Talk:Queen Maud Land/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Night w   21:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a fairly young article in terms of number of total edits (just over 300) and size, although I see that the nominator has made significant improvements. Sources given are authoritative and well-rounded. The language adopted is mostly formal and always informative. The lead effectively provides an outline of the topic. The use of imagery is excellent. There are a few galleries, but I think these could be dispersed once the article is expanded a bit more. The layout is sound, but if I had one suggestion to make it would be to move the Politics section to #3.

I've added this page to my watchlist, and I'm more than happy to answer any questions or clarify some of my statements if needed. Please note that most of the following are just suggestions, and the only outstanding issue in order for this nomination to pass is the lack of citations in certain areas.

Lead

 * Obviously, the lead contains no citations, which is alarming since it includes a number of contestable claims. I notice many of these claims are sourced in later parts of the article, but I'd like to see some citations added, particularly for the controversial political information (that it was claimed, that it was claimed as a dependent territory, that Germany claimed New Swabia (since this is commonly contested), and that the claim's boundaries are presumed; this last one is not sourced anywhere that I can see). ✅
 * I added information about the German occupation issue in the article. I'll try to do the same abut the boundary issue. I left the boundary issue with the only definite information from RS; namely that the north/south borders are not officially defined. Do we still need refs in the lead? – Bellatores (t.) 18:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I will mark in the article where I think refs should be added.
 * King Haakon VII Sea is also the name of the sea in English, no? ✅
 * Try to avoid terms that convey a conversational tone, like "somewhat", "couple of hundred". In the same paragraph (and I'm being picky), I think stick to formal language and call Troll Airfield an aerodrome or airfield (not an airport). ✅
 * Consider pipe-linking "research stations" to Research stations in Antarctica. ✅
 * Since you elaborate on regions in the next section, I would suggest removing the names of the five regions and add a couple of points on physical topography instead. Something on the ice wall or the mountains would seem better placed. ✅
 * I have added this, but think we should have room for both. – Bellatores (t.) 22:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've no ideas about how to address this, but phrases like "it is presumed" are liable to be tagged with by whom? ✅
 * I removed the presumed thing. – Bellatores (t.) 18:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Geography

 * Wikipedia discourages using galleries in well-established articles. I think to comply with the Manual of Style here, the images should be dispersed within the article. ✅
 * The regions are linked twice in the same section. I'd suggest removing the links from the summary table. ✅
 * Consider adding a caption to the table to convey to readers (especially those with visual impairments) exactly what it's summarising. ✅

History

 * This section looks fine. It's well sourced and the quotation of the decree is a good touch. I'll do a quick copyedit on links and grammar. ✅

Flora and fauna

 * Minor grammatical corrections: "a scarce flora" → "a scarcity of flora". Also, ignore Wikipedia's current inconsistency in species name capitalisation; I would render "Snow Petrel" and all other instances of "Petrel", "Skua" and "Penguin" in lowercase (as you've done with the seal species). ✅
 * The first few sentences of the first paragraph contain no references.
 * Sorry, I see they are cited in the following sentence.

Research stations

 * This section could be renamed once it moves beyond a list. I would like to see more about what kind of research is conducted in the territory and the involvement of the Norwegian government. ✅
 * As I suggested with the previous table, consider adding a caption to this one also. The sort ability would also be helpful. ✅
 * A good way to get rid of the gallery (see below) at the bottom is to incorporate it into the table as a column (see this article for an example). I realise that some entries won't have an image available. ✅
 * A Further hatlink to Research stations in Antarctica might be a good idea. ✅

Politics

 * I would move this section to go below the history section. I would also suggest renaming it "Legal status" or something similar, since the territory has no active politics to speak of. ✅
 * The sentence beginning, "Although territorial claims are not affected by the treaty,..." could be seen to be contradictory given what is written in the follow-up. I suggest clarifying this to make it clear that claims are not invalidated by the treaty. ✅
 * The last sentence of the middle paragraph reads incorrect. I think rephrasing it to say, "and prohibits [this] and [that] would correct this. ✅
 * The section describes Norwegian law, but it should also explain how this law affects foreigners and foreign activity in the territory. Presumably not alot, but I think it's worth adding to be clear.

Referencing

 * All of the external links you've provided are still live; keep an eye on this.
 * While it's not a big deal either way, you could consider merging the notes and references section, since you only have one footnote at the moment.
 * Some of the citations contain publisher names in italics (e.g., Norwegian Polar Institute, Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs, Norwegian Ministry of Justice and the Police, etcetera). It looks like they've been placed in the  string; they belong in   since they are not publications or creative-work titles. ✅
 * "Csiro" is an acronym and should be capitalised, but try to expand obscure acronyms like "NSD" where they are used for the first time. ✅

Style and formatting

 * As encouraged in WP:MOSNUM, spaces between figures and units of measurements should be replaced with  Use abbreviations when converting units (e.g., 2.8 million square kilometers (1 million square miles) → 2.8 million km2 (1 million sq mi). Where possible, consider using convert which does this for you automatically and calculates the conversion itself. In instances where the figure is an adjective (e.g., "2.8 million square kilometre sector", placing dashes between the words is standard; do this through the template by adding  . ✅
 * You've linked to two disambiguation pages: Queen and Egg. Since these are plain English words likely to be already known by almost all readers, I'd remove the links. Any possible target article won't include information relevant to this subject. ✅
 * Try to make spelling variations consistent. For example, you use U.S. spelling "-ize" (not "-ise") and Commonwealth spelling "-etre" (not "-eter"). ✅

Images

 * Wikipedia discourages using galleries in well-established articles. A link to commons is preferred (which is already present). The images might be easily integrated with the text when the article is expanded a bit more.
 * As part of Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines, good articles should have alternative text added to file markups. This is so that visually-impaired users who use a screen reader can hear where an image is placed and what the image is of. For example, to, I would add   or something along those lines. Other images, however, may already have a descriptive enough caption (the caption of the satellite image is an example); in this case, add the   string but leave it empty. If you don't add the   string, the screen reader will read out the name of the file instead, which in one file's case will include a monotonous "one-zero-one-zero-zero-three-four-dot-j-p-g". Quite annoying!
 * I've had to change the markup of the galleries in order to allow for alt text.

Summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: