Jump to content

Talk:Lake Burton (Antarctica)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLake Burton (Antarctica) has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 7, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 4, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that fish have been sighted in Lake Burton, Antarctica?

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lake Burton, Antarctica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Beginning first read-through. I hope to have comments for this page by the end of today. Tim riley (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few queries before I do the formalities:

  • Lead
    • "nearly 10–11 months in a year" – this reads rather oddly: one might expect either "10–11 months in a year" or "nearly 11 months in a year", but not both at the same time.
    • "about 6–7 months in year" – "in the year"?
Fixed. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geography
    • I'm not wholly convinced we need the name of the ship's dentist, but it's a jolly detail and we'll let it pass.
Indeed, half of the geography was irrelevant to the lake. Have removed that and kept it focused.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entry restrictions
    • "under the government agency" – this is my only serious worry about the article as it stands: you mention a government agency, but nowhere are we told (or can even infer) which government has dominion over the lake. Ditto for the "national authority" mentioned just afterwards.
Aussie government I believe. Corrected.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I might be inclined to mention that in the lead too, but I leave it to you to consider this separately from this review. Tim riley (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is some arbitrary capitalisation in this section: "area"/"Area" and "Management Plan".
    • Comma needed to close the subordinate clause after "defined Management Plan"
    • "Over flying" – or in plain English "flying over"?
    • "There are many more rules and regulations … which have to be strictly adhered to." If that is so, ought not the "should" in the previous sentence be "must"?

That's all I spotted on first and second read-through. Only the fourth query, above, is of any great importance. I'll await your comments before proceeding further. Tim riley (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they've been addressed so far.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they have. This article is heading towards promotion apace. Only two other queries:

  • who was the Burton after whom the lake was named? It is the one detail that I expected to see but didn't, and in a GA, I think other readers may also expect to see it.
  • The title of the article is "Lake Burton...", but the lake is referred to throughout the main text as "Burton Lake" or "the Burton Lake". You could bridge the gap by adding the latter forms to "Burton Lagoon" in the lead; or by changing "Burton Lake" and "the Burton Lake" to "Lake Burton" in the text (your quoted sources would justify either, as both forms of the name are used by them); or even by moving the article (after this review) to "Burton Lake, Antarctica". Tim riley (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, named after a minor biologist H. M. Burton.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid! Stand well clear – template coming through:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

An article full of the most rigorous technicalities, yet nevertheless very readable. Out of interest I did a quick check round the web and as far as I can see this article far surpasses anything freely available anywhere else. Congratulations!

Thanks! Yeah its one of those articles we had to scrape together info to compile something half decent... That's what makes it more valuable I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lake Burton (Antarctica). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lake Burton (Antarctica). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lake_Burton_(Antarctica)&oldid=1199246658"