User:Whiteguru/Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 02:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

'''Starts GA Review. The review will follow the same sections of the Article. ''' --Whiteguru (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area/GA1



Observations

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Reference 15 goes to an "image not available" ?
 * The archived version of Reference 24 goes to a Japanese translation?
 * A number of archived versions of references are to Japanese versions of books issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics?


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Lede is a good summary of events and content of the article.
 * The link to Mecca is misplaced. The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia and the Kaaba.
 * The link to cruise ship tourism is an excellent explanatory
 * Flora and Fauna are well covered - particularly with species.
 * 'mistrust of the Parks and Wildlife Service' ... the 1990's section is a good summary of the management crisis
 * We can leave out the sentence about the Great Barrier Reef.


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV is preserved - remarkably well, given the multiple controversies this heritage area stirred up.


 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Page created 7 February 2004
 * Page has 258 edits by 123 editors
 * Majority of annual edits to page (93) were in 2021
 * 90 day page views = 2,334 with a daily average of 26 views
 * edit warring is absent; page history shows steady improvement.


 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 23 images on page - including one gallery / slider with images.
 * Images have fair use rationales and are appropriately captioned.


 * 1) Overall:
 * This article has a good lede
 * Some queries about the references;
 * We don't need to link to Mecca
 * Succinct coverage of a wilderness area that has raised much controversy
 * Attendance to the minor issues raised above will see this article proceed to GA status. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)