Talk:Divjakë-Karavasta National Park

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Divjakë-Karavasta National Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yakikaki (talk · contribs) 20:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I will start the review of this article soon. Yakikaki (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Initial comments

I will start by saying I appreciate that this article has been brought to the GA review process. An article about a national park is in my eyes a priori an important subject that deserves attention and high quality. At the moment, the article is however quite far from passing a GA review. It clearly does not live up the criteria numbers 1b, 4, and 6. I will list my initial, overarching concerns about these issues below, and leave the nominator time to address these issues. If we can solve these issues, I will later go into a more detailed review of the finer points in the article.

1b: The article does not comply will MOS:LEAD, which it has to do in order to be accepted as a Good Article. As stated in MOS:LEAD, “The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.” At the moment, the lead contains several claims that don’t appear in the article text. The last two paragraphs in particular introduce subjects that are not even touched upon in the later text. The article is also full of puffery. I can off the cuff, just by browsing the article, see “containing remarkable features”, “an immense quality”, “extremely rare”, “It is also known for the beauty of its natural landscape”, “unique”, “admirable”, “astounding”, “iconic”. A few of these may be warranted is backed up by reliable sources, but all together they are a structural problem in the article. This issue has to be addressed.

4: Related with the above, the Dalmatian pelican is in the lead of the article described as “globally endangered” and in the last section as “endangered”. However, the IUCN classifies the bird as Near Threatened, which is two steps “better” than Endangered. So this goes beyond puffery and is a misrepresentation of facts. I was also surprised to find the red fox described as endangered in this inconsistent passage: “globally endangered red fox, which is the most common and widespread fox species in the world”. Then there are a few cases that are perhaps between puffery and breaking against WP:NPOV; e.g. the description of the golden jackal as “rare” without any citations (rare how? Globally? In Albania? In the park?) or the description of the pelican (again) as “endemic” (which is manifestly wrong, just look at the range map). But I’m more concerned about the last paragraph of the lead. This describes a (classical) conflict between the interests of nature conservation and the interests of money-making. But (a) it is completely unsupported by any sources, and for a clearly controversial claim like this that’s frankly unacceptable for Wikipedia standards. And (b) the reader is left in the dark about any details about the nature of this conflict. What are those plans? Are they concrete plans or just an idea? What do the authorities say? How is it a threat to the park? IS it a threat to the park? I bet you’ll get different answers, depending on whom you ask. So either elaborate this, preferably in a section of its own, and provide good and reliable sources for it, or leave it out all together (which would be a shame but would not hinder the article from reaching GA status).

6: Two of the pictures are not from the national park, which will be very confusing to the reader. In a case like this, readers will naturally assume that pictures of trees and birds in the article are from the park. There ARE pictures of the famous pelican from the park; why not use one of those?

There are also other issues with the article, e.g. concerning criterion 1a, but as I mentioned above, if the nominator will address the other issues first we can take on these details later. An alternative is pulling the article from the GA nomination. I can quick fail it, you can re-work it and re-nominate it when it’s closer to passing. Your choice. There’s a bit of work to be done here, in any case. But if you’re willing to put your mind to it, the article can certainly get to GA status. Let me know your thoughts. Best regards, Yakikaki (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC) rework on the article and and then

First of all, thank you for your review and i agree with your comments. As you said, I think its a good idea to pull the article from the nomination and nominate it again at a later time after some corrections and so on.--Lorik17 (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

.Okey dokey, we'll do like that then. And don't worry, you know you can re-nominate it at any time. I think it has potential! Stay well, Yakikaki (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you a lot, have a good day! :)--Lorik17 (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)