Talk:Matsalu National Park/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 20:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am reviewing this article, and before I forget:

• This reference is dead http://www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_co-operation/environment/nature_and_biological_diversity/ecological_networks/the_european_diploma/Matsalu.asp#TopOfPage (ref 16 I think).
• I replaced another dead link with the Web Archive version (ref 14, I think.)
• Also, I am doing some copy editing of the article, mostly to reduce the choppiness by combining paras. Feel free to revert any errors I introduce.
• Under History, the first two paras begin with "Scientific research in Matsalu", so one of the para beginnings needs to be reworded for variety.
• The last caption reads in part "Old concrete bridge over Kasari River, at the easternmost border of Matsalu National Park. Built in 1904, it was the longest concrete bridge in the world at that time (308 metres (1,010 ft))" - do you have a reference for that? I don't see one in the article.
• Please have a look at the Lead and make sure it is a summary of the article, per WP:Lead.

Otherwise, although the article is short, it seems to cover the important elements. Xtzou (Talk) 20:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for reviewing the article. I will implement some of the suggestions now, but otherwise I will be away until Monday.

• I replaced the dead COE link - previous was to a news release, current is to the resolution.
• Added source to the bridge being longest in the world when it was built. Strange, I could swear I had a source when I inserted the image.
• Reworded the start of the second paragraph in History

--Sander Säde 06:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Nice work! Xtzou (Talk) 13:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clearly and concisely written

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of the MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Sets the context

   B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic

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: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 13:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)