Wikipedia:Peer review/Extreme points of Bulgaria/archive1

Extreme points of Bulgaria

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review becuase I am try to get it to Featured List status. Any suggestions would be good, because this is my first time working with an article of this type.

Thanks, Mr.crabby (Talk) 19:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is new to me too. I didn't realize people were writing "extreme points" articles until I saw this one. It is interesting, and the photos make it more so. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

In geographic uses, "elevation" is preferred to "altitude". I recommend changing each instance of "altitude" in the article to "elevation", including the table column heading.

The Manual of Style advises against repeating the words of the main title in any of the section heads. I would suggest changing "Extreme points" to something like "Surface coordinates" or "Latitude and longitude" and "Extreme altitude" to something like "Highest elevation".

WGS84 should be spelled out on first use, thus: World Geodetic System (WGS) 84.

I've never seen the slash parameter used in the conversion template before. You could recast the sentence slightly and use this instead: "At 1,463 metres (4,800 ft), Veykata is... ", which would be preferable to the slash.

It would be good to remove the time stamp from Image:April2003 (22) Timok.JPG.

If you give the mountain elevation to the nearest tenth of a meter, you should probably give the imperial equivalent to the nearest tenth of a foot. Maybe rounding to the nearest whole number in both cases would be best. The coordinates look strange too. Some are given to the sixth place to the right of the decimal, some to the fourth, and the last two only to the first. I'm not sure what the standard is or if a standard exists.

It might be useful to give the coordinates in degrees, minutes, and seconds as well as the decimal form.

An encyclopedia and a travel web site are generally considered weak sources of information. It would be better to use government or scientific sources for the Mount Musala and Black Sea data if possible.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog. That's where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ideas, myself and User:Mr.crabby have worked on them and introduced most of them (the first five and the last one). However, note that the lowest point is the entire Black Sea and it would be a bit pointless to have the precise coordinates of its central point in the article. As for the degrees, minutes, and seconds and decimal form, that's a good idea but I don't think it's that important, the rounding is not that big of an issue either. The standard for an extreme points list seems to be the FL Extreme points of India, and it's not as detailed as this one despite having much more to write about (larger country, disputed points).

One thing that I have to note is that the Indian article lists their Antarctic base as one of the country's southernmost points: do Antarctic bases actually count as areas of national sovereignty? Because Bulgaria has a base (St. Kliment Ohridski Base) on the South Shetland Islands that can be listed if it counts. Todor →Bozhinov 15:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]