Wikipedia

Talk:Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Chidgk1 in topic GA Reassessment
Learn more about this page
Former good articleEnvironmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 3, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 25, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
March 17, 2022Good article reassessmentKept
November 21, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA on hold

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This article has been placed on hold for the following reasons.

  • According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 220 metres, use 220 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 220 metres.[?]
  • According to Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: metre (B) (American: meter), ization (A) (British: isation), cosy (B) (American: cozy), program (A) (British: programme).
  • According to WP:MSH section headings should not repeat the title.

When these problems are addressed feel free to contact me. Tarret 01:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was unaware that an article could be placed on GA hold solely due to automated peer review. Nevertheless, I'm grateful for the prompt review. I believe I've put in all the non-breaking spaces that are required. I'm not sure that there are any suitable (full) dates to be linked. I've removed the Environmental threats section heading, and I submit that this article is written in Australian English, which is somewhat of a hybrid between British and American English in places. (although spelling of the non-abbreviated IMO has been retained as being the spelling of the original.)-Malkinann 06:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
While these aren't serious MOS violations this article still has potential, and while the suggestions were bot-generated they still helped to improve the article which is the purpose of the GA process. Tarret 21:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ga passed

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article has passed the GA noms, here are some more bot-generated suggestions to bring this article to FA-class:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Tarret 21:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

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.

GA Reassessment

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force, all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA. Overall the article is very good, but I have determined that this article needs some upkeep to maintain its status, have some additional comments:

  • The biggest issue appearance wise is the use of "quasi-paragraphs"—groupings of one or two sentences do not make a real paragraph. These groupings need to be expanded, merged, or cut.
  • The lead does not adequately cover the entire article; I think the second paragraph could be expanded a little more to explain what all these impacting factors actually are.
  • Some statements I do not think meet common knowledge requirements and should be sourced:
    • "Unlike most reef environments, the Great Barrier Reef is the only one worldwide where the water catchment area is home to industrialised urban areas and where extensive areas of coastal lands and rangelands have been used for agricultural and pastoral purposes."
    • "The coastline of north eastern Australia has no major rivers, (except during tropical flood events caused by tropical cyclones). It also has several major urban centres including Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton and the industrial city of Gladstone." is unsourced, but I'm guessing it's obvious enough to Aussies?
      • Futher research, embarrassingly enough, has revealed several major rivers which result in the water catchment for the GBR, but that they're only a major problem during flood/monsoonal periods. That the cities are in the GBR region should hopefully be obvious enough to Aussies and tourists alike. --Malkinann (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • In terms of organization, perhaps it would be best to group some of the related threats together (for example, predominantly or directly-human caused vs. environmental.)
    • The two main threats are at the top of the article, the others are lower down. Human-caused vs. environmental cannot be determined with some factors, for example, the COTS is a natural part of the reef ecosystem, but they are greatly exacerbated by poor water quality. Also in general, cyclones could be said to be exacerbated by climate change. --Malkinann (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • File:Sea Temperature and Bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.jpg is missing important info like author/date/source.

I am putting the article on hold for seven days pending improvements. Please keep me appraised at this space. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:10, 24 November 2009 (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.


Oil Drilling

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article briefly mentions oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef: "It was suspected that the Great Barrier Reef is the cap to an oil trap. In the 1960s and early 1970s, there was some speculation about drilling for oil and gas there."

There was a lot more than speculation; there were four wells drilled. In 1959 a Canadian company called Humber Barrier Reef Oils Pty Ltd drilled an exploratory well on Wreck Island in the Capricorn Group. Then between 1967 and 1969 three wells were drilled from offshore platforms. The first of these was the E.W.Thornton, working for the American company Gulf Oil, which drilled the Capricorn 1 well at Swain Reefs in the summer of 1967-68 in a permit area held by the Australian Oil and Gas Corporation Ltd. In the following months the same rig drilled another well twenty kilometres east; it was called Aquarius 1, perhaps an unlikely attempt to invoke a politically liberal image. Early in 1969 the Glomar Conception drilled a well at Anchor Cay in Torres Strait for an American consortium headed by Tenneco Australia Inc and Signal Pacific Coy. None of these wells found any trace of oil or gas. And oddly, none seems to have attracted much attention at the time, although they were all public knowledge. Peter Bell (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good article reassessment

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef

edit

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: kept. With one supporter (the nominator) and one opposer, this reassessment went nowhere, and should really be regarded as no consensus (defaulting to keep). I will note that while being a couple years outdated would perhaps be adequate to demote an FA, it is not a serious enough problem to remove a GA. This could become grounds for demotion in a couple more years if it remains unfixed, however. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am hoping someone will update the article as I think it is no longer good because it is out of date. But I don't know the subject. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Pbsouthwood Thanks for your comments about Sea surface temperature. I know this is a long way from your sea but have you time to also comment in this community reassessment? No Australians have commented yet so I wonder if I have messed up something technical with where I put this. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately no one has come here from the Australia and Queensland projects. If no one else comments I will very soon delist as out of date so no longer addresses the main aspects of the topic. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Chidgk1 What information is missing that is sufficiently important to justify a delist? Why would you expect Australians to be aware of this reassessment? Please try to fix before threatening to delist good articles. It is fair enough to delist if there are multiple issues that you cannot fix, but this is Wikipedia and we all should try to fix what we think is broken, particularly since you appear to have specific references which you consider should be used. If you are not confident in your subject knowledge, propose the changes you think should be made on the talk page, If no-one responds to that after a week or so, leave a message on the talk pages of the associated projects, If you still get no response, fix the problem as you see best, and explain in an edit summary, referring to the talk page proposal. If you don't know what should be changed, you probably shouldn't be delisting. Also, this is a GA, the criteria for completeness and up-to-dateness are less stringent that for FA. Ideally, you would fix what you think needs fixing, and then take the article through GAN to make sure you have done a good job. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I am not going to fix this article. However my comment above is wrong because this is a community reassessment so I cannot delist myself unlike an individual reassessment. I notified Wikiproject Australia some time ago. If you (or anyone else who would like to comment) would like to say whether you think it is still good or not then I would be interested to hear. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

My opinion is delist because the lead is relying a lot on a 2014 report and a 2016 article, whereas a lot more recent info is available. And nowadays there should be more info added about the recent politics e.g. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/great-barrier-reef-election-battle-brews-amid-fears-of-more-coral-bleaching-20220107-p59mmj.html Chidgk1 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2022 (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.

GA Reassessment

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Although the last reassessment was earlier this year, since then a new government has been elected and has had time to consider this subject. I hope someone comes forward to update this article as there seem to be plenty of recent sources for this important topic. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I notified several projects and people but no one has come forward yet. Specifically the article at the moment does not meet number 3 of the good article criteria which says a good article should be:

"Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

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

I won't do any more tagging of specifics as I tagged quite a lot several months ago. I am sure you can see a lot more problems yourselves but an example of a section which should have less detail and more summary style is the dumping section, which goes into too much detail about one particular dumping permit. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately no response so failed Chidgk1 (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_threats_to_the_Great_Barrier_Reef&oldid=1252007814"