Talk:Øvre Pasvik National Park/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Hi, I'll review this article. It looks very good, skimming through it, so I expect no problems. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

review

• "is located south-east in Pasvikdalen in southern Sør-Varanger, Norway." - does "south-east refer to where it is in Pasvikdalen? i.e. it's in south-east Pasvikdalen? Or is something else meant?
  • Rephrased. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "the adjacent Øvre Pasvik Landscape Protection Area, Pasvik Nature Reserve, the Russian part of the nature reserve and Finland's Vätsäri Wilderness Area." - does this mean that Øvre Pasvik Landscape Protection Area, Pasvik Nature Reserve is the Russian part?

• perhaps use () like:

"Øvre Pasvik is part of Pasvik–Inari Trilateral Park along with the adjacent Øvre Pasvik Landscape Protection Area, Pasvik Nature Reserve (the Russian part of the nature reserve) and Finland's Vätsäri Wilderness Area. ?

• • Rephrased to specify that Pasvik Nature Reserve is bilateral. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "supplemented with bog." - adjacent to? along with? intertwined with? along with?
  • Intertwined sounds good. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "eastern border crosses through Ivergammevatnet, Revsaksfjellet and Ødevatn" - perhaps you could briefly identify what these are? (I realized later they are lakes, but to the non-Norwegian reader all these name become confusing)
  • Good point. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• since geology is the "study of", changed to "rock compostion" - ok?
  • Sure, thanks for specifying that. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "This again led to lack of moraines" - don't understand what "again" refers to.
  • Rephrased. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "There are some spread non-vegetated flat screes" - don't understand this sentence.
  • Reworded. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "after 1945 the population on the Russian side was forcefully moved and the area depopulated" - passive voice - who forcefully moved them? (per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch))
  • Specified who. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Pasvikelva regulated for hydroelectricity from the 1940s" - was regulated - by (whom)?
  • Added a little. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The proposal was official issued to the Ministry of Agriculture" - not grammatical
  • Fixed Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "but they halted the prosess as they principally were opposed to all forms of conservation as they wanted all natural resources to be exploited." - who is "they" - also kind of a runon sentence
  • Replaced "they" with "ministry" and merged the first part of the sentence with the previous. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "in his death year of 1951" - unusual wording - perhaps "in 1951, the year of his death,"?
  • In retrospect it was a very "Norwegian" way of formulating myself. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• " with the proposal of building a highway" - with the proposal to build? (more grammatical)
  • Thanks. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "highway up Pasvikdalen to Ivalo, Finland, which would run through the protected area. " - not quite clear to me
  • Removed the latter bit as it doesn't really seem necessary. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(will continue)

• "The forest has a very slow life cycle, giving typical tree ages of between 300 and 400 year; the oldest recorded tree was 820 years." - perhaps "The age of a typical tree is between 300 and 400 year; the oldest recorded tree is 820 years as of 2012." - "was" indicates the typical tree age of 820 years is no longer true.
  • Ah, that was because the tree age was recorded in 1896—information which I will add. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "young trees are often killed by moose during winter" - how do moose kill huge trees?
  • Explained. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The park has been hit regularly by wildfire" - "hit" doesn't seem encyclopedic to me
  • Replaced with "stricken". Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "As the pine trees do not have low-laying branches, the fires will normally spread along the ground, killing any young trees." - don't understand
  • Rephrased to attempt to explain better. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "killing any young trees." - should this be "all young trees"
  • Per above. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The slow growth any forest fire can kill tens of generations of trees" - needs rewording
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "but the remaining ashes give good conditions for young trees, giving an uneven age distribution of spruce" - does this mean that spruce is taking over the pine forests? (has spruce been mentioned before in the article?)
  • Sorry, that should be pine (I even noticed that before getting to this bullet). Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• " None of the islands in Ellensvatn have had fires, giving a unique forest composition. - unique in what way?

• perhaps remind the reader that Ellensvatn is a lake?

• The source does not specify beyond stating that the biosphere is different. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Norway Spruce mentioned for the first time.

• "The lack of spruce is caused by a combination of wildfire and frost as late as June" - unclear - lack of wldfire as late as June? Or should it be "The lack of spruce is caused by a combination of frost as late as June and wildfire.
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Is all spruce Norway Spruce? or are there other spruces there also?
  • I'm no biologist and the source is using the term "gran". no:gran links to "Norway Spruce" (and not "spruce") and as far as I am aware there are no other species of spruce in the area. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• " Pasvik is one of very few areas in Norway with Laxmann's Shrew." - in Norway where Laxmann's Shrew is found. ?
  • Yes, better. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The park is permitted used for reindeer husbandry," - not grammatical - The park permits reindeer husbandry? - who gives the permits? the park? the government?
  • Rephrased from passive. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "All but the latter have arrived since the last glacial period from Lake Inari, where they ultimately came from the Baltic Sea, which at that time consisted of fresh water." - runon sentence - maybe make two sentences out of it? - not sure how to fix it.
  • Rephrased and a bit shorter, so the run-on shouldn't be an issue. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The trout came up Pasvikdalen about 8000 BC" is Pasvikdalen a river also?
  • Should be Pasvikelven. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The national park has not been organized for recreation." - but then the article describes canoeing, boating, skiiing, walking, camping, hunting, fishing ....
  • Rephrased to make it clear what is meant, although the original wording is closer to the source. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've made some edits that you're free to change.[1]
  • Thanks, Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'll put the article on hold.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the thorough review; the feedback is most appreciated. I have seen to all your comments except one, which I did not understand and which way have been made irrelevant by the misrepresentation of pine as spruce. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I made a few more copy edits which as always you are free to change.[2]
• I left a note on your page re "Eventually seven power stations were built which regulated the entire fall height in the river." I don't know what "regulated entire fall height in the river" means. Can you clarify?

• I will trust that you will do so. Everything else looks great.

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)