Talk:Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness

Delisting from Good Articles

I think that the writing in the Hiking section is bad, so I delisted the article from Good Articles. I didn't look at the other sections, but review is probably appropriate. --R27182818 05:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "the writing is bad"? I've re-read the section, and it sounds fine to me. Of course, if you see a better way of re-writing the 6 sentence Hiking section, feel free. Looking at the criteria for Good Articles, I don't see how this article fails to meet them. Every article can be improved somehow, regardless of "Good Article" designation.

I have listed this article for review of its Good Article status. --BlueCanoe 17:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy. No offense intended, of course. The section reads like a list of hiking trails rather than a coherent paragraph. There's no topic sentence, and the order in which trails are written seems arbitrary. Why do people hike in the BWCAW? Speaking specifically to the guidelines, I think this section fails 1(a) and 1(b). --R27182818 20:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

For the Hiking section, I think we should use more info about the trails themselves. My map (DeLorme's 2003 Minnesota Atlas and Gazetteer) states that the Eagle Mountain Trail is SNF Road 151. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moland freak (talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I added an infobox to this article in an effort to standardize all articles pertaining to Wildernesses. My acreage is different as I only include the area that is federally managed, not state.--MONGO 07:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Is there any way to put some space between the infobox and surrounding text, as with images? I don't want to mess with the standardized Wilderness infobox formatting. BlueCanoe 01:12, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've been posting them in the upper right but like the pictures to also be available before one even scrolls down. I just took a peek at the article and it looks fine but it would be nice if the image was there as soon as you query the page. I'm trying to not step on anyone's toes so if the infobox seems too intrusive, maybe I can relocate it...other examples (i've put about a dozen in so far) can be seen here: Bob Marshall Wilderness, Popo Agie Wilderness, etc. The photo that was in the article is a great shot and belongs near the top but due to it's wide angle aspect, it didn't fit too well after I inserted the template. Perhaps I can tweak the template and make it narrower.--MONGO 02:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Also another thought...maybe we can make the picture bigger and put it right after the first paragraph. Just so you know, I didn't create the template, I just modified it after a lot of tweaking so I'm not sure how to ensure run-on and the images don't crowd each other out. In some ways, the infobox is merely an attempt to standardize, and I plan on writing many more wilderness articles, just thought I would take the existing ones and attempt to group them.--MONGO 02:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, MONGO. I like the infobox idea, standardization, etc. I guess my question was more to do with how to add a little blank space between the text of the main article and the border of the infobox. An infobox "margin" I guess. It seems distracting to me to read text that runs into the side of the infobox. Maybe it's just my web browser? (Safari on Mac OS 10.3) I agree that the photo looks good at the top of the article, but that wasn't my main concern. BlueCanoe 18:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I figured it out: adding style = "margin-left: 0.5em;" to the table tag at the top of the infobox HTML fixed the problem. This was suggested by the How to use tables wiki article. BlueCanoe 18:42, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well.I'm glad you found that because now I can use it in lots of other places. Good job. I'm no computer genious and my formatting isn't the best anyway.--MONGO 18:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nearest city

The "nearest city" category in the infobox has been edited and re-edited a number of times. Originally it was Duluth, Minnesota, then I believe Ely, Minnesota and Grand Marais, Minnesota. The WikiProject Protected areas guidelines suggest the nearest major or well known city, of which (in a global sense) Ely and Grand Marais are neither. Duluth shows up on a detailed map of the United States, but the nearest major city is Minneapolis, Minnesota. I reccomend leaving it as Duluth unless that city is deemed too small (via discussion in this space), in which case we change it to Minneapolis. -- BlueCanoe 02:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Duluth is not too small, and Ely and GM are mentioned in the article as the gateways. Kablammo 02:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Duluth is still pretty far away from BWCA...

Lets just remove that entry in the infobox. Does it really help the article? Ely and Gran Marais are mentioned in the text already. -Ravedave 03:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be helpful to someone from another country (i.e. a global audience). And it is part of the WikiProject formatting guidelines. Having said that, it is probably one of the pieces of info of lesser importance. -- BlueCanoe 14:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

♦ Removing. I will put a comment in the code pointing potential re-adders here. --R27182818 (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ely is well known as the gateway to the BWCA. When one thinks of the BWCA, Ely comes to mind. It is full of BWCA outfitters, canoe renters, etc. If any city is associated most clearly with the BWCA, it is Ely. R69S (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Ely is the municipality most closely associated with the BWCA, but to me it seems odd to even refer to a city in locating a wilderness area. If the purpose is to assist an unfamiliar reader in generally locating an area, then Duluth would be better. Given the continued (albeit very intermittent) changes in this field, simply blanking it may be best solution. After all, Ely, Grand Marais, Tofte, etc. are known to many simply as gateways to the BWCA; part of the notability of such communities is due to the BWCA, whereas the converse is not true. Kablammo (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Organization

Would it not make sense to reorganize the first five parts of the existing text as follows:

Intro

Geography

Natural History

Geology

Forest ecology/flora

Fauna

Human History

Recreation

Reasons: Geography would flow into geology, and human history would flow into recreation. While someone looking for recreational activities would have to look further down the article to get there, I don't see that as a bad thing. Kablammo 18:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the Intro should state when it was designated a wilderness and why. Geology would probably be limited to the explaining how the lakes were created...which I think was due to glacial action, but not sure. I see no problem with the reorganization as you suggest.--MONGO 19:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I also see no problem with this reorganization scheme, although the Intro could be made a little more rigorous as MONGO suggested. -- BlueCanoe 23:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I also notified a few other principal contributors and will await hearing from them (and any others) before making changes. BlueCanoe, I think MONGO's comments on geology relate to the second paragraph of that subsection. While I have Heinselman's book I would gladly defer to your expertise in that area. Kablammo 23:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, are you suggesting removing the bedrock geology information? After re-reading the section I think the first and last sentences can be made into a first paragraph dealing with the glacial formation of the lakes, and the bedrock info (sentences 2, 3) can be a second paragraph. But I think the general age and bedrock composition information should remain in the article. Geologically speaking, the Canadian Shield is a big deal, as are rocks of Precambrian age, and the BWCAW is one of the few places in the USA where those rocks are clearly exposed. -- BlueCanoe 00:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not...keep everything, just shoot for a Featured Article...make it all inclusive and perhaps by creating an outline now, everyone who has worked hard on this page can create an FA, which would be the first wilderness article to achieve that standing. Add sections on who mangaes the region, how the manage it, etc. Examine a few Protected areas FA's to help figure out priorities here.--MONGO 07:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the intro should be two to three short paragraphs, the tree and animal species could be expanded, and more footnotes and references should be found if possible.--MONGO 07:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Word. I revised and cited the Geology section, and it looks like revisions by others are also happening. I agree with MONGO's suggestion of edits with a vision towards greatness for this article. -- BlueCanoe 04:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

External links

I have repeatedly removed links to BoundaryWatersCanoeArea.com (www.boundarywaterscanoearea.com or www.bwca.cc), as this is a commercial website with a large amount of advertising. Other similar Boundary Waters-oriented commercial websites which, in my opinion, should not be linked to from Wikipedia, include CanoeCountry.com (aka www.bwcaw.com) and BWCA.com, which, although it contains less advertising, requires visitors to register to access content. For the Wikipedia guidelines on external links, see WP:EL. -- BlueCanoe 15:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

BWCA or BWCAW?

I propose that the abbreviation BWCA be changed to BWCAW throughout the article. I see the latter much more than the former. Google yields 133k hits for bwca canoe vs. 186k for bwcaw canoe. Thoughts? --R27182818 20:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as the article remains internally consistent, I don't see a problem with either BWCA or BWCAW. I feel BWCA flows a little better absent those extra three syllables in "w", but BWCAW is more legally precise as it includes the "wilderness" designation. I think your Google hits are an argument for the two abbreviations' interchangability and co-existence, actually. -- BlueCanoe 21:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Barring further opinions or objections, I'll change it to BWCAW throughout in a few days. --R27182818 18:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No objections, so I went ahead and did it. -- R27182818 01:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Map

We need a map for this page. Anyone know of a good free use one? -Ravedave 16:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides this ugly one I found way back Image:Northern_Minnesota_Parks_map.gif -Ravedave 16:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of maps...anyone know why this area is a No-fly zone for the U.S.? Its the only natural area to have this distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.173.44 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I believe it was to prevent float-plane access. Before the BWCAW was legally protected as a wilderness (1964), the float-plane/lodge/guide package was a popular option, resulting in float-planes buzzing around and landing on otherwise remote, peaceful lakes. --BlueCanoe (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Image:Seliga.jpg

There's another photo added by this edit. I'm not sure what value it adds to the (already photo-heavy) article, but I hesitate to simply remove it without review. So... review requested. ;) --R27182818 (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This was my last photo edit: [1], not the one above. The article is not photo heavy. The BWCA is very photogenic. Other articles would kill to have such photos. Moreover, Ely's Joe Seliga was an important part of the BWCA. Motorrad-67 (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the photos are not the best-- the dark one of the group on the river could go. The wood and canvas canoe is a nice image of the craft but the caption focuses too much on its maker than the subject of the article. I have no objection to this photo, but shorten the caption and leave out the identity of the maker. Kablammo (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Commercial links

♦ Hi all, I'd like to open discussion regarding a couple of links added to the article recently: [2] and [3]. I'd reverted the addition of the first one, and currently the second one is in the article.

I'm still skeptical that these are appropriate, but this feeling seems to be based more on my impressions of the site rather than a principled invocation of WP policy. Therefore, I'd like to open a discussion regarding these links, preferably with reference to policy. I have posted on the adder's talk page requesting his/her input as well. Thanks! --R27182818 (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi R27! Thanks for the talk invite. My feeling is that in looking at the links, the Fernberg Road entry point link is appropriate because it contains free information, as well as unique information (the photos of the entry points, elevation, size and depth of lakes). Yes, the site has an ad. However, there is another more commercial link on the BWCAW wiki which offers no free information at all. That would be the BWCA magazine link. That's strictly a commerical site with no free and unique information available to the link clicker. If we are discussing appropriate links, it's clear to me that a link with unique free info is superior to the other. I think your removal of the first link was warranted because that front page did not offer anything over the wiki except for perhaps the "facts" were a bit more concise. I feel that this new link does in fact add to the wiki and to users in providing a look at the most popular entry point area in the BWCAW. Again, if we are going to look at inapropriate links, I'd like to see a focus on sites that lack free and useful information as the foundation for that complaint.Northfork Mike (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The link should be deleted (and I will do so). The site is a commercial one, and adds nothing beyond what is available on the official sites. (There is some nice photography, but there is no shortage of that on the internet.) The site has in-line links to product advertisements, linked from common terms in the text. Perhaps other links need pruning, but that does not mean this one should stay. Kablammo (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Couple quick things - there's a difference between a photo gallery and images that are specific to the content at hand. The images in the linked site show the exact entry points, and then give detailed information(lake depth, acreage, elevation) which are useful to the user and not found on Wiki or other sites. And while it is a commercial site, it does offer free information and a combination of specific imagery and specific info not found elsewhere for the boat launches and campgrounds. Northfork Mike (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you affiliated with the site? The issue here is not whether it is a good site (it is), but whether its use complies with Wikipedia practices and policies on external links, and whether if yours is allowed, how we can limit others. A lot of articles (especially travel-related) become linkfarms. Kablammo (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Kablammo - Thanks for your response, and I appreciate your devotion in maintaining a non-spam wiki. It is not my site but I do know the operator. If there is any specific issue you have, I will pass that along and maybe the link wil be deemed more acceptable with some adjustments to the landing page. I suggest this because that specific link does offer something new and different from the wiki. Fernberg Road is very popular and people do want to see what the entry points and Fall Lake (main drive in hub for the area) look like(as well as lake depth, acreage, elevation of other entry points) without having to dig through ten different sites full of ads to find the information. Northfork Mike (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

♦ OK, I wandered through WP:LINKS. I agree with Kablammo (link should be removed), and here's why. From "Links to be avoided", I worry (but am not 100% sure) that the thinks run afoul of #5 (too many ads). I'm also not convinced of the site's utility; for example, the info on the Moose Lake put-in (which I've used myself) isn't anything beyond what would be found in a guidebook, and it's briefer and the presentation is not as good. In fact, key information for the target audience (canoeists, presumably) -- how to get there -- is vague to the point of being absent. To be blunt: the site pretty much comes off as a wall of text with lots of ads, a large, mediocre banner, and reasonably nice photos. There's also a clear conflict of interest since you know the operator.

I should add that I'm completely convinced that your efforts to improve the article are in good faith, and they're appreciated. It's just that in this case, the proposed additions don't meet the community standards. I do hope you'll stick around and contribute in other ways. --R27182818 (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

R2718 - a couple things I have to take note of. First of all, I had to reference information from the link that this BWCAW wiki lacked (the 2,200 campsites - see my entry). Secondly, a guide book costs money, a visit to the Moose Lake page on that link does not. Not only that, but the chances of getting a site specific photo in the guidebook is pretty weak since most backcountry guidebooks offer about fifteen black and white photos at the most. I honestly challenge you to find one single page elsewhere on the internet that has the exact picture of the view from the Moose Lake entry point(probably the most valuable thing to someone planning a trip), the elevation, the entry #, the dates, the depth and the acreage of the lake - all on one quick page with a large color photograph. It doesn't exist, not even on Wiki. As for the Moose Lake direcitons, the article states 16 miles east of Ely. One thing can not be disputed: the link shows free information not contained in the wiki. It also shows more information than the commercial magazine link in this wiki which offers nothing at all. The link should be judged on what it adds to the wiki, and in this case it does. As for your personal review of the site design, I'm not sure that's relevant to the information aspect, but it's far less cluttered than many other sites(all kinds of stuff flashing on the screen, tiny text, smashed content, etc.) Also, upon speaking with the operator, the site was designed for 22 and 24 inch 16:10 and 16:9 aspect ratio monitors which wil be the standard in two years. You can see a good chunk of the subject text, the image and the header at once when using those soon to be standard LCD's. Thanks for reading. Northfork Mike (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Forest Service site is free, comprehensive, noncommercial, and lacks linked terms which take readers to product ads. Kablammo (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Kablamo - There's no question the Forest Service link is top of the line and ad free. It's the ultimate source of information although it's poorly laid out and organized. My comment was not about the Forest Service link but rather about the BWCAW magazine link which is nothing but ads and no free information. There's nothing to be gleaned there in any fashion. Thanks for your reply. Northfork Mike (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

External links cleaning

♦ In the above discussion, Kablammo suggested cleaning out the External links section. Here's a copy of the section with my proposed action on each link. Comments?

1. Keep, but link text - Boundary Waters History [4]
2. Keep - Superior National Forest: BWCAW
3. Keep - The BWCAWiki, a wiki compendium of BWCAW knowledge
4. Delete?, seems redundant - Wilderness.net: BWCAW
5. Keep - Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness (political advocacy)
6. Delete?, probably better as a citation in the Recreation section - Conservationists with Common Sense (political advocacy)
7. Delete, dead link - [http://www.boundarywatersjournal.com/ the Boundary Waters Journal (magazine)

   This one isn't dead; I plan to re-add. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

8. Delete, better suited for the Canada Lynx page - Canada lynx research at the University of Minnesota - Duluth
9. Delete, Wikipedia isn't a how-to (and this is linked from the other how-to sites above) - MNICS Current Fire/Incident Information
10. Keep?, link is ugly but is that a criterion? - Ely MN (WikiTravel)

--R27182818 (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent external link additions

I went through the two links added in the last few days. I think that they are borderline. One is to get site visitors connected with businesses, the other is a message board. While I think that BWCA-related businesses IS informative about the BWCA, on first impression that site was not particularly informative even with respect to businesses, it is more oriented just making connections of potential customers to businesses. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Today's additions

Looks like good material. The "older outfitters" looks borderline-commercial but I'm thinking OK. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No need to list individual outfitters; that just invites the kind of commercial link spam that articles like this often suffer. Also, this information needs a reference, especially the statistically dubious claim that "1/2" the visitors use an outfitter. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I was thinking that ancient outfitters are significant historical topics. But that could put the article on a slippery slope as you describe. I'll take those out. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Took them out. Commercial is a big part of the history of the area; maybe someday we could find a "safe" way to encyclopedicly put some of that in. North8000 (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Id4abel (talk · contribs) 15:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

 Done A few bold claims need citations, which are marked with to make them easy to find. The vast resources already cited may very well already have support for those claims, so this might just be a matter of copying existing citations. Abel (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The only ones I see are in the Fauna section. The citation at the end of that paragraph speaks to all three sentences. Do you really want me to repeat it on each sentence? Nsteffel (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Was able to correct some after reading more of the article. BirdLife International Important Bird Area remains.Abel (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The same existing reference on that paragraph states it is "One of 100 globally important bird areas by the American Bird Conservancy." I guess this may be a slightly different program so I reworded it. I think the multiple repeated references to the same source looks a bit silly, but if that's what you think it needs that's okay. Nsteffel (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Now that the wording about the Bird Conservancy matches the source, all three sentences match the same source, when before only the first two matched the source. Now that all three match, you can delete the first two citations as the third citation now covers all three sentences. Abel (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Some text is vague and now marked with to make them easy to find. Abel (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I edited several of these to hopefully be clearer. For the clarification you asked for on the section related to hiking trails, what is your specific concern? Nsteffel (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

→‎Hiking: two types of trails or three types?Abel (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I still do not really understand what you are requesting clarification on. There are three types, do you want that sentence reworded somehow to be clearer that multi-day loop and long distance backpacking are two distinct types of trail? Nsteffel (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Due to the wording the three types are not at all obvious, yet the sentence needs that clarity. Abel (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the recent edit with much more general wording any better? Otherwise I would welcome your own suggestion. Nsteffel (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Grammar would have fixed it, but that solution was equally valid so problem solved. Abel (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Areas of uncut forest

This edit reverted one of mine. I felt that the previous text did not accurately or adequately paraphrase the source; therefore I inserted a direct quote, in quotation marks, and accurately cited.

The source, and the text enclosing my edit, read:

The BWCAW is "the largest contiguous areas[sic] of uncut forest remaining in the eastern United States".

(The source said "area" and I mistakenly used "areas".)

This was reverted to the prior text:

The BWCAW is the largest remaining area of uncut forest in the eastern portion of the United States.

This paraphrase changed the meaning of the source, by removing the word "contiguous" we don't know what the criteria are. The Blue Ridge Mountains? All of the Appalachian mountains?

Secondly, the phrase "portion of the" really adds nothing-- it appears to be added words in an attempt to avoid a close paraphrase.

When the actual source text is superior to the paraphrase, the source should be quoted directly. Kablammo (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, Kablammo, that "when the actual source text is superior to the paraphrase", it is often a good idea to use a direct quote. You were right to go back to the source. I didn't, and I should have. I chose the more grammatical of the two choices. If you had used "area" instead of "areas", I probably would not have reverted your edit. Now that I look at the source, however, where the sentence in question follows the large heading "The BWCAW Act", I see that it reads:

• BWCAW contains the largest contiguous areas of uncut forest remaining in the eastern United States.

One can readily see that the plural "areas" makes sense here because the verb is "contains", not "is" (or even "are"). In fact, wouldn't you agree that "BWCAW contains...areas" means something quite different from "BWCAW is...area(s)"? In this case, I would support using this sentence in its entirety as a direct quote, or an accurate paraphrase. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Corinne. I should have both proof-read more carefully. But now I'm more confused-- what does the Forest Service means by "largest contiguous uncut areas". If contiguous, why isn't it one area?

To some extent claims like this are a form of exceptionalism-- like Minnesota boasting of its 10,000 lake while by some measures Alaska has more than a million. But neither the lakes nor the woods care about such niceties. Kablammo (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting point, Kablammo. Perhaps they can call several areas "contiguous" if they touch – that is, are connected – at some point. I agree with your second point, but they could only say that if it were in some way true. I found the same statement here, following a link in a source in the list of references.  – Corinne (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Corinne. I have sent an inquiry to the Forest Service. In the meantime I have added some information from Heinselman's 1996 book. That work is also cited elsewhere in the article but without page numbers; I will be adding those. Kablammo (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External link to editorial

X1\, I believe that the link to the StarTribune editorial should not be listed. It is an opinion piece and labeled as such, and does not meet the requirement that it provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it were already a featured article. See WP:EL. Kablammo (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Kablammo, for expressing your concerns.

The Star Tribune article is Notable since it is one of two finalists for the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Writing.

Your comment of opinion piece about the Editorial is a reason for External link, or Further reading.

Would you support it there instead, and if not why (beyond what you have already said)? X1\ (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I think it properly belongs in the StarTribune article, but not here. Kablammo (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Items can belong in more than one location. Do you have a response to my question regarding "Further reading"? X1\ (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, X1\, I did not catch the second part of your question. As I read WP:FURTHER and WP:FURTHER_READING, the same limitations apply-- the linked content must be neutral. I don't believe an editorial qualifies. If there were a separate article on the project and the controversy, with all points of view addressed, this editorial could be cited. But here, the content of the link does not qualify, and the Pulitzer nomination in not relevant. Perhaps we should see what others think at Wikipedia:ELN. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)