus - "Venus symbol" and "Pentagram of Venus"

"Pentagram of Venus" is a proper title, and so can't be changed. Serendi^podous 12:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 630 nm should have a non-breaking space, and perhaps "nm" should be spelled out as nanometre
• references should not be after a space, eg at "eccentricity = 0.006772" "asc_node = 76.680°" "deep interior than Earth's."

Other issues above resolved. Serendi^podous 12:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• New dead link :http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/96GL01589.shtml for Venusian k 2 tidal Love number from Magellan and PVO tracking data (info) [agu.org]
• dead link for transit of Venus: http://www.transit-of-venus.org.uk/history.htm (domain appears abandoned)
• weasel word "arguably"

Changed. Serendi^podous 08:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

• The lead is a bit too short for an article of this side. Add a paragraph on space-exploration and/or colonization

added. Serendi^podous 18:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The slow, retrograde rotation is notable and deserves a mention in the lead. Praemonitus (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added. 09:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Serendi^podous

• The Planned and proposed missions section is basically a list without bullet-points

revised. Serendi^podous 23:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As per WP:ISBN, change all ISBN numbers to ISBN-13. Use this site to convert ISBN-10 to ISBN-13

revised. Serendi^podous 09:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe this article now meets FA Criteria   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nergaal

• Are there any Apohele asteroid-like objects that are considered to be related to Venus? Nergaal (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Anon, Graeme Bartlett, and Dunkleosteus77: Have your concerns been addressed here? @Serendipodous: any response to Nergaal's question? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are Venus-crosser asteroids; is that what he's asking? Serendi^podous 17:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking something that is more narrowly within Venus' orbit. Not sure if I missed it before, but the mention of the trojans and quasi-satellite is sufficient. Nergaal (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My main outstanding issue is saying the clouds contain sulfur dioxide, which is not what the sources say. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which I cannot resolve, because I cannot read the sources. Serendi^podous 21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google should be able to give you a loose translation if the source is in another language. Right-click the page and there should be an option to translate it.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have got to be other, English sources that discuss Venus's clouds. We shouldn't tear our hair out over this particular source. I'll try to look into this in the coming week. A2soup (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@A2soup: Any luck? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately just exams for the time being haha. A2soup (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so here are relevant passages from the "Venus: Atmosphere" chapter of the Encyclopedia of the Solar System, 3rd ed., edited by Tilman, Breuer, and Johnson (full chapter here if others have access):

"The clouds are approximately bounded by the evaporation temperature of H2SO4 below and the top of the convectively mixed troposphere above. Their composition is primarily liquid droplets of concentrated sulfuric acid, with an additional ultraviolet (UV) absorber in the upper layers and large, possibly solid, particles near the base level, both of unknown composition."

"Sulfur Dioxide

The high sulfur content of the atmosphere, including the H2SO4 clouds, is a powerful indicator of recent volcanic activity, since gases like sulfur dioxide have a short lifetime in the atmosphere before they are removed by interaction with the surface. The measured abundance of SO2 in the deep atmosphere is about 180ppm, which is more than 100 times too high to be at equilibrium with the surface. The time constant for the decline of the sulfur abundance in the atmosphere if the source were removed is a few million years, indicating that the atmospheric sulfur must be of recent origin. Pioneer Venus UV spectra showed a decline by more than a factor of 10 in sulfur dioxide abundance at the cloud tops over a 5-year period, and more recently, Venus Express has also detected very large, long- and short-term variations in SO2 at all altitudes from the clouds to the thermosphere.

The high level of SO2 in the atmosphere is the source for the concentrated sulfuric acid that is the dominant component of the clouds (see Section 4.4 below). Although less well understood, it is probably the nonuniform distribution of SO2 and the formation of trace amounts of elemental sulfur and possibly other sulfur compounds that gives rise to the UV markings in the clouds that the visible face of Venus. Apart from forming the highly reflective clouds that tend to cool the planet, sulfur dioxide is a greenhouse gas contributing to the warming of the surface (Section 6)."

"Cloud Chemistry

The high abundance of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere leads to the formation of the concentrated sulfuric acid cloud layers via a chemical system involving the photolytic destruction of carbon dioxide by solar UV radiation, summarized by

CO2→CO+O

followed by reactions equivalent to

SO2+H2O+O=H2SO4.

This sequence forms the acid near the visible cloud tops, where it combines with other H2O molecules to produce the hydrated acid droplets that are the main constituent of the clouds. The degree of hydration varies between perhaps 10% and 25%, with 20% (4H2SO4.H2O) typical.

A cloud particle of the observed mean radius (∼1μm) has a sedimentation velocity of 7.5m/day at 60km; this velocity varies as the square of the size. Although small, these velocities, aided by coagulation, eventually carry the particles out of the cloud to lower altitudes and higher temperatures, where they will evaporate and, at still lower heights, decompose back into water and sulfur dioxide. Atmospheric mixing carries these gases back upward where they can again contribute to the formation of H2SO4. An important intermediate is the reactive free radical SO, and probably some elemental sulfur is produced. UV spectra (pertaining to the region above the clouds) reveal the presence of small amounts of SO2 shown in Table 14.1, but much less than the amounts that have been measured below the clouds.

Sulfuric acid is perfectly colorless in the blue and near-UV regions, and the yellow coloration that provides the contrasts of Figure 14.1 must be caused by something else. The most likely thing is elemental sulfur, but yellow compounds are abundant in nature, and the identification remains tentative. The photochemical models do predict production of some sulfur, but it is a minor by-product, and the amount produced is uncertain. It is also unclear what constitutes the large Mode 3 particles in the lower cloud. Optical data suggests solid, irregular particles coated with sulfuric acid; the most likely candidate for the solid material is volcanic ash."

I'm too busy with exams to process this all into the article right now, but I think it has the information we need to resolve the issue. I'll be back in a couple weeks to do it if no one has by then. Hope this helps! A2soup (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the cloud text, so it would be good if someone can check it out. I have used the newer review article also: "Chemical composition of Venus atmosphere and clouds: Some unsolved problems". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – There are a few short one-sentence paragraphs sprinkled throughout the article, which look a bit stubby in comparison to the rest of the article. My recommendation is to merge them into each other, or into longer paragraphs if possible. However, I don't think this issue is important enough to warrant delisting on its own, and the writing in the portion of the article I read seemed fine to me (granted, I'm not an expert on the subject). Giants2008 (Talk) 15:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The atmospheric composition diagram is tagged for clarification. DrKay (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Serendi^podous 16:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read the entire article body and did not find any issues until hitting the "In culture" section at the bottom. The first paragraph is not sourced, but I also think that it is written in a different idiom to the rest of the article and can very largely be cut as extraneous. The etymology section is not supported by the two references given in the paragraph: neither makes directly the central claim that it is the only planet with a female name, and that is perhaps why this claim has been hedged about in the paragraph with a number of qualifications and clarifications. I see no problems in the other two sections. Consequently, I have attempted to re-draft this section, cutting the uncited material.

Gallery sections are deprecated and I couldn't see what points the files were trying to make; images should be integrated with the text. Consequently, I have also cut the gallery section at the bottom. DrKay (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. DrKay (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC) [3].

---

Notified: MONGO, WikiProject Geography of Canada, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject World Heritage Sites, WikiProject Alberta, WikiProject Geology

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's a 2006 promotion, and I don't think this still meet the criteria. Like I mentioned at talk page, there's still some paragraph lack footnotes.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mention it to the primary author...all I did was nominate it. You could of course look for some references yourself and help out, as I mentioned on the article talkpage back in May. Some things are generally common knowledge that wouldn't need an inline ref.--MONGO 02:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they were common knowledge, then this should be very easily done.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your meager contributions to en.wiki, you are not only too lazy to assist but also too lazy to list the issues. Looks like trolling to me.--MONGO 10:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... good for you.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come up with specifics troll or be gone. Surely you can come up with specifics....no? That should be easy shouldn't it?--MONGO 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, enough of the sniping here. Jarodalien, can you please specify which of the criteria you feel are not met and why? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already add cn tags more than 5 months ago, and mentioned at talk page. Lots of paragraphs have no inline citation at all.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, but just so we're clear - your only concern with FA status here is the state of the article's sourcing? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is my main concern, but shince you mention it, I also hope infomation like "As of the 2005 census, the Town of Banff has a population of 8,352, of which nearly 7,000 are permanent residents", "Climate data for Banff", "with 3,927,557 visitors in 2004/2005", "with 32 wolf deaths along the Trans-Canada Highway between 1987 and 2000, leaving only 31 wolves in the area" along with other data could least update to 2010s. Thank you.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources, and could update some of the information like the census numbers. Aude (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak close. I have fact checked the entire history section, finding no problems. Consequently, although the geography and geology sections are not fully sourced, I'm inclined to believe that the content of those sections is also verifiable. There don't appear to be any statements in the section that are controversial. Other editors have done some updating of the figures, and I've done a copyedit and review of the images. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has tagged the geology section for citation needed and clarification with some detailed comments in the edit summaries. So, that section needs looking at. DrKay (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the issue related to climate data, it is from 1971–2000 and there is none from 1981–2010 since the weather station closed in 1995 so only 15 years of data from 1981–1995 using the 1981–2010 data. Environment Canada did opened an automatic weather station from 1997 until the present (Banff Cs) though no climatological normals for that station is published so manually calculating the normals from that station would run into WP:OR. It would be impossible to update the data to 2010s for it if the weather station closed in 1995. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that too. I've asked for help at WikiProject Geology for the geology section. Pinging User:MONGO and User:Aude. DrKay (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved to FARC mainly because of the Geology section needing cleanup. Comments on prose also invited. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Geology section needs clarification, citation and cleanup per Talk:Banff National Park#Possible FAR. DrKay (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Per unsolved problems. --Jarodalien (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold delisting for 2 weeks please and I'll attempt to address the issues.--MONGO 11:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently working on updating geology section...any further questions would be helpful but I am nearly done.--MONGO 01:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still working on improvements...another week needed.--MONGO 01:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep MONGO has made a considerable effort to bring this article back to the high standard demanded of a featured article and I consider he has succeeded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @DrKay: and @Jarodalien:, given there's been some work by MONGO, just wondering if you feel your concerns have been addressed? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I added specifics to the talk page so that other readers may help with fixing. The geology section needs major cleanup, imo. Even without a background in geology, editors inspecting the article should question mixed up facts, mountains trend this way then that, mixed up times, difficult geography (in and out and around the park), sensationalist claims about research unsupported, and other problems in a featured article.
• There is no way I can edit it, because it is too difficult to follow, but, also, no one can be an effective editor once ownership of an article is established by calling other editors trolls for raising issues and pointing out problems. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:DC63:FC39:86B3:6D1E (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can continue to address some of your concerns and from what you posted at the article talk page there do appear to be some issues yet to address.--MONGO 18:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we move your comments from the article talk page to here?--MONGO 18:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go ahead. I think it is better on the article's talk page, personally. Also, I have worked with you before on Western forest fire articles, and I think you're a good editor, so you can probably do this, but I think an outline of geological date and place, then moving from there in the writing to finer details would make it easier to write and wind up with something understandable. 2600:380:985F:CE86:C9B7:33E4:EA8:F7CF (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, if you do it this way, I am willing to correct errors as I catch them, but it's too jumbled up right now. 166.173.58.255 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cool, look as long as folks are actively improving these things then I am happy to leave them open for extended periods so take yer time to do it right..cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: and others: any outstanding issues here? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few cites and small update still to do in Glacier section and a deep proofreading yet.--MONGO 01:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: keep at it, happy to cut plenty of slack time-wise if folks are trying to keep it FA. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: et al, any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I've been real life busy and got sidetracked working on a few other things. I want to do more updates to the glacier section but not much newer info than about 2005 exists. I have every intention of continuing to update the article as an ongoing process. As one of primary original editors on the FAC (the article is actually almost all Aude's work) I remain committed to ongoing improvements. Are there any other issues anyone sees that prevent the article from retaining FA status?--MONGO 01:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO:? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...are there any other notable issues remaining?--MONGO 04:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay: how do you feel about it now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for this to close as a keep. There were one or two places where I was uncertain how to handle hyphens (e.g. Banff-Yoho border) and abbreviations at the end of a sentence (m.y.a.) but these are trivial. Thanks for the work done. DrKay (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had many family issues as of this year so my editing is way down...even so I am also going to deep scan for issues and do a proofreading over the next few days.--MONGO 17:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.