Talk:Lake Burton (Antarctica)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Beginning first read-through. I hope to have comments for this page by the end of today. Tim riley (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A few queries before I do the formalities:
 * Lead
 * "nearly 10–11 months in a year" – this reads rather oddly: one might expect either "10–11 months in a year" or "nearly 11 months in a year", but not both at the same time.
 * "about 6–7 months in year" – "in the year"?
 * Fixed. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Geography
 * I'm not wholly convinced we need the name of the ship's dentist, but it's a jolly detail and we'll let it pass.
 * Indeed, half of the geography was irrelevant to the lake. Have removed that and kept it focused.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Entry restrictions
 * "under the government agency" – this is my only serious worry about the article as it stands: you mention a government agency, but nowhere are we told (or can even infer) which government has dominion over the lake. Ditto for the "national authority" mentioned just afterwards.
 * Aussie government I believe. Corrected.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. I might be inclined to mention that in the lead too, but I leave it to you to consider this separately from this review. Tim riley (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's all I spotted on first and second read-through. Only the fourth query, above, is of any great importance. I'll await your comments before proceeding further. Tim riley (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is some arbitrary capitalisation in this section: "area"/"Area" and "Management Plan".
 * Comma needed to close the subordinate clause after "defined Management Plan"
 * "Over flying" – or in plain English "flying over"?
 * "There are many more rules and regulations … which have to be strictly adhered to." If that is so, ought not the "should" in the previous sentence be "must"?

I believe they've been addressed so far.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed they have. This article is heading towards promotion apace. Only two other queries:
 * who was the Burton after whom the lake was named? It is the one detail that I expected to see but didn't, and in a GA, I think other readers may also expect to see it.
 * The title of the article is "Lake Burton...", but the lake is referred to throughout the main text as "Burton Lake" or "the Burton Lake". You could bridge the gap by adding the latter forms to "Burton Lagoon" in the lead; or by changing "Burton Lake" and "the Burton Lake" to "Lake Burton" in the text (your quoted sources would justify either, as both forms of the name are used by them); or even by moving the article (after this review) to "Burton Lake, Antarctica". Tim riley (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, named after a minor biologist H. M. Burton.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Splendid! Stand well clear – template coming through:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

An article full of the most rigorous technicalities, yet nevertheless very readable. Out of interest I did a quick check round the web and as far as I can see this article far surpasses anything freely available anywhere else. Congratulations!

Thanks! Yeah its one of those articles we had to scrape together info to compile something half decent... That's what makes it more valuable I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)