Talk:Vikos–Aoös National Park/GA2

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Starting to review article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Inital comments
After a quick initial read through this article appears to be at or about the right level for a GA. I will therefore carry out a detailed review section by section but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk)

At this point I will only be highlighting problems, all the other points will be picked up at the end.


 * Geography-Geology -
 * Vikos Gorge -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC). There appears to be a conflict over statements in the first paragraph over what the Guiness Book of Records claims. The first sentence, citing ref 4, states that the Guiness Book of Records lists it as the "deepest canyon in the world in proportion to its width". Reference 6, which is used in the second sentence states: "The Vikos Gorge is listed as the second deepest gorge in the world by the Guinness Book of Records after the Grand Canyon. This appears to be following a somewhat arbitrary definition that excludes deeper features such as Colca Canyon in Peru as gorges because of their greater width:depth ratio. Nevertheless with walls up to 1 km in height, the 12 km gorge on the Voidomatis River is spectacular". This needs to be resolved.
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC). Reference 9 is a 15-page PDF file. The relevant page number should be given in the citation.
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC). The direction of the Aoos Gorge is given, in the following sub-section, as east-west, but in contrast no direction is given for the Vikos Gorge.
 * direction of Vikos G. added.Alexikoua (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Aoos Gorge -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC). Reference 10 is a 40-page PDF file. The relevant page number, or page numbers, should be given in the three citations.
 * Pages given. Each of the three citations has diferrent relevant page numbers, so I've split the ref. into three.Alexikoua (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Tymfi -
 * Ref 10 appears to be a broken web link. This this the one: ?
 * Seems it needs registration now. I've replaced it with a similar, more recent work, from same author.


 * Climate -
 * The data provided appears to be confirmed by the in-line citation. However, I think it was also be useful to have this data presented in graphical form, either using graphs like reference 16, or of the type more usually see in wikipedia, such as in: Kraków (you could copy, paste and over-write that one which would save some effort).
 * Climatic diagram added, with avgr temperatures and precipitation. Unfortunately couldn't find enough data to create one like this in Krakow, avrg high&avrg low temperatures per month are not included in this diagram [] p. 23 (it shows the graphical form of the daily mean temp. per month), I' ve checked the web but couldn't find more detailed climatic data for the region [].Alexikoua (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * References -
 * This references has a broken web link "Workshop on Advanced Techniques for the Assessment of Natural Hazards in Mountain Areas" (PDF).
 * ref 38 link fixed.

Overall summary
....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 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:
 * 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:

Congratulations of the quality of the article and thanks for promply fixing the "problems" highlighted above. I'm now awarding the article GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)