Talk:Olango Island Group/GA2

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The Lead should be a succinct summary of the entire article. For an article of this length it should be two or three paragraphs.  Please read WP:LEAD for guidance.]
 * In places teh prose is poor, e.g. The Olango group of islands is an island group composed of the island of Olango and six satellite islets.; Its dominant composition are shell, algae, and other carbonate materials, while macro and micro fossils are found abundant in its formation.; Calcareous sand derived from the weathering of limestone mostly makes up the tidal flat. 
 * We need explanation of terms sucha as barangays, 'Carcar Formation. Many words such as mangroves, coral reefs'', etc need wikilinking.
 * I recommend that you enlist help from the WP:Guild of copyeditors to sort out porse, conformity with WP:MoS, etc. |The short sentence structure is wrong, the prose is badly written and jerky.  I feel taht teh artcile fails on this alone.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Ref #5 and #10 are dead links; very few of the online references are to WP:RS, please read the guidelines on that. Dive companies, tourist company pages, etc are clearly not RS.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Some details of the history and cuture of the islands would be good. When were they first populated, any archaelogical explorations, more detail of fauna and flora.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The small image gallery at the bottom is not particularly appropriate, the bird phots could have been tasken anywhere. It would be good ot have one or two phtographs which give some idea of hwtabthe islansds are like.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am not listing this article at the present time as it seems that none of the lessons of the previous GAN review have been learnt. Enlist a copy editor, try and move the artcile away from a rather bald listing of features in a choppy one sentence style and write something that gives a flavour of what the islands are like, whilst retaining an encylcopedic tone.  This will not neccessarily be easy - at the moment the artcile falls a long way short of this and I feel that it would take a lot more than the usual hold period of seven days to address this. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am not listing this article at the present time as it seems that none of the lessons of the previous GAN review have been learnt. Enlist a copy editor, try and move the artcile away from a rather bald listing of features in a choppy one sentence style and write something that gives a flavour of what the islands are like, whilst retaining an encylcopedic tone.  This will not neccessarily be easy - at the moment the artcile falls a long way short of this and I feel that it would take a lot more than the usual hold period of seven days to address this. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)