Talk:Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 02:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Starts GA Review. The review will follow the same sections of the Article. Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

Observations[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  • Reference 15 goes to an "image not available" ?
  • Referring to the archived link
  • Removed the archive. The only way it works, curiously, is by using a Japanese archive. Roniiustalk to me 06:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archived version of Reference 24 goes to a Japanese translation?
  • Referring to the archived link - it is in Japanese. Might be best to drop the archived link or find another.
  • A number of archived versions of references are to Japanese versions of books issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics?
  • See here and here and here which all appear to be Japanese versions of Google books. It might cause for confusion. Consider dropping the Japanese archives or find alternatives, if any are available.
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • Lede is a good summary of events and content of the article.
  • The link to Mecca is misplaced. The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia and the Kaaba.
  • The link to cruise ship tourism is an excellent explanatory
  • Flora and Fauna are well covered - particularly with species.
  • 'mistrust of the Parks and Wildlife Service' ... the 1990's section is a good summary of the management crisis
  • We can leave out the sentence about the Great Barrier Reef.
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  • NPOV is preserved - remarkably well, given the multiple controversies this heritage area stirred up.
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  • Page created 7 February 2004
  • Page has 258 edits by 123 editors
  • Majority of annual edits to page (93) were in 2021
  • 90 day page views = 2,334 with a daily average of 26 views
  • edit warring is absent; page history shows steady improvement.
  1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  • 23 images on page - including one gallery / slider with images.
  • Images have fair use rationales and are appropriately captioned.
  1. Overall:
  • This article has a good lede
  • Some queries about the references;
  • We don't need to link to Mecca
  • Succinct coverage of a wilderness area that has raised much controversy
  • Attendance to the minor issues raised above will see this article proceed to GA status. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for all the corrections. Yes, it was most curious that these particular archives were only available in Japanese. Again, thanks for your understanding here. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

 

 Passed

 

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tasmanian_Wilderness_World_Heritage_Area/GA1&oldid=1047838696"