Talk:Laguna del Negro Francisco/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status using the template below. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In lead, should be "Atacama Region of Chile", not "Atacama Region Chile" Commas should set off phrase "probably formed by a moraine.... of sand", so add commas after 'peninsula' and 'sand'. Remove redlinks to Astaburuaga River, either by creating the page or removing link Use of jargon "lowstand" in lead leads to confusion - should either be defined or replaced by non-technical terminology. Last sentence of lead should be split into two, reworked for clarity. The "inflowing water" referenced is water flowing into the lake? Done, except for the redlink issue as it's not really a problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] "20 metres (66 ft) high peninsula" should be "20 meter (66 ft) high peninsula" - singular, not plural That's a quirk with the {{Convert}} template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Jo-Jo Eumerus, fair enough on all points! I'll wrap up my review now. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Nice definition of polymitic! Makes it very clear and readable! Um, is that sarcasm? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Remove redlinks to Salar de Maricunga and Negro Francisco Formation. As mentioned before, redlinks aren't a problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] "once considered to be the source" should be "once thought to be the source", or maybe "once mistakenly thought to be the source" Went for the first option. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Typo - in 'Geology', "... Nazca Plate beneath South America os responsible for..." should be 'was' for 'os' Changed to "is". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] In 'Climate and life', the phrase "probably subordinate summer precipitation" is confusing - what does that mean? Rework. Redone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Typo - in 'Climate and life', "...at these altitudes ans is classifed as steppe..." should be 'and' for 'ans' Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Add 'the' before Andean goose. Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Add comma after "within the basin" in first paragraph of 'Lacustrine history' Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] clarify re: "Mediterranean parts of Chile" that this refers to climate and not geography Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] The first sentence of the second paragraph of 'Human use' is too long and should be split into two or more. Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overall, interesting and well-written article! Pass, issues fixed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass - no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass - no issues.
	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).	Pass. No issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass. No issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass - no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This refuge run by CONAF (Chilean National Forest organization) might merit a mention. I dunno, is that a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] This article's information on high Andean bird counts at the lake could be added as well. Same question as above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] There seem to have been some actions and controversies regarding mining issues and environmental damage - these two articles go into it in detail. This should be added to the 'Human use' section. Both these sources are talking about wetlands in the wider environmentally protected area, not necessarily about LdNF. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Pass, issues discussed and addressed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. No issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass. NItalic texto issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass. No issues.
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.	Pass - no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Improve caption on "Regional rivers" image - a little vague. If the caption can't be specified to be more relevant to article, image should be removed. Edited. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Pass. Issues fixed.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as of 8/20/19!

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for going through these issues, Jo-Jo. A few things: No sarcasm about "polymitic"! I had never heard the term before and thought the explanation you gave was concise and interesting. I think we shouldn't use the ^{[convert: needs a number]} template if it leads to grammatical issues like this, minor though it may be. The other fixes are all good. :)

Regarding breadth: Lonely Planet is a reliable source, it's a well-known guidebook company that factchecks - via WP:RS, no issues there. The bird counts article is slightly more difficult, but via Google, Revisa Tierra Culta seems to be a pretty standard Chilean online magazine and again WP:RS gives us no reason to doubt their reliability. This is a judgement call, but I think there's no issue with the information. I think the other two sources regarding environmental damage are relevant: they both discuss damage to the lacustrine complex of Laguna del Negro Francisco, reference it explicitly as the site and subject of the controversy, and mention the Ramsar connection, which is already in the article. As to reliability, El Mostrador is a well-known Chilean newspaper extant since 2000 with its own Wiki page, and Radio Cooperativa is a large and well-known radio-based news organization extant since 1935. I think this info should be included in the article to make sure it covers all aspects of Laguna del Negro Francisco. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: I think that fixing the Convert template might be something worth asking for on Template talk:Convert. It also seems like the refuge may be the same building already mentioned in the article. I did apply the magazine source, but I am still concerned that the environmental damage is not strictly pertinent to this article as "Valle Ancho" is only partially within the watershed of LDnF. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: congratulations! This is a very good article. :) Glad you nominated it and I could review it. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]