Talk:Bazaruto Island/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 17:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article and, on a cursory inspection, close to meeting the Good Article criteria already. I will start my review shortly. simongraham (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of substantial length, with 1,974 words of readable prose.
• The lead is appropriately long at 280 words.
• Authorship is 97.1% from Generalissima with contributions from 26 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • Remove the extraneous comma and change the verb "were" to agree in "It fell … and were administered".
   • "Frequently" in "frequently raids" is an adverb but the sentence structure requires an adjective. Reword the sentence.
   • I believe it is "sank" rather than "sunk" in "the local sea level sunk".
   • I believe it is only necessary to put a comma before a conjunction when combining complete clauses so sentences like "Large beachrock outcrops emerge …, and are quarried" either need a subject in the second clause or no comma. Other instances include "It was criticized for its …, and ultimately became economically"
   • I believe it is "administered" rather than "administrated" and "administers" rather than " administrates".
   • Enclose the subclause "the only civil administrative center in the archipelago" with a final comma.
   • I believe "the" is superfluous in "the neighboring Santa Carolina".
   • Add "and" to the list "assava, millet, beans, melons".
   • Please make the subject and verb agree in "The island's small freshwater lakes provides" and I believe "of" in "a nesting ground of wetland birds" should be "for".
   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • The article complies with the relevant Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.
   • Chiundila et al 2020, Folio 2011, IUCN/UNEP 1987, McClanahan et al 2000, Newitt 1995, Reina 1998, Schleyer & Celliers 2005 and Sitoe 1999 are listed in the bibliography but not referenced.
   • Everett, Van der Elst & Schleyer 2008 is listed with chapters but they lack page numbers. This makes, for example, Van der Elst 2008a hard to relate to the correct chapter. Suggest only listing the chapters used with page numbers, potentially as separate entries.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • AGF for offline sources.
   • The majority of sources are peer-reviewed journals.
   • Crocodile Specialist Group 2004 and Dutton & Zolho 1990 are official reports produced by subject experts.
   • Waldman 1994 is from the New York Times, which is reliable for the topic.
   • Spot checks confirm Armitage et al 2006. Cooper & Pilkey 2002, Cuamba et al 2005, Downs & Wirminghaus 1997, Everett, Van der Elst & Schleyer 2008 and Motta 2008 cover the topic.

   it contains no original research;

   • The first sentence is confirmed from Armitage et al 2006 p. 297 and does not need a page range.
   • The sentence "The dominant composition of the island are yellow-white Holocene dunes" lacks a reference and seems unlikely (for example Armitage et al 2006 p. 299). Please revisit it.
   • Please clarify "sport fishers".
   • All relevant statements have inline citations.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 13.8% chance of copyright violation, which means it is unlikely. The top match is with Chiundila et al 2020 (mentioned above).

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article is compliant.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article goes into detail but is generally compliant.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The images have appropriate Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike tags.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The images are appropriate.

@Generalissima: Thank you for the nomination which was a pleasure to read and review. I had not realised you had removed the GA nomination when I started this review. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me if you would like to revisit your decision. simongraham (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Simongraham: Okay! To clarify with the unused sources, those mainly overlapped with the already in use sources, but I wanted to dig through them when I bring this up to FAC at some point in the future. I removed them for now. Everything else should be resolved; fixed the grammar errors, added page numbers to the chapters, and fixed the bit about the sand dunes. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Awesome work, Generalissima. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

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.