Talk:Booby Island (Saint Kitts and Nevis)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Booby Island (Saint Kitts and Nevis)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 23:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Very close to GA quality - just needs a few tweaks. This will make for a hilarious DYK. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Pi.1415926535, I replied to a few points below. Otherwise, I've implemented all of the suggestions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, no issues with any of your replies. I always like doing GA reviews for somewhat-obscure topics like this. Great work! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and lede

• The infobox and the geography section should use the same units - I would recommend the hectacres/acres used in the prose.
• Hatnote is not needed per MOS:NAMB
• While the island is about equidistant from Saint Kitts and Nevis, it's near the east end of the channel, so describing it as the midpoint isn't accurate. I would reword the second sentence to something like It is located in The Narrows, the channel between the islands of Saint Kitts and Nevis, about midway between the two.
• The wording of the fourth sentence is a bit vague; I would suggest The island is designated as an Important Bird Area by BirdLife International to protect its bird population.

Geography

• Move the second paragraph above the first (and likely combine them per comments below)
• I don't see a need to mention the coral shoal unless it is associated with Booby Island, and the information about Cow Island can be condensed.
  • I'm not sure how to condense the Cow Island information without creating an inaccurate picture. Removing the measurements will likely create the impression that it's much bigger than it actually is.
• Remove "across" after "(125 feet)"
• It's worth mentioning what rocks make up the island, but the chemical composition isn't needed unless it's particularly noteworthy.
  • It's not hugely important, but it's also one of the only things published about the physical island itself. For now I've trimmed it to the most common material.

Biodiversity

• I would consider naming the section as "flora and fauna" or similar - "biodiversity" generally refers to the amount of variation
• Also consider moving the plant/mammal sentence to the Geography section and having this section just be about birds.
• Left-align the image - it's currently pushed completely out of this section by the infobox - and add alt text
• When was it designated as an Important Bird Area?
  • Unclear. I found some sources mentioning 2007, but it could have been earlier.
• No need for the identification code
• Move the sentence about the boobies to the second paragraph, and perhaps move the sentences about the fragility and/or lack of protections to the first paragraph
• Does the island get its name from the booby population? If so, can that be added?
  • The source only says that the pelicans are called boobies.
• Merge the two sentences about the number of nesting pairs.

Human interaction

• The sentence starting Since 2008 needs to be split or reworded - currently the last clause is awkwardly placed
• Neither source supports the claim that shark attacks are rare. I would consider removing everything up to "documented" in that sentence.
• Add an "external links" section with {{commons category inline}}

'

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, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Passed reference check

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Booby Island, Saint Kitts and Nevis

• ... that there are apparently no mammals on Booby Island?

• Source: "No mammals were recorded during the one known survey of the island conducted in 2004." Important Bird Areas in the Caribbean: Key Sites for Conservation p. 276

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Westinghouse Atom Smasher
• Comment: Image not essential, but will certainly add visual appeal. If not, then the quirky slot would be appropriate.

Improved to Good Article status by Thebiguglyalien (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 28 past nominations.

EEng 01:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC).

• Starting review. Updates to follow. Ktin (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article meets eligibility requirements. No concerns with sourcing, neutrality, or plagiarism. QPQ done. Hook is cited to a source which refers to a 2004 survey of the island.

Not a fan of the usage of "apparently" in the hook. Was there a survey done after 2004? If not, I think we can perhaps drop the word "apparently".

Re: the image. It seems to be a screen grab of a Youtube video. I will admit that I do not fully understand the legality of sourcing an image from an Youtube video. Doesnt the video have to be CC / PD for such a screen grab. Looking at the video here, it does not appear to be so, right? Or am I missing something? Ktin (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that no mammals have been found on Booby Island?

(I wanted to work into the hook something about how searching for mammals turned out to be a bust but it ended up sounding too strained.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Don't be silly, David Eppstein. With this kind of subject, the more strained the better.
  • ALT2 ... that the search for mammals on Booby Island was a big bust?

I hope the bust hook gets full support. (I can't imagine how I missed that possibility, given, ya know, Talk:Queen_Elizabeth_II_(painting).) On other points:

• Thanks for the quick review, Ktin.
• The image description page [1] indicates the licensing is appropriate.
• Also, I checked the img at 100px and it seems fine to me at that size.

EEng 21:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'd like to offer my strong support for ALT2. (I'm so glad that editors have been keeping abreast of this subject.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  You do know we're all going to hell for this, don't you? EEng 01:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  You devil, you. Sorry if I'm being a boob, but I'm going to object – mildly – to the enlargement. It's funny, but it doesn't enhance the hook that much, and a biological survey that doesn't find anything can't really be accurately described as a big bust. It comes up with zero observations, so it's kind of a bust, but that happens in such surveys, so it isn't really a big bust. So my mild preference is for the promoting admin to remove the word "big" from ALT2, but if that doesn't happen, I'll still provide extra support to the current form of the hook. Sorry if that sucks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Marking hooks ALT2 and ALT1 as approved. I see what the editor is attempting with ALT2 and it does not appear to be a booby trap. So, if the promoting admin wants a preference -- It is ALT2 over ALT1. Ktin (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

For context and traceability, this edit was made after the approval. That said, if we are going with ALT2, I am good going with ALT2 revised. Fallback is ALT1. ALT2 continues to remain approved even after the most recent edit. Ktin (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• To improve readability, I am listing all the ALT hooks below. Promoting admin can choose from any of the following. The preference here is either of ALT2.1 or ALT2 over ALT1. That said, it is the promoting admin's call.

ALT1 ... that no mammals have been found on Booby Island?

ALT2 ... that the search for mammals on Booby Island was a bust?

ALT2.1 ... that the search for mammals on Booby Island was a big bust?

Ktin (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ktin, if all DYK reviewers gave the same level of attention to their work as you do, many fewer nominations would get reviewed, but they would be reviewed supremely. EEng 04:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)