Talk:Pirin National Park/GA1

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

Reviewer: MeegsC (talk · contribs) 13:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. MeegsC (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * The only thing that flags up on the copyright violation tool is a Facebook page that clearly states it has taken its information from the Wikipedia article, so no problems there.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * It appears to address the topic's main aspects, based on comparison with other national park articles.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * There have been only a few minor changes since this was first nominated 8 months ago.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * *''The source of the park map is not clear; I'll need to have someone with more knowledge about this issue than me check it!
 * Unfortunately I am not knowledgeable on the subject as well. From what I can see the base map is the Open Street Map, which should free; the borders of the national and nature parks are marked correctly, as it could be seen here or if the official sites of the individual parks are checked. --Gligan (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if it is based on an Open Street map, it needs to be attributed; it's part of the usage agreement. I've asked on Wikimedia Commons to see what we need to do. MeegsC (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * It would be great to have the following fixed to make clear these pictures are relevant to the topic.
 * *Gergiyski lakes aren't mentioned in the text; can they be added, or can the top picture be replaced with something clearly spelled out in the text as being part of the park?
 * First of all I would like to thank you for initiating the review. As regards to that particular picture I think it best summarises the landscape Pirin National Park was created to protect - the glacial lakes and the alpine relief. I have changed the caption in that spirit. --Gligan (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * *Dautov vrah isn't mentioned in the text; is it a significant peak somehow? And should the second word be capitalised, as it is in the List of mountain peaks in Pirin?
 * Dautov vrah is no more significant than any other peak. In my opinion in the overview section should there should be a view of how the park generally looks and since the main mountain ridge featuring the highest peaks is illustrated just below I chose a more forested peak instead to visualise the park's diversity. I have capitalised the second word. --Gligan (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * *Why is the photo of the Bulgarian fir included? It's not listed among the plant species.
 * I have included the species in the text. --Gligan (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * *You might think about removing the pictures from the "multiple image" template as the template forces a picture size, which may be different than the size a reader has specified in their preferences. (It is for me, for example.)
 * Honestly speaking I had no idea the readers could specify their preferences. I prefer the "multiple image" template because in that way two pictures one after another look more neatly. Anyway, since such size preferences exist, I have removed the images from the template. --Gligan (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Dautov vrah is no more significant than any other peak. In my opinion in the overview section should there should be a view of how the park generally looks and since the main mountain ridge featuring the highest peaks is illustrated just below I chose a more forested peak instead to visualise the park's diversity. I have capitalised the second word. --Gligan (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * *Why is the photo of the Bulgarian fir included? It's not listed among the plant species.
 * I have included the species in the text. --Gligan (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * *You might think about removing the pictures from the "multiple image" template as the template forces a picture size, which may be different than the size a reader has specified in their preferences. (It is for me, for example.)
 * Honestly speaking I had no idea the readers could specify their preferences. I prefer the "multiple image" template because in that way two pictures one after another look more neatly. Anyway, since such size preferences exist, I have removed the images from the template. --Gligan (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Other comments
MeegsC, Gligan, where does this review stand? It's been over two months since this page was last edited. Can you get this moving again? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for reminding us of the review. The problem it seems is that the source of the map is still not resolved as its uploader has not responded to MeegsC's inquiry. If this is the only issue left that MeegsC sees as a reviewer, I can simply remove the map and add it again when/if its source is clear. Best regards, --Gligan (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry – this got lost in the shuffle! Will finish up review this week. MeegsC (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , : I'm so sorry, but real life is absolutely crazy at the moment, and I'm not going to have time to finish this up. Can someone else do so? MeegsC (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad to continue the review! Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Adityavagarwal

 * Duplinks are to be removed.
 * Per WP:Overlinking, country names, etc. are to be unlinked. I think probably Bulgaria, Europe, fish, birds, and butterflies should be unlinked (just an opinion). Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for continuing the review, Adityavagarwal! I have removed the duplicate links I could find, as well as the link to Europe. However, I believe it is important to keep the links to all animal species mentioned in the article because after all the national part was created to protect them. From my experience when I read Wikipedia articles about protected areas or geographic features in general I would often click on the links of different animal or plant species in order to learn more about them. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay. :P It is super rare for me to get so slow, but got really busy. Would be continuing it faster! Bulgaria should be unlinked. Also, the matter is that, probably everybody knows what a bird, fish, etc. is. Hence, they should not be linked (example, refer an FA, Yellowstone National Park). Many links are not even clicked. It would also be helpful if you would like to take it to an FA! Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Gligan, only this is remaining I guess? Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed these links. --Gligan (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The lead is to be condensed. The ideal number of paragraphs would be 3-4.
 * thank you for the comments. I have made it four paragraphs but I would prefer not to shorten the text. --Gligan (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "ordinance No. 3074" and "published in issue No. 43/1963" seem extraneous. You could instead amend it to "Pirin National Park was established on 18 November 1962, in order to preserve the natural ecosystems and landscapes along with their plant and animal communities and habitats."
 * Done. --Gligan (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "under criteria vii, viii and ix" seems redundant as well.
 * Done. --Gligan (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It would be better if "Originally named Vihren National Park," could be moved to the lead's first sentence.
 * Done. --Gligan (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, to the introduction's first sentence. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. --Gligan (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could expound on what category II is?
 * Done. --Gligan (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not understand the point of these "under the code Pirin BG0000209" and "under the code BG056". They do not seem to add encyclopedic value. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed them. --Gligan (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Link to "Sandanski" on first mention in body.
 * It appears that the link is on the first mention in the body.--Gligan (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No need to mention both the common name and the scientific name in "Macedonian pine (Pinus peuce)", "Pirin poppy (Papaver degenii)", and "Bosnian pine (Pinus heldreichii)". On the second mention, only the common name should do!
 * I have followed the same pattern for all articles of protected areas I have created/expanded. I have taken the example from other similar articles for protected areas in Europe, such as Pindus National Park. --Gligan (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just like not linking an article the second time, what is the significance of writing both forms everytime either of them appears? Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, from my experience in Wikipedia I have seen several styles for listing animal and plant species and the one that is most appealing in my opinion is using only the common name for vertebrate animals and both the common (if any) and the scientific name for all other animal/plant species. --Gligan (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Convert templates, if used, would be better. Mentions in both metre and foot.
 * I avoid converting into feet because the text can become messy. For example this text from the article: "1000–1600 m – 51.09 km2 (12.7%)" will look like that: "1000–1600 m (3300–5200 ft) – 51.09 km2 (19.73 sq mi) (12.7%)"; and this "Kutelo (2908 m)" like this "Kutelo (2908 m (9541 ft))". --Gligan (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to specify what is meant by "lower zones" and "higher ones" for annual precipitation?
 * It is lower altitude zones. --Gligan (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Do avalanches occur frequently throughout the year, or is it just during a duration? Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Only in winter. --Gligan (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Images

 * File:KartaPPiNP.png: It would also be better to mention what the green area signifies in the map. Also, a source would be required!
 * The previous reviewer tried to contact the uploader without success. Therefore, the source is not provided and I will remove the map. --Gligan (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * File:Vihren Pirin IMG 1811.jpg: This image seems misplaced? It might in fact, be redundant.
 * It is not misplaced; I like to have images from the left side as well. Anyway, if you think there are too many images, I have removed another one from this section. I strongly prefer that this particular picture stays. --Gligan (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The section where the picture is placed, is not coherent with it. Also, I do not see much value added by it. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My reasons for placing that particular image is that even before improving the article I have planned to include it and taking into consideration that it takes a lot of vertical space, for aesthetic purpose I placed it in the longest section. I don't think it is entirely out of context there because it does show the habitat of Pirin's fauna. --Gligan (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, placing it elsewhere might displace other images vertically. However, beside a defoliated tree, is there anything one might ascertain from the image? :P Perhaps mention which habitat it is (arid, etc.) too and mention the same in the text in the fauna section, but I suspect it might constitute original research? Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It will indeed constitute original research if I do that. Yet, since there are actually no good images of animals taken in Pirin National Park to illustrate the section properly, this image at least shows how the environment of Pirin's fauna looks like. --Gligan (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Try avoiding using the name of the article in the caption for images. For instance, the lead image could just specify "A typical landscape featuring lakes and marble peaks" or just "typical landscape of the park". Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. --Gligan (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * A wonderfully written article, Gligan! Good work. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)