You are wrong, my dear Fralembert: Ahunt split the article and achieved what he felt to be a "balance." So we now have an article with a "snapshot" of previously hidden park history (Alissa Apostle in her 1997 Queen's University Thesis says the park's history was erased and re-writtenand my research pretty well confirms her conclusion.) as well as a brief discussion of sites and activities. Moreover, there was almost nothing on the "wildlife, the flora, the forest, the geology, the hydrology and the climate" before I edited the article. So why did you not make a point of it when the article was very poor/sketchy? Besides, you are free to add such material, should you be so inclined.

And where else, in the whole world will you find such a clear and condensed overview of the park's history as well as threats facing the park? The point of my contribution is to help wikipedia visitors understand what is "really" going on in Gatineau Park.talk