|This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Grand Canyon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Grand Canyon has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|Grand Canyon is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|Current status: Former featured article candidate|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 26, 2009.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): CamdenAl, Ncomar1, Mitchunk13, Kreino1, Tonix223, Dchokr1, Moc504. Assigned peer reviews: Jjame67.|
I had some photos to add but that sent the row of photos too far below the text, so I set most of them into a gallery. The three I left out I thought were pretty good, but maybe we should come to a consensus about which photos to 'feature' (keep full size). Maybe set up a poll - use the photos added so far as candidates and vote for your top 3? Zaui 20:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'd vote for throwing out the gallery (see WP:NOT point 4). We have commons for this purpose. -- Dschwen 21:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- 100% agree. All the images stuffed into this already poor article make it look worse than it really is (I can say that since I'm one of the main authors of this article and the person who look several of the photos in it). Much more text is needed and the images need to compliment the text by illustrating places, things and concepts mentioned in the text. Most of the images in this article don't seem to have a logical purpose for being there other than being pretty. That they are so big makes it even worse (I almost always just use the stand thumb width of images even though I have high res screens). -- mav 06:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Moved it to the bottom of the page for now. I agree it should be removed, though. // Habj 07:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
There are simply too many images. The Grand Canyon is a visual thing and should have a few choice photos to accent its article, but this is way overboard. Most importantly, having six on the lead is unacceptable. I also agree with the general poor state of the article, much in contrast to the subject. Maybe this will sound cynical, but perhaps we need a category for Poor Articles to identify articles in this kind of disrepair. The subject is a good one, so the article can be good; nay, it must be good. If no one else wants to clean this up I'll take to the task, starting with the images, this week. I would appreciate any help with the text. Notary137 05:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't forget, just been working on a template all day. Will try to wade through the gallery on Sunday. If any are appropriate to the context of article sections, I will move them first. Notary137 03:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Added a couple of <!--comments--> to the article to try and keep more images from coming in. Someone added one Friday. Notary137 03:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a really good quality one I found: Image:Rim of Grand Canyon.jpg. I think it stands above a lot of the existing images in terms of quality, so I'll let you hombres decide on what to do with it. Black-Velvet 09:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have moved the images around for relevancy. The lead section now starts with a panorama (I think this is appropriate). All subsequent sections have at most one image each. I've tried to keep it relevant. The Image gallery has been removed. This gallery was a subset of the gallery available in commons. This way Notes, References and the list boxes are finally visible. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Huge improvement. Thanks! -- Dschwen 22:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- What about a separate gallery page (or pages) for images – with a link (or links) from the Grand Canyon page. Figaro 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I took a first pass at reducing WP:OLINK. The changes shouldn't be controversial, as they're covered pretty well in the guideline. I'm sure I've missed a bunch, but it's a start. However, the more important remaining issue is the huge number of links in the Biology and ecology section. The last paragraph under Upper Sonoran and Transition has 13 such links. The next paragraph has 16 links. This doesn't help me understand the Grand Canyon better -- it just makes my eyeballs ache. I'll avoid changing this for now, as this is more of a judgment call, and I don't want to drag the already-made changes into the fray. However, if anyone else agrees, feel free to hack away. -- Larry/Traveling_Man ( talk) 00:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- While I don't mind the bulk of the delinks you've done, I haven't checked most of them. However, there are ones that if they are the only link in this article, should have remained, e.g.
Mary Colter, links to other cities (like
Grand Canyon Village) and Phoenix, and to certain concepts like
mining claims. Regarding the links in the flora and fauna section, they appear to be the types of links appropriate. Just my .02.
TT me 11:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- For those cases where we agree on keeping links, I hopefully removed only duplicates, e.g., there's still a link for Mary Colter under "Settlers in and near the canyon". For cities, I took my cue from at WP:LINK, unlinking "The names of major geographic features, locations (e.g. United States, London, New York City, France, Berlin...)". Did I misinterpret that? For "mining claims", I thought that fell under "Everyday words understood by most readers in context". However, if you disagree, feel free to revert and I won't dispute it. Lastly, as to flora and fauna, I guess I'll just have to live with it. Thanks for taking a look! -- Larry/Traveling_Man ( talk) 14:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Scientist now affirm that it would be impossible for the Colorado river to have carved this mighty canyon. The amount of water to carve through the rock would not be available. The best "theory" would be the giant lake theory. That the Missoula lake burst through the walls and washed away the dirt and rock. That is still a theory not a fact just as the "Flood" people say this all happened when God flooded the earth is not a fact that can be proven by empirical evidence.
The current article says there are "19 distinct physiographic sections of the Colorado Plateau province." The claim is unsourced. However, article United States physiographic region lists six sections (see source "PHYSIOGRAPHIC SUBDIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES"). Article Colorado Plateau lists seven, based on source "New Mexico’s Environment (Physiographic Provinces)", which specifies a "newly defined physiographic unit". Nowhere do I see a list of 19 sections. Options:
- Change the number to 7, as documented in the above source for article Colorado Plateau.
- Change the number to six. This is well documented in United States physiographic region, and seems to follow a long standing definition. I can't judge the quality of the source naming a seventh section.
- Delete it. There's no source for the number 19, and the real number is uncertain -- plus who cares?
- In IP editor changed the number from 6 to 19 back in April, 2011. Thanks for catching this. — hike395 ( talk) 06:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
There are problems with the recently added climate chart, which have caused me to remove it.
- Two references are provided (to different pages of the same website), but the second reference (for location 0088) contradicts the numbers entered into the chart.
- The website actually provides three sets of numbers for the Grand Canyon. The figures greatly vary among the three. I don't see where the website specifies the location for any of the numbers, although I didn't spend much time looking for a key.
- As partially shown by the three sets of numbers, the Grand Canyon's climate varies tremoundously from place to place. A set of figures without a location is of little value, and potentially misleading.
Even if the location were known, in order to have a chart that isn't misleading, we'd need at least three sets of figures: South Rim; North Rim; inner canyon. That would still paint an incomplete picture, but at least would portray the very large differences in different areas (temperature differences of 30 degrees or more; rainfall varying by a factor of three). While I wouldn't object to such a chart, do we really need something that complicated? -- Larry/Traveling_Man ( talk) 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Grand Canyon. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130109223648/http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/c/COLORADO_PLATEAU.html to http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/c/COLORADO_PLATEAU.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
As of 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
sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).
- 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.
edit request has been answered. Set the |
Would like to add a new discovery related to the formation of the Grand Canyon right after "geology" as follows,
A new theory called the Miocene Glacier attributes the formation of the Grand Canyon to this glaciation 5.6 – 5.33 million years ago as the primary cause. The Miocene Glacier has been theorized to create abyssal rivers (channels), submarine canyons, vast salt formations in the Red Sea, the Mediterrean Sea and Gulf of Mexico and to lead to rise of human race, etc. Dr. John Reed ( talk) 13:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Far too early to know if any credence can be given to this theory.
talk) 15:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with Mikenorton, far to radical to be included with a just a link to a book on Amazon. The idea is indeed interesting but one has to wonder why has is not been advanced in peer-reviewed geological journals. – Lappspira ( talk) 18:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- The origin of abyssal rivers, the Grand Canyon and man, March 30th, 2018, Thomas Tao, amazon.com, ISBN-13: 978-1732015012.
The Plants Section says: "This variety is largely due to the 8,000 foot (2,400 m) elevation change from the Colorado River up to the highest point on the North Rim." But the highest point is Point Imperial at about 8800 feet, while the floor is at 2600 feet. Why is 6200 rounded to 8000? 126.96.36.199 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- I took a look at this. The full elevation range in the canyon is from the lowest point on the river at the southwestern end of the canyon, which is roughly 300 m, up to Point Imperial at 2683 m, which gives an elevation range of roughly 2,400 m, which is what the cited source says. Mikenorton ( talk) 10:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I understand that a David Rust built a tramway across the Grand Canyon sometime in the 1910s and that Theodore Roosevelt not only rode it several times but even worked the winch that brought the 'cage' from the halfway point to its 'landing.'
How come no mention of this nor how long the tramway was in operation?