Talk:Aramburu Island/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Guettarda (talk · contribs) 01:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Since I've already gone through this pretty carefully for the DYK, I'll give this a shot. Guettarda (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is too short, and doesn't adequately summarise the contents of the article in a proportionate fashion.

• Y jp×g 08:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• There shouldn't be any information in the lead that isn't in the body of the article, but it looks like the coordinates aren't anywhere else.

• Y jp×g 03:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Location and access

• The third sentence, Approximately one mile (1.6 km) to the east is the Tiburon Peninsula (and Tiburon itself), is a sentence fragment.

• Y jp×g 03:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Second paragraph: As a nature reserve... It isn't stated anywhere prior to this that the island is a nature reserve. This should either be mentioned before, or it should be stated as a fact, not mentioned in passing.

• Y jp×g 03:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• The rest of this para is a blow-by-blow Covid account. It should be rephrased in such a way that the entire closure is discussed as one, rather than this "sequence of events" style.
• Strawberry Spit is linked at least three times.
• Y jp×g 08:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Animals

• What's the significance of whelk snails? Are they native, naturalised, invasive? And can you link to the appropriate species (or at least genus) instead of the whelk article?
•   Unfortunately, the article does not say what species they were looking for, although this can probably be found in some supplementary literature. jp×g 08:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

(more later) Guettarda (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll respond to that when you get around to it. In the meantime I will take a crack at the stuff you've mentioned so far. jp×g 03:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Nice work. The addition of the maps really enhances my understanding. I think it would help readers a lot if you explained what the maps show in their captions. Guettarda (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)