Jump to content

Talk:Vätsäri Wilderness Area

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleVätsäri Wilderness Area has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 14, 2012Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 6, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Vätsäri Wilderness Area in Lapland, which covers an area of 1,550 square kilometers (600 sq mi), includes taiga forests of Scots Pine and thousands of small lakes (pictured)?

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vätsäri Wilderness Area/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Hi, I'll review this! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

The article is fine. I just have a few questions about the wording. I've made some edits that you're free to revert:[1]

  • "fish planting"? - introduce fish?
  • "planting of fish" - stocking with fish?
  • "The freedom to roam grants everyone the right " - this "right" is a law or what?
    • It is both a cultural norm, a common practice and it is codified. It applies throughout the Nordic Countries, not just in designated protected areas. Its a bit like the term "private property", although it may be codified, the concept is much broader and older than the laws which govern it. My point in the article was that these rights are governed at a higher level than just being enforced by law in the wilderness area. Arsenikk (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I'll put the article on hold. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and comments. Everything should be looked into now. Arsenikk (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a few more minor edits[2] which you're free to revert.

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, summary style 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:
    Pass!