Talk:Seacology/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 16:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: User:Visionholder

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very well written. A pleasure to read.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lede, article organization, the infobox, and the end sections are all excellent.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The References section is great.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	In all my spotchecks, the sources fully back up the data, and there is no plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Excellent and reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a problem.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Absolutely.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It's very long, but I don't think it goes into unnecessary detail on any facet.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I searched for reliable sources of criticism of Seacology, but couldn't find anything.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are terrific. The logo is used properly and has a correct tag and rationale. All other images are verified free through OTRS.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are fitting, and captions are excellent.
	7. Overall assessment.	Very nice. This article has truly earned GA status.

Issues

~~1a:~~ The first sentence in History needs to be split.

Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~1a:~~ "When cyclone Ofa destroyed the primary school in 1990..." What primary school? The one in Falealupo? It isn't clear.

Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~1a:~~ The sentence that begins "In a worst-case scenario," sounds as if it's trying to convince the reader that this approach is superior to others. I understand that it comes from a quote by Erdmann in the source. I believe this should either be reworded or attributed as an opinion.

Thank you for catching this. This is precisely the kind of thing I hoped you would help me locate and fix during the GAN review. For this case, I've chosen to attribute the statement. Please let me know if it looks okay. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All good.

~~1b:~~ The lede mentions "the continual loss of unique island cultures". I have no doubt that's true, but I don't see it supported in the text. (The "high risk of extinction for island fauna and the decline in coral reef ecosystems" part is fully expanded in the text, however.)

Very good catch. I thought I had covered it in the body, but I did not. Reviewing my sources, I have nothing to support it. I tried finding a new source and came up blank. Therefore, I've removed the mention from the lead. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.

Minor question: The lede and body describe how Seacology efforts helped protect the Hainan black crested gibbon, "the rarest primate in the world". Is there some way we could link to the featured list The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates? That list only gives the species Eastern black crested gibbon, not the subspecies, so I don't know if there's a way these could be linked without straining the text. Still, it would be nice if it's possible.

Good idea... I added a link in the lead. Let me know if that's alright. (Btw, I'm glad to see people are aware of that list and that it's getting decent daily traffic. It was a pain to write, but very rewarding.) – VisionHolder « talk » 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.