Talk:Pink Lake (Western Australia)

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

Is this not the same lake? --Juliana (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Lake Hillier is on middle island off the south coast, pink lake is just north of Esperance. Hughesdarren (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(no title)[edit]

What does the statement "approximately 12-12000" mean? I am more used to narrow ranges when suing the word, 'approximately', and seeing a low end of 12 communicates nothing of approximation, especially when used with a high range estimate that is 1000x bigger. The author goes on to use wide ranges 2 more times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.153.209 (talk) 2015-11-05T01:58:18 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pink Lake (Western Australia). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pink Lake (Western Australia)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nkon21 (talk · contribs) 08:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'm Nkon21. I will be reviewing this GAN. Review coming very soon. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 08:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Hello, thanks for your GAN. However, I will have to quick fail this because: 1) This article has many instances of unreferenced claims, 2) You have not contributed enough to this article–only 2 edits logged to this page, and 3) This article is very far from being broad in coverage. I have a tough time believing that the article can achieve GA-status quality within a week.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.—ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 08:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]