Template:Did you know nominations/Dilek Peninsula-Büyük Menderes Delta National Park

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Montanabw^(talk) 06:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Dilek Peninsula-Büyük Menderes Delta National Park

(

)

... that six of the species native to Dilek Peninsula-Büyük Menderes Delta National Park (pictured) can not be found anywhere else in the world?

Comment: Hello! I would like to nominate this article for DYK. It was created on July 8th by my friend and stellar Wikipedian CeeGee, and I took the reins from there the next day, on July 9th, so that's when expansion begun. I spent several days working hard to get this article from a complete stub to the way it is now, and since this is my first DYK nom ever I'm free from quid pro quo reviewing as he told me. Thanks! Coderenius (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Created by CeeGee (talk) and Coderenius (talk). Nominated by Coderenius (talk) at 22:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC).

New and long enough, verifiable. Copyvios provides a 44.8% with reference #7, but this appears to be almost entirely due to use of proper nouns. I've found no significant paraphrasing, so we're good there. Nominator has no previous DYK credits, so QPQ exempt. Picture is free, used in the article, and good at small sizes. Hook is good, but not cited. As per the DYK rules, a citation for the hook must be found no later than the end of the sentence containing the hook's info. This is an easy fix; just move the relevant citation to the end of the hook content's sentence in the article.

The article needs some copy-editing for neutrality. In spot checks, I noted some WP:PUFFERY, especially in the biology section. Using the first sentence of that section as an example, "incredible/incredibly" is used twice and serves no purpose beyond puffing things up a bit. This is an example, but not the only issue with neutrality. Feel free to ping me after the appropriate citation is inserted and a copyedit for neutrality has been done. Please don't let this discourage you! You've done a fine job on this article, and you're in the home stretch to getting this article on the main page. ~ Rob^Talk 02:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Thank you for bringing the article to your attention, I greatly appreciate it. I have added the citation for the sentence mentioning the hook in the article (in the biology section), and I have un-puffed it using more NPOV words in the Biology and Activities sections. I hope this fixes the main issues! The best, Coderenius (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely a step in the right direction; the neutrality issues I had detected before have been fixed. I'd like a more complete copyedit to occur, though. I've more thoroughly reviewed the article for neutrality, and noted the following things that I consider to be non-neutral or otherwise needing some copyediting.

1.The history section states "As a result of this isolation, the area was considerably populated with numerous species of plants and wildlife, and it is from which most of the area's "beauty" in the eyes of humans is derived." The reference to beauty that is not well-sourced is clearly non-neutral.

2.The Fauna section seems to have a bit of editorializing, specifically with phrases like "instantly observable upon entry" and "upon further investigation". This could sound more neutral and encyclopedic. See WP:EDITORIALIZING.

3.The first paragraph of Activities has some neutrality issues as well. For example, "it also provides many opportunities for experienced visitors with specific goals in mind to pursue them" seems like puffery to me; just stating the available activities is fine. "The national park is noted for being an excellent location for nature photography..." may be true, but shouldn't be written in Wikipedia's voice without clear attribution to who notes it as being excellent. A reliable source is needed here, or more neutral language such as "The national park is often used for nature photography".

Note that I'm making this review a bit more detailed than I normally would, since these are issues that would certainly pop up in GA review if you go that route, which you've expressed an interest in. These still should be addressed prior to a DYK appearing on the main page, though. ~ Rob^Talk 19:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Done I've addressed all of those concerns, thank you for putting the time in to letting me know. It should be DYK ready at this point. Thank you, Coderenius (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely neutral now. The rest as per my original review. Good to go! ~ Rob^Talk 00:16, July 18, 2015‎ (UTC)

Well balanced, sourced and comprehensive. Also enriched by good images. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)