Talk:List of Ramsar sites of Poland/GA1

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

Reviewer: EddieHugh (talk · contribs) 23:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a Fail. The lead does not state what the Ramsar sites of Poland are, but does repeat most of the lead from Ramsar Convention. It needs to be a summary of the main content. The main text is a series of bullet points with some detail added; this structure is better suited to a list: I suggest giving each area its own heading. The main aspects of the topic (see Good article criteria) are not all covered. e.g., when did each site become designated? Why? What have the effects of designation been? How are the sites protected? By whom? What group finances them? Have there been any controversies? Some of the information is contradictory. e.g., "a total area of approximately 10 square kilometres (3.9 sq mi), consisting of about 35 square kilometres (14 sq mi) of water, 6 square kilometres (2.3 sq mi) of marshland and 0.5 square kilometres (0.19 sq mi) of wetland forest"... 10 ≠ 41.5. A quick check of the references is not encouraging either: none of the information attributed to ref 6 is visible on the page linked. I suggest adding citations immediately after each piece of information, or, at worst, at the end of the sentence, as adding them all at the end of a paragraph makes it impossible to know what information came from where (unless only one source is listed).

This is too much to address in one week, so the article fails. I recommend viewing some articles that are currently Good Articles and re-reading the good article criteria. Some of the basic information is present in the current version of the article, as are some sources, so I encourage you to persevere with it, taking the above points into consideration and perhaps asking others for their opinion before renominating. EddieHugh (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's a bit of a judgement call if it can or cannot be made within a week w/o giving the nominator a chance to respond. I'd urge you to re-open the GA NOM. Plus it's an overview article, with references to the detailed articles for each site. Placement of references are per WP style guide. Ajh1492 (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. On citing: I ask, for instance, if I wanted to check "The site is a glacial lake typical of those located in the Masurian Lake District with an area of 6.8 square kilometres", then which source would I look at – 3, 4, 5, or 6? As they are all together at the end of the para, I assume that they all contain all of the info in that para... but they don't. See Wikipedia:Citing sources on this: "The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed".
 * The opinion on the article is a judgement, but is based on "If the article is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria then it can be failed without being placed on hold" from Good article criteria. I looked through some of the Good Articles listed at WikiProject Protected areas (which this article could be part of) and found that they are considerably more detailed than this one. Adding perhaps 50-100% more information would be needed, even as an overview article, and that, in my opinion, is not part of the GAN procedure (I suggest Peer review as a more suitable step).
 * Bearing in mind that it is an overview, I have just now looked at some of the Featured Lists on WikiProject Protected areas, and it seems that what you have so far may be better suited to targeting FL status instead of GA, while the pages for the individual areas could be developed as articles. EddieHugh (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)