Talk:Qianliyan Island

China Low‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islands

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

There's an article from a national foreign-language newspaper and a scholarly article on a nationally protected area at the site

@Cortador: What precisely to do you have a problem with? You think the island is imaginary? or you think the New York Times needs to mention it? or what? Again, it's a notable place regardless but "add cites" isn't the actual process for questioning notability in the first place.

Or are there specific facts in the article that need better sourcing? Which ones? — LlywelynII 17:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One source is a report mentioning the island in passing, the other one is about water measurements, not the island itself. The sources are insufficient, hence the tag. A bunch of other information, like the infobox data, information about the lighthouse, seafood etc. also isn't sourced. Cortador (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cortador: The sources are entirely sufficient. Reread WP:NATFEAT. Any discussion of geographical features beyond gazetteer information indicates worthiness for treatment beyond inclusion on a list page, beyond which these sources are—as mentioned—reliable and used to source the info in the article. Even if it weren't, again, it's the wrong template for questioning the topic's notability.

The seafood is cited, as is the information in the infobox. (There are policies against citing a single source over and over for each separate sentence, but it falls under that Xie cite at the end.) The lighthouse is from Wikidata and could use a fact tag, but isn't a reason for a general tag over the whole article. — LlywelynII 18:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]