Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rondane National Park/archive1

Rondane National Park

An article about the first national park in Norway, which I know very well. I've written all of the text. It has been on Peer review for almost a month; the only comment has been addressed (adding of table). [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 18:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• A comment, as I know anons can't vote. It really needs copyediting by a native English speaker. There are a few points where it reads rather awkwardly at present. --80.41.235.202 08:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I've had a partial attempt. Much more needed before it's Featured quality though. --80.41.235.202 09:08, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Object. I would have to agree with the above. every awkard part I knew of is fixed. - Taxman 15:51, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - the above concerns have been addressed. --mav 00:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: try clicking on "Hide" for the contents page... the images overlap the table. Not sure if this is something that can be resolved! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I thought I had solved this with <nowiki>
    ]] 08:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Support, now that the contents page is fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I wanted to Support, but the first sentence in the biology section needs some work. Most important what? Also, what support is there that the reindeer are the most important anything in the park? Needs to be fixed for grammar and cited for factual support. Then I support - Taxman 16:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have tried to address this, and also inserted a quote from DirNat's material. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 13:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I like the attribution, but I removed the sentence "Wild reindeer are particularly important in Rondane." because the DirNat quote says the reverse, and thus seems sufficient. Now if you have some specific evidence that the ecosystem of Rondane requires the reindeer for some reason, then the above sentence or similar can go back in, with attirbution of course. - Taxman 12:17, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)