User:Whiteguru/Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 02:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review. The review will follow the same sections of the Article. Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 

Talk:Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area/GA1

---

Observations

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):

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

• Reference 15 goes to an "image not available" ?
• The archived version of Reference 24 goes to a Japanese translation?
• A number of archived versions of references are to Japanese versions of books issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics?

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Lede is a good summary of events and content of the article.
• The link to Mecca is misplaced. The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia and the Kaaba.
• The link to cruise ship tourism is an excellent explanatory
• Flora and Fauna are well covered - particularly with species.
• 'mistrust of the Parks and Wildlife Service' ... the 1990's section is a good summary of the management crisis
• We can leave out the sentence about the Great Barrier Reef.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• NPOV is preserved - remarkably well, given the multiple controversies this heritage area stirred up.

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

• Page created 7 February 2004
• Page has 258 edits by 123 editors
• Majority of annual edits to page (93) were in 2021
• 90 day page views = 2,334 with a daily average of 26 views
• edit warring is absent; page history shows steady improvement.

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

• 23 images on page - including one gallery / slider with images.
• Images have fair use rationales and are appropriately captioned.

1. Overall:

• This article has a good lede
• Some queries about the references;
• We don't need to link to Mecca
• Succinct coverage of a wilderness area that has raised much controversy
• Attendance to the minor issues raised above will see this article proceed to GA status. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 

 On hold