Talk:National Park Foundation

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The WP:COIRESPONSE . Annie at NPF (talk · contribs) has been paid by National Park Foundation on their behalf. Disclosure on userpage.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 February 2019 and 12 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Claireredden, Marsh5668, Nataliej929, Jhh2019, Individual2, Tkracinski.

Above undated message substituted from

Rather than an encyclopedia article, this article reads more like a National Park Foundation brochure full of opinion contrary to Wikipedia policy.--Markisgreen (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Park Foundation. 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/20020820223815/http://www.nationalparks.org/programs/ to http://www.nationalparks.org/programs

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello! This is my first edit request, so I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Annie, an employee of National Park Foundation and new to the Wikipedia community. I joined after noticing that NPF's article has some outdated information, and content that could use improvement. I've been reading up on the conflict of interest guidelines, and how to make edit requests. Drop me a line if you have any feedback.

• I noticed that the History section does not cite any sources, and has some language that is close to what our website says. I found a source the National Park Service Organic Act article uses to verify details on the establishment of the National Park Service, and a similar document that verifies when and why congress chartered NPF. Both are included in the content below, which I think is more encyclopedic than the current section:

Although the federal government had already created protected landscapes and national parks, the National Park Service was not created by Congress until 1916.^[1] Following the formal establishment of national parks by Congress, there was not a clear system for private citizens to directly support the parks, whether it be through financial contributions or land donation. In 1967, Congress addressed this by passing public law 90-209, which established the National Park Foundation as the official charity of the National Park Service.^[2]

I'll avoid editing the article myself, and will wait for editors to review and implement appropriate changes on my behalf. Thanks for taking a look! Feel free to edit as needed or ask me questions. Annie at NPF (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Done - This may be the one of the cleanest COI edit requests I've encountered. Well written, well sourced, and fully NPOV. Kudos! PianoDan (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PianoDan: Thanks so much! It's been a lot to learn. I posted another request below, any chance you'd be willing to take a look? Thanks again! Annie at NPF (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello again! I have another request, this time regarding the content on

• The Fort Wayne revitalization has changed directions, so I don't think this content is relevant to the article any more and might be misleading to readers. The National Park Service is now working with Detroit to develop the site. Here's an article that talks about what's happening. Would it make sense to remove the paragraph on Fort Wayne?

Since I have a COI, I will not edit directly. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for taking a look! Annie at NPF (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added the information from the article you linked. The prior information still seems relevant, so I left it in. PianoDan (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PianoDan: Thank you for clearing that up! I really appreciate the help. I posted another request below, in case you're interested. All the best, Annie at NPF (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes.

Hello again! I have another request for this article. Right now there are a few mentions of sponsors or partnerships, and it feels a bit arbitrary. In Grants and Programs Overview, the article mentions that "Recent notable partners include Disney, L.L. Bean, and Union Pacific Railways." And there's a small subsection on Subaru's contributions. I think it would make sense, and be more encyclopedic, to remove this content so the article isn't giving undue weight to any sponsors or partners.

I don't directly edit this article because of my COI. I'm open to thoughts and feedback. Thanks so much for reviewing! Annie at NPF (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annie at NPF I think if the partnerships have outside news coverage, having a link is probably okay (assuming it's a major contribution). National_Park_Foundation#Goals_and_Projects also has some info about other sponsors, and it seems to be a decently major part of the work that NPF is able to do. I'm not sure if the best way to do this is having sentences, or a list of "recent donors giving more than $1M included X, Y and Z." What do you think? Spencer^T•C 01:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spencer: That makes sense. What if we keep a list of recent donors in Grants and Programs Overview and consolidate the Subaru subsection into it? I think it also makes sense to keep mentions of sponsors and partners in relation to a specific project or goal, as is the case with L.L. Bean and Union Pacific Railroad supporting Find Your Park/Encuenta Tu Parque. Thanks so much for your feedback! Annie at NPF (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annie at NPF That seems promising to me, but could you do a mock-up of the proposed change below (final view of the Grants and Programs Overview section), to give an idea of what a final change may look like? Spencer^T•C 23:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spencer: No problem, what do you think of this:

I changed the language to be a bit more evergreen. There was no source for Union Pacific Railroad, and the Disney source was primary, so I added new sources in. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Annie at NPF (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annie at NPF Looks good to me, you are approved to go ahead and make the proposed changes. Spencer^T•C 20:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spencer: Thanks for reviewing. Is there any chance you would implement the change for me? I'm trying not to directly edit the article for any reason, to be safe. Thanks so much! Annie at NPF (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annie at NPF I'll create a version of the page at User:Annie at NPF/Sandbox, go ahead and implement your changes there, then ping me to update the real page when everything is set. I want to make sure I'm not missing stuff in other sections that I'm supposed to remove, and makes it easier for me. How does that sound? Spencer^T•C 17:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spencer: Your idea works for me, thank you for setting that up! I'll let you know when it's ready, and will keep using that page to show proposed edits. Thanks, Annie at NPF (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer, I've made the changes to article copy you made here. I removed the Partnership with Subaru subsection and made the content changes we discussed above to the first paragraph of Grants and Programs Overview. If you copy over the full text of the Funding section, that will cover all the changes. Thanks again for all of your help, and allowing me to remain hands-off! Annie at NPF (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Spencer^T•C 23:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello, this is Annie from NPF again with a new request. Because of my COI, I'll continue to post requests for review and will not edit the article myself. There's not much content from the past few years, so I'm starting to work on additions to fill in that time. A good one, I think, would be mentioning the Centennial Campaign for America's National Parks. Here's a short entry that could be added to Funding:

PianoDan and Spencer, I've appreciated your help and if either of you are available to evaluate this request, I welcome your input. Thanks! Annie at NPF (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to reword this in my head so it's slightly clearer that what the Centennial campaign was. What do you think of:

In 2016, the NPF conducted a fundraising campaign titled "The Centennial Campaign for America’s National Parks," which raised more than $500 million in support of national parks and programs.^[1]

 Done Spencer^T•C 19:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also Annie at NPF, if you're looking for another way to improve the article, one area of need to improve the article would be finding reliable sources to reference the last two paragraphs in National_Park_Foundation#Goals_and_Projects. Best, Spencer^T•C 19:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, PianoDan and Spencer. Your help is much appreciated! Spencer, I am planning to work through the article and have some ideas and sources for Goals and Projects. I'll make changes in the article copy you made for me and let you know when they're ready for review. Thanks again, Annie at NPF (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello! As suggested, I've found some sources to support the content in

As usual, I won't make any direct edits to the article because of my COI. I'll wait for other editors to move appropriate content into the live article. Thanks so much! Annie at NPF (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Looks good to me, I have implemented your edit as requested. Spencer^T•C 23:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello! Annie from NPF here again. I've gone through the rest of the article and made changes and suggested additions to the copy in my User space, here. Spencer, any chance you're available to review these? Here's a list of changes:

• At the top of the current article, there's a "see also" link. I looked into that and it seems like that shouldn't be at the top of an article, so I removed it.
• In the Introduction, I replaced the number of parks with "all of its sites" so the number doesn't require continual updating.
• The current Introduction includes some language that is described as the foundation's slogan, but it's not. I replaced this with the organization's mission statement, which is similar.
• Added the foundation's President and CEO Will Shafroth to the Infobox, along with a link to the foundation's enabling legislation.
• In Grants and programs I made quite a few changes.

• Reorganized the programs chronologically.
• For the Ticket to Ride program and Best Idea Program, I added a note that they've concluded for additional clarity.
• I condensed the content on the Best Idea Program, which seemed like more detail than is needed.
• We renamed the American Latino Heritage Fund as the Latino Heritage Fund, so I've made that change and noted it, along with adding some additional context to the beginning of the section.
• Made some changes to the African American Experience Fund to correct inaccuracies and add some additional context about the scope of the program.
• The Park Stewards program had some information I couldn't find a good third-party source for and inaccuracies, so I removed the first paragraph and changed that section to Open Outdoors for Kids.
• Added short subsections on our Women in Parks program and our work with the service corps.

• I also made significant changes to Related legislation

• Reorganized the section chronologically.
• Added clarification on when and how the Commemorative Coin Act was passed.
• Condensed the Effects of government shutdowns on funding and operations of U.S. National Parks subsection, which seemed overly detailed.
• Added subsections on the Great American Outdoors Act and National Park Service Centennial Act.

Okay, I think that's everything. I did my best to keep it neutral, and use the best sources available. For some of the basic facts, such as verifying that a program has ended, there was no reporting available so I used our website. I hope that's okay. I'm open to any changes editors think are appropriate, and am glad to answer questions.

Thanks so much! Annie at NPF (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annie, I am unable to fully give this a look at the moment so I am adding a {{request edit}} template to the top of your request. Best, Spencer^T•C 02:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer no worries, thanks so much for letting me know and all of your help! PianoDan, also tagging you here in case you're available to take a look. There are quite a few changes here, so if it's easier I could split it into smaller requests. Thanks! Annie at NPF (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to have a whack at this this evening. PianoDan (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response point by point

• See also link

• Done Moved to a separate "see also" section, which is expressly for related wikipages not mentioned in the article. PianoDan (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Number of parks

• Done I just shortened it to "... and its national park sites." 'All' would seem to be implied, and it's more concise this way. PianoDan (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Introduction language
• Infobox

• Question on this one. I added the CEO, no problem, but the language in the current lead is FROM the enabling legislation, and as such, there's already a link to the act in the references. I'm not SURE that it goes in the infobox, but I'm not sure it doesn't.

So two connected questions for you and anyone else that may choose to weigh in:

• Is the more straightforward language in the enabling act better or worse than the more modern, but a bit less plain language from the mission statement?
• Is it wiki-correct to link the enabling legislation from the infobox? PianoDan (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Related Legislation

Done, but in chronological order from least to most recent. As a result, I bumped "Effects of government shutdowns" into its own section, as it's not really "related legislation." PianoDan (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• General Comment

As I dive into the "programs" section, I note that we are inconsistent, both in the article and in your proposed changes, with "NPF" vs. "the NPF". As "Foundation" is the noun, I think the definite article IS required - "The National Park Foundation did such and such" rather than "National Park Foundation did such and such." PianoDan (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Grants and Programs

Done, again in chronological order from least to most recent. Did a little NPOV softening here and there, but I think it's generally fine. PianoDan (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Effects of Shutdown

Done PianoDan (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's it for now. I'll leave the request open since the infobox / lead question is still open. PianoDan (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PianoDan: Thanks so much for working through all of that! Here are my thoughts on your questions:

• Enabling legislation language vs. mission statement: Whichever you think is best works for me. If you want to keep the language from the enabling legislation, can we change it from saying that's our slogan to "according to the foundation's enabling legislation"?
• Link to enabling legislation in Infobox: Also glad to defer to you here. Perhaps another option would be to put it in External links?
• Use of a definite article: Thanks for pointing this out. Internally, we don't use the definite article, so that's what I'm used to, but I also acknowledge that's not a Wikipedia reason. I looked back through sources to see how the media refers to us, but it's not consistent. My vote is for "NPF", but if the consensus is to use "The NPF" that's fine. Spencer, any chance you'd like to weigh in here?

Thanks againAnnie at NPF (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I just deleted "according to their slogan". I think the way the sentence reads now, it's clear that the text comes from the charge by Congress, i.e., the legislation. The enabling legislation definitely doesn't go in "External links", because that section is reserved for links that aren't also used as citations in the text. On the other hand, I don't really have an objection to putting it in the infobox, and I can't find a policy one way or the other. So I stuck it in there, using the USC citation template. (Handy, that).

As far as articles in the article go, I'm on team "the" for clarity of language, but if anyone else feels strongly enough to edit it the other way, I won't argue with them. Cheers! PianoDan (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PianoDan: Looks good! I'll let the definite article question sit until we hear from another editor. Thank you! Annie at NPF (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]