Talk:Niue Nukutuluea Multiple-Use Marine Park/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: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 21:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is clear and professional, and the article satisfies the required section of MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The article contains to published sources. The claims are consistently supported by citations to reliable published sources. I don't see any original research or inappropriate synthesis; the claims seem straightforwardly backed by the sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article's coverage is generally focused and doesn't stray into trivia or tangentially related matters, but I wonder about the External Links. Are the "Niue Moana Mahu Marine Protected Area Regulations" relevant enough to link to here? It seems odd to include them but not the analogous laws for the other parts of the larger marine park, and probably it should all just be summarized in the body. I also don't know that we need the government press release, though it could perhaps be used as a source to cover the government's stated aims and purpose in establishing the protected area. I'm open to being convinced that these links add to the article, but at present I'm not seeing it.

   I'd also like to see more detail in a couple of areas to achieve broad coverage. The Geography section would benefit from a clearer description of the shape and extent of the EEZ (and, thus, the park): it should briefly mention that an EEZ normally extends 200 nautical miles from shore (I believe?), and the odd shape of the EEZ in the infobox image suggests that it's bumping up against those of some surrounding island states, which would also be worth mentioning ("extends for 200 nautical miles, except where it is bordered on the northeast by the EEZ of ...").

   If I'm understanding correctly, this article is trying to also be the article about the two smaller protected areas boldfaced in the lead section? If so, then the Geography section also needs a description of the sizes, shapes, and positions of those portions ("Beveridge Reef Nukutulueatama Special Management Area covers an area of XXX and is located XX nautical miles southeast of Niue proper ...").

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article's coverage of the topic is suitably neutral, not e.g. exaggerating the park's importance or trying to encourage tourism.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article is stable and has not been substantially changed since its creation.

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images are relevant and helpful and have suitable licenses. I wish the SVG map of the different protection zones in the infobox could have some more explanation of its different parts, but the caption in the infobox probably isn't the place for that sort of detail, so I've asked for it in the "Geography" section above.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I've made some notes about coverage and focus; the rest of the criteria appear to be satisfied! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

   Thanks for looking at this. With regards to the external links, I often add primary sources there that I feel are relevant, as I find them useful yet also try to avoid citing them directly in articles if possible (WP:PRIMARY). With regards to the Protected Area Regulations document, I find it meets the "amount of detail" consideration of WP:ELYES, and do not see a need to include it directly in the article due to secondary sources summarising it (no fishing, no mining). Regarding the government press release, I found it also a useful primary source sharing government opinion at the time of the announcement, but also would not want to cite it directly due to its obvious POV. Regarding "odd to include them but not the analogous laws for the other parts of the larger marine park", very true, sadly I have not found them yet.

   Re the EEZ shape, this is doable with some general citations about Niue's EEZ (not directly citing the park but don't think there would be any particular SYNTH concerns). Regarding the smaller area, this is doable with primary sources (I'm sure they'll be in secondary sources one day too, but it is a relatively new piece of legislation in an obscure part of the world). CMD (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

   Fair enough; I'd be happier about the law if the others like it were also present, but I won't insist. To be clear, I said that the press release could be cited to show what the government's stated purpose or intention was, in which case bias would be irrelevant. Yes, I don't think it's a problematic sort of synthesis to take the fact (already present and supported) that the park fills the entire EEZ, combine that with a source about the shape and size of the Niue EEZ, and use it to describe the shape and size of the park. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

   I have moved both external links discussed into the body, the legislation one to define the Moana Mahu Beveridge Reef areas, and the second one to as suggested provide the Niuean Government position. I have also written up the boundaries of the EEZ. These can be seen in this diff, please let me know if I have missed anything or if any further changes would be helpful. CMD (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

   That's much better! I'm satisfied that the article now covers what I would expect to learn from it. I'm approving this article for GA. Great work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2023 (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.