Talk:Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park/GA1
GA Review[edit]
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 toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 06:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Cloventt (talk · contribs)
I'm going to start this review today. My feeling from an initial read-through is this article pretty easily exceeds WP:GACR, so thank you for your hard work on this subject. My review comments will differentiate between things that need to be corrected for the article to pass GA, and general comments on how to improve the article. I'll review each top-level section in order.
In the situation you dispute any of my feedback, please let me know. I'm also happy for you to seek a second-opinion. Here is a guide to what the GA criteria are, and another to what they are not. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
GA review[edit]
Last updated: 01:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC) by Cloventt
See what the criteria are and what they are not
1) Well-written
1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
2) Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check
2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
2b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
2c) it contains no original research
2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism
3) Broad in its coverage
3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
4) Neutral:
4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
5) Stable:
5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
6) Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio
6a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content
6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
Overall:
Comments:[edit]
Lead section / Infobox
|
---|
Suggestions:
Required:
|
History
|
---|
Suggestions:
Required:
|
Establishment as a national park
|
---|
Suggestions:
Required:
|
Geography
|
---|
Required:
|
Geology
|
---|
Suggestions:
Required:
|
Ecology
|
---|
Required:
|
Human interaction
|
---|
Suggestions:
Required:
|
Management and conservation
|
---|
Suggestions:
|
I think my review of the prose is complete now, as expected the changes are very minor. Great work! David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate that, note that I'm "puzzled" with your last suggestion on the geology section, could you please describe this in simpler terms? Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- If I were to rewrite, it would be something like:
There are two main rock types in the Southern Alps: sedimentary sandstones and metamorphic schists. The sandstones are greywacke and argillite, mostly to the east of the Main Divide, whereas the schists are mostly to the west of the Main Divide.
- Hope that helps. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Done Alexeyevitch(talk) 00:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Sources spot check
|
---|
|
Overall the sources look good. There are some primary sources in there, but in most cases these are backed by a secondary citation.
Image check
- This File:Mount Cook, New Zealand.jpg of Highway 80 in front Aoraki is a bit suspect to me. Commons says the source is some Facebook page (which does not load for me), but a tag says it was also imported from Flickr. I recommend either replacing this photo or verifying the copyright and updating the commons page with the results of the investigation.
Images are great, pleased to see the inclusion of a Featured Image as well! David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Removed the odd image and replaced it with an image with a certain copyright license status. Alexeyevitch(talk) 00:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Final comments This article is in really good shape, thank you for your excellent work. My overall feedback points for future articles are:
- Watch the length of sentences. In most cases a long sentence can be split into multiple to make it easier to read. I'm completely guilty of writing long sentences myself, so this is something I'm working on in my own writing.
- Your use of reference templates is really excellent, above and beyond most editors. I recommend checking out the Template:sfn template as a possible replacement for the Template:rp template. Either is fine but I find rp clutters the inline citations a bit. With sfn you can have a Bibliography with your most important sources in a list, and then you just link to them with the sfn. Tiny bit tidier, but ultimately that is personal preference.
- I'm very impressed with your process for improving these articles. Enlisting the support of other editors in a "pre-GA" phase is an extremely productive way to collaborate on improving an article.
- If this GA review felt fast, that's because the article was in really good condition when I began. It's a credit to your embrace of collaboration when editing.
- I'd also like to shout out Marshelec for contributing and mentoring the development of this page.
Once again, excellent work. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks.
Alexeyevitch(talk) 01:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)