Talk:Huascarán National Park

wrong category?

I don't think a national park should be categorized in the Archaeological sites in Peru category. Sure, there are archaeological sites within the park, but the parks themselves are primarily parks, not archaeological sites. If nobody has objections I will be removing the archaeological site category from this page as well as Rio Abiseo National Park for the same reason. Gsd97jks 14:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I put it in because part of its world heritage mission was to protect the sites whithin it. If, later on, those sites are enumerated and have thier own article then yes I think you can remove this cat, but since right now they are not (at least I don't think so) I think it fits in the category, albeit at a more general level than some others. I think about people using the category to find information about archaeological sites in Peru, and I think it would be useful for them to be directed here. Then at least they will know they exist in the area of the park and can do more research to find the specific sites. For a category to be a useful research tool, I think it needs to tend toward the inclusive. Same for Rio Abiseo.Pschemp | Talk 22:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

According to UNESCO the park was made a world heritage site primarily because of its "superlative natural features, exceptional natural beauty." [1] I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I do think that over-categorizing is not so beneficial. But, given that archaeological sites such as Chuchumpunta get a mere 6 Google hits, you do have a point... I don't see there being a Wikipedia article any time soon.

However, while Rio Abiseo National Park was added as a world heritage site because of the archaeological ruins located there, there is a Wikipedia page for those ruins (at least the major one, Gran Pajáten). I do feel that including the park as an archaeological site, in this instance, is misleading rather than beneficial as a search tool. Gsd97jks 23:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Didn't see the separate listing for Gran Pajaten, so go ahead and take the cat off Rio Abiseo. I know overcategorization can get weary, but IMHO it is WAY better than huge long lists ( Like List of archaeological sites sorted by country that are static and impossible to maintain. (Once I make sure everything in there is in the right cat, I'm going to ask that it be deleted.)Pschemp | Talk 00:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

oh yes, agreed, those lists are indeed annoying. Sounds good to me. Gsd97jks 00:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Huascarán National Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 16:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

"...is managed by the Peruvian Network of Protected Natural Areas: SERNANP." This acronym appears to be for the Spanish form of the name, perhaps you should include the Spanish full-length name in parentheses?
"Huascaran National Park, designated as a World Heritage Site..." It is redundant to spell out the entire name again in the intro.
"...with emblematic species of plants such as the Queen of the Andes..." I get what you are trying to say, but readers might ask emblematic of what? Peru? The Andes? or just the park?
"..proposed the Peruvian Congress a bill..." Link to the Congress, and it would be proposed to the Peruvian Congress
"Definite delimitation of Huascaran National Park was possible by the reversion of land to state control." Was the land seized or purchased?
"...which is the World's highest tropical mountain range." Lowercase on world's
"The geographical features inside the park include..." You should link to all the geographical features that have articles (valleys, glaciers, glacial lakes)
For the Climate section, what is the park's (or regions) actual climate classification?
In Ecology, link to all of the biome you listed off
When discussing some of the species, you mentioned some of the park's sectors. If there is enough info, maybe you can create a subsection of Geography detailing all of the park's official sectors?
In activities, link to all of the different sciences you listed.
Throughout the article, you mention different towns and settlements within or near the park. Can you link to any?
in Geography, maybe you can mention some of the parks specific features (Llangunco Lake, Mount Copa)?

This article is in very solid shape, interesting topic and a nice job handling it! Just a few things to polish before this one can pass.QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

QatarStarsLeague, Frank R 1981, where does this review stand? It's been a month since the review was posted, and Frank R 1981 appears to have done a series of edits to the article on January 31. Thanks for any update. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Article passes, changes were made.QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)