Talk:Bandelier National Monument
Okay, I changed the picture. I purposefully went and took one that looked like the one that was already there. I liked the fact that ruins could be seen as well as the Frey trail and the whole canyon wall. It gives the reader an idea of what ruins may look like, the kind of hiking that can be found and an impression of the majestic views it has to offer. I was mostly displeased with the quality of the image that was there before. It was very grainy, but not (at least to me) in a particularly good way. I have a less cropped version of the image that's up right now.
I'm not sure which is best. I'm not completely pleased with the shot in general either. I tried to get the Frey trail from the other side where it's visible, but half of the canyon was dark. I think it's unevitable around this time of year. Comments and suggestions welcome. If you're familiar with the area, feel free to suggest better or other shots. I'm there often and like to take pictures. :) Charles 01:33, 14 November 2006 (EST)
- That's an improvement, thanks. Something better is still needed, IMO, but it's hard to get good shots at this time of year, as you point out. I took a whole bunch of photos there this weekend and will see if I can photo-shop one into being useful. (Incidentally, I reduced the photo on this page slightly, to make more room for text.) -- Bill-on-the-Hill 09:40, 14 November 2006 (EST)
As requested, here's a few quick comments about this article, with the caveat that I haven't read through the whole thing yet. That said, for a first article this is a tremendous job. You've got more than enough to give a visitor a sense of what the park is all about. Some possible suggestions might be to add information about nearby lodging under a "Lodging" sub-heading under "Sleep" - many people don't want to camp, so it's helpful to them to know how far away the nearest hotels are. Additionally, the wilderness camping section can be put under its own sub-heading of "Backcountry" (see the Wikitravel:Park template).
As to pictures (and other data), nps.gov is public domain unless otherwise noted, and they have a few pictures online. I didn't see anything there that blew me away, but I just kind of glanced through. The only other feedback I can see at this point is more of a subjective thing: I like to break up activities like "hiking", "photography", etc under their own headings (see Yosemite National Park), while others don't. My personal opinion is that it's nice to look at an article and know immediately what there is to do, but it's a matter of opinion. If you prefer paragraphs that's perfectly fine - I may sneak in one day when you're not looking and break things up, but I'll try to restrain myself ;)
Summary: great first article, and I hope to see more! -- Wrh2 01:42, 26 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- Thanks for the note. I considered doing exactly as you said for the "Do" topics, and will probably do so as soon as I gather my thoughts on photography, wildlife viewing, etc. The "Lodging" idea is a good one that I'll act on. (Note that I left the "Camping" just as it was when I found it; whoever set it up didn't use the Backcountry sub-heading, so I didn't second-guess them.) Bill-on-the-Hill 09:46, 26 Aug 2005 (EDT)
- I went ahead and second-guessed the original author and added the backcountry sub-heading to conform with the Wikitravel:Park template; it's almost never a bad idea to edit an article to conform more closely with the standard styles as the site is more useful when articles have a consistent structure. Once again, great work thus far. -- Wrh2 13:18, 27 Aug 2005 (EDT)
A few updates today, based on this weekend's hiking there. None of the changes are terribly significant; the main thing is that backcountry camping is somewhat more restricted than I remembered it. This is an incredible fall for wildflowers! -- Bill-on-the-Hill 18:55, 18 Sep 2005 (EDT)