Talk:Isle Royale National Park

Star article

I think that this article is very close to or meets the criteria for a star article status, so here's a place to comment about that. A couple of very minor suggestions for improvement:

1. Re-format the lodge under the "Sleep" section according to Project:Accommodation listings. Since it's the only accommodation on the island and having only one bullet point might look weird it could be considered as an exception to the rule, but if so note the reason on the talk page. Ditto for the food options under "Eat" and the ferry options under "Get in".
2. Move the map closer to the top of the article - it's a very valuable piece of info that might be best if highlighted sooner.
3. Until we actually have an article on "leave-no-trace-camping" it might be better to leave that as a non-link.

Amazing work! -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:09, 21 March 2006 (EST)

Thanks! Far be it from me to argue with a classification upgrade... glad you like it.

1. I see the entries under Sleep and Eat as dog-walking-on-two-legs items: It's remarkable to see them there at all, let alone formatted according to MoS. {grin} I'll see what I can do with them.
2. The map would work OK in the Landscape section, I suppose. Which draws my attention to the fact that I need to add a distance scale to it....
3. I'm about to start work on leave-no-trace camping, actually. It's my own personal "Get out" from this page, and that's why I linked it.

- (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 19:38, 21 March 2006 (EST)

Thanks for the changes. I'd not be opposed to upgrading this to "star" now, although you may want to wait a couple of days to see if anyone else has any feedback. Great job. -- (WT-en) Ryan 22:46, 21 March 2006 (EST)

We're putting together a process for evaluating "star" articles, so I've listed this at Project:Star nominations. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek

from Project:Star_nominations

Previous unilaterally-applied Star, going for confirmation. Anything that's missing from the article is probably also missing from the destination. :) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:45, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

• Support. - (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 09:06, 9 June 2006 (EDT)
• Support. This is pretty much the template of what a perfect national park article should look like. (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:15, 15 June 2006 (EDT)
• Support. Great article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 13:11, 21 June 2006 (EDT)
• Comment: I was wrong about my "anything missing from the article" remark above; I just got back from 10 days hiking from one end of IR to other, and I have stuff to add. :) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:03, 27 June 2006 (EDT)
• Support. I don't think "nothing missing" is a necessary condition :) (WT-en) Hypatia 21:07, 27 June 2006 (EDT)
• Support. What Hypatia said. -- (WT-en) Colin 19:39, 29 June 2006 (EDT)
• Support. very nice article(WT-en) Berru 13:15, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

Banner image

I looked through the images for Isle Royale on Commons but none of the images there were of high enough resolution to make a cropped banner image. If someone has an image of Isle Royale scenery that is at least 2100 pixels wide and can be cropped to 300 pixels high, please upload it Commons so we can replace the generic banner with one befitting a Star article.

Epolk (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of good images on Flickr: https://secure.flickr.com/search/?q=Isle+Royale&l=commderiv&ss=2&ct=0&mt=photos&w=all&adv=1 ... Another option would be a satellite image of the island, whose shape is fairly well suited to a long banner. LtPowers (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Already snagged one ;) --Peter ^Talk 00:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Rock Harbor Lodge

So Rock Harbor Lodge is the only eat and only lodging entry in this article. Why does the address and location on the web site point to a Michigan Technological University car park (not on the island)? --Traveler100 (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• 1 Is this it?. Based on the static map and google satellite map (updated Nov 2018)

de-star discussionIsle Royale National Park

It's a little surprising that this was ever nominated for star status. There are long lists of campsites (it lists 36 options), hardly any coordinates at all, and a lot of hyphens where there shouldn't be hyphens. Not saying the article should necessarily be de-starred, but I'm interested on other opinions for this one. While fixing is better than de-starring, things like fixing a list that's too long require consensus and aren't jobs that should be done on a star-status article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

In an area of 74 km × 14 km it is not surprising to have many places to sleep. Here it isn't a question on choosing among adjacent hotels, but finding a place to sleep in the area you chose to visit. As such, I suppose the list should not be trimmed (the much less visited Käsivarsi Wilderness Area lists 28 lodgings, Nordkalottleden some fifty, for similar reasons). Coordinates should of course be added (I suppose they were not common and not as usable when the article was written) and the camping sites should probably be grouped in some sensible way. Getting rid of dashes seems an easy task. Fixing these problems should not be too difficult. --LPfi (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's surprising that this article was ever nominated for star? Indeed, it has few coordinates - but you should know that only a few years ago, dynamic maps where not accepted by all to serve in star articles, and static maps where considered to be better in terms of usability. Long lists are not all that uncommon in star articles either, since they are expected to be "essentially complete. That requirement does invite relatively wide lists of options in all categories. Now, if usability is seriously compromised and cannot easily be restored, de-starring is warranted. In this case, however, and while I'm all for adding coordinates, the static map is still available and the lack of coordinates therefore appears to have a limited impact in terms of usability for travellers. All in all, I also think this article should be fixed up a bit, but not de-starred. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Have added a few coordinates, the campsite list is shown well on the static map. Think this can stay star.--Traveler100 (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The only obvious thing making this no longer a star article was the awful dynamic map, which had almost no information. I've removed it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Sleep section

Isn't the MoS to rather use dot points rather than numbers? I'm reluctant to touch it if it were agreed upon when nominated for star, but can anyone explain why? (visualisation below)

• qwerty. (updated Sep 2021)

instead of

1. qwerty. (updated Sep 2021)

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The text says "numbers correspond to locations on map", except that they don't. Someone added in a lodging ahead of the list of campgrounds so the numbers in boxes (dynamic) don't line up with the numbered list and static map. Ground Zero (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I don't think this can easily be fixed, because I'm confused with the numbers. It appears that there was a destar nom for this before. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I moved the lodge to the bottom of the Sleep section so that the numbers line up with the map again-- Merritt Lake Campground is #1 on the map and #1 in the list. Ground Zero (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Dynamic map

@SelfieCity, Ikan Kekek, Ground Zero: Doesn't every star article need to have a dynamic map nowadays? Looking at old discussions, it seems older star articles didn't need to have them, but most of them eventually got a dynamic map. Would it make sense for this article to have a dynamic map, or should it remain dynamic-map less? I know it was added then removed, but if it doesn't have a dynamic map, the coordinates on the see section remain pointless. If needed, I can make it togglable as well, but I'm not sure how that'll turn out. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't pay much attention to star articles, so I'm not the one to ask. Ground Zero (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Unless there's a need for one, don't bother. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The need for it is that all star articles should have one. I might make a togglable one instead though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

A togglable one is fine, but who said that all star articles have to have a dynamic map? I disagree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The last minute checklist says "Illustration: the article should be appropriately illustrated with pictures and a Wikivoyage-style map, with all attractions marked." SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

A Wikivoyage-style map can be either static or dynamic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The current map is not a Wikivoyage style static map though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You're right, but I think ttcf trumps that issue in this exceptional case, because it's a lot better than regular Wikivoyage-style maps. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

True. But I still think that this is not the best kind of star article we have, as the campground lists need to be cut down per WV:Avoid long lists. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe in subtracting useful information like that. Instead, we could consider dividing the 36-item list into smaller sub-lists, but I'm not going to work on that and doubt it should be a priority. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue with dividing the 36 item list into smaller sub-lists is that the numbers won't align up with the map anymore. But apart from that, it seems the only viable solution for now (I'm also not going to do it now, maybe next month?) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, someone would have to edit the map accordingly. So why bother, unless you want to edit the map, too? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)