Talk:Matsalu National Park

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Estonia High‑importance Matsalu National Park is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : WikiProject Estonia/Missing articles Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (See Category:Unassessed Estonia articles) Infobox : Add infoboxes to articles without it Maintain : Portal:Estonia Photo : Upload and/or add a photo to articles without it (See Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Estonia) Stubs : Add info to stub-articles and check for start-class. Protected areas High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Museum#Natural history|Natural History Museum]] Anchor Museum#Natural history links to a specific web page: Natural history. The anchor (#Natural history) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Matsalu National Park/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 20:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am reviewing this article, and before I forget:

• This reference is dead http://www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_co-operation/environment/nature_and_biological_diversity/ecological_networks/the_european_diploma/Matsalu.asp#TopOfPage (ref 16 I think).
• I replaced another dead link with the Web Archive version (ref 14, I think.)
• Also, I am doing some copy editing of the article, mostly to reduce the choppiness by combining paras. Feel free to revert any errors I introduce.
• Under History, the first two paras begin with "Scientific research in Matsalu", so one of the para beginnings needs to be reworded for variety.
• The last caption reads in part "Old concrete bridge over Kasari River, at the easternmost border of Matsalu National Park. Built in 1904, it was the longest concrete bridge in the world at that time (308 metres (1,010 ft))" - do you have a reference for that? I don't see one in the article.
• Please have a look at the Lead and make sure it is a summary of the article, per
  WP:Lead
  .

Otherwise, although the article is short, it seems to cover the important elements. Xtzou (Talk) 20:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for reviewing the article. I will implement some of the suggestions now, but otherwise I will be away until Monday.

• I replaced the dead COE link - previous was to a news release, current is to the resolution.
• Added source to the bridge being longest in the world when it was built. Strange, I could swear I had a source when I inserted the image.
• Reworded the start of the second paragraph in History

--Sander Säde 06:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice work! Xtzou (Talk) 13:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clearly and concisely written

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of the MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Sets the context

   B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   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!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 13:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]