Talk:Booby Island (Saint Kitts and Nevis)/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

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 23:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Very close to GA quality - just needs a few tweaks. This will make for a hilarious DYK. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Pi.1415926535, I replied to a few points below. Otherwise, I've implemented all of the suggestions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, no issues with any of your replies. I always like doing GA reviews for somewhat-obscure topics like this. Great work! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and lede

• The infobox and the geography section should use the same units - I would recommend the hectacres/acres used in the prose.
• Hatnote is not needed per MOS:NAMB
• While the island is about equidistant from Saint Kitts and Nevis, it's near the east end of the channel, so describing it as the midpoint isn't accurate. I would reword the second sentence to something like It is located in The Narrows, the channel between the islands of Saint Kitts and Nevis, about midway between the two.
• The wording of the fourth sentence is a bit vague; I would suggest The island is designated as an Important Bird Area by BirdLife International to protect its bird population.

Geography

• Move the second paragraph above the first (and likely combine them per comments below)
• I don't see a need to mention the coral shoal unless it is associated with Booby Island, and the information about Cow Island can be condensed.
  • I'm not sure how to condense the Cow Island information without creating an inaccurate picture. Removing the measurements will likely create the impression that it's much bigger than it actually is.
• Remove "across" after "(125 feet)"
• It's worth mentioning what rocks make up the island, but the chemical composition isn't needed unless it's particularly noteworthy.
  • It's not hugely important, but it's also one of the only things published about the physical island itself. For now I've trimmed it to the most common material.

Biodiversity

• I would consider naming the section as "flora and fauna" or similar - "biodiversity" generally refers to the amount of variation
• Also consider moving the plant/mammal sentence to the Geography section and having this section just be about birds.
• Left-align the image - it's currently pushed completely out of this section by the infobox - and add alt text
• When was it designated as an Important Bird Area?
  • Unclear. I found some sources mentioning 2007, but it could have been earlier.
• No need for the identification code
• Move the sentence about the boobies to the second paragraph, and perhaps move the sentences about the fragility and/or lack of protections to the first paragraph
• Does the island get its name from the booby population? If so, can that be added?
  • The source only says that the pelicans are called boobies.
• Merge the two sentences about the number of nesting pairs.

Human interaction

• The sentence starting Since 2008 needs to be split or reworded - currently the last clause is awkwardly placed
• Neither source supports the claim that shark attacks are rare. I would consider removing everything up to "documented" in that sentence.
• Add an "external links" section with {{commons category inline}}

'

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

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

   Passed reference check

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.