Talk:Hell's Gate National Park/GA2

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

What is a good article?
A good article is&mdash;
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).
 * (b).

Comments

 * Starting review.  SilkTork  *YES! 20:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; ] and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Prose is poor quality - mainly very short, choppy sentences which don't flow or aid understanding. Jargon is used. Lead section needs attention.
 * I copyedited it a bit, though did not see any jargon. I also expanded the lead. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with unexplained use of "geothermal power stations", writing such as "a narrow break in the cliffs, once a tributary of a prehistoric lake" (I assume this means that the break in the cliff was created by gradual erosion caused by a river that was a tributary of a lake that had been in the region at a certain date, but quite old.) - We are not told if the lake is still there, but I assume it is not. The sentences still tend to be short and choppy - of these four consecutive sentences in the lead, only one contains more than one clause: "It was established in 1984. A small national park, it is known for its wide variety of wildlife and for its scenery.[2] This includes the Fischer's Tower and Central Tower columns and Hell's Gate Gorge. The national park is also home to three geothermal power stations at Olkaria."

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;  and (c) it contains no original research.
 * There are an appropriate amount of cites for the length, though one contentious statement is unsourced.

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;  and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Not enough information.
 * There is very little written on the park. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 22:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The criteria does not relate to how much information can or can't be found, it relates to how much information is presented in the article. If there is so little available information that an article can not provide broad coverage on the topic, then the criteria for broad coverage is not bypassed, instead it is not met, and the article will, unfortunately, not become a Good Article.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Viewpoint and writing is fair and appears to be without bias, though one contentious statement needs sourcing
 * See the bottom. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 22:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;   and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * There is one image of poor quality with a vague caption.
 * removed. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 22:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The article lacks detail. There is very little information here. At first glance it appears to be a C-class article. The prose mainly consists of short, choppy bits of information which don't aid reading or understanding. The lead section doesn't summarize the contents (history, wildlife and tourism are not mentioned, yet are sections in the main body). There is so little information here that it fails to be broad in coverage. Jargon is used and not explained. Even though well cited, one contentious statement is unsourced - "The park is popular due to its close proximity to Nairobi and lowered park fees compared to other National Parks." It is a stable article with no edit wars or vandalism. The article started in 2005, and was then edited slowly by several editors until June 2008 when User:Editorofthewiki built up the article in two days of editing and nominated it for GA which was passed by User:Ceranthor. The GA listing was queried by User:Yllosubmarine. All three editors have experience of editing Good Articles and Featured Articles.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Initial inspection.
 * Cited the statement. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 22:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In reply to ST, I did kind of pass the article in AGF. Honestly as the primary reviewer I felt it was rather borderline myself, and I'd be glad to participate in bringing it so that it is not quite so close to the edge. ₪ Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 21:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've put a tag on the talk page which should then provide links to material to hopefully build the article a little more.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No progress has been made on the article so I will delist it.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)