Talk:Shebenik National Park

Shebenik National Park was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 10, 2020). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shebenik National Park article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Albania High‑importance

	Shebenik National Park is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania 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. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shebenik-Jabllanicë National Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 00:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lead is way too long. At four sizable paragraphs, it is at the length limits for a lead in general, but the article is not very long
Some copyvio
- From here:
  - Elevations in the park vary from 300 metres to over 2,200 metres above the Adriatic at the peak of Shebenik
  - Two rivers flow and multiple smaller water sources flow through the park's area including the rivers of Qarrishte and Bushtrice, both of which are 22 km long.
  - The forests are home to a number of different rare and endemic species of plants, mammals and fungi.
  - were later filled by melt water and rain. They vary considerably in their size
- From here:
  - On 21 April 2011, the Protection and Preservation of Natural Environment of Albania research team got the first photo of an alive balkan lynx
Article appears stable, talk and history suggest no conflicts
Infobox good
Several nice images, but their layout could be improved
The two Commons Categories could be consolidated, so only one box needs to be showed
A variety of sources that look generally fine
Several parts are missing citations:
- The entire Flora section
- Several paragraphs of the Geography section
  - In addition, most of the parts of this section with references are to the Slavčo Hristovski, Borislav Guéorguiev, Trajče Mitev, Gjorge Ivanov, Martina Trajkovska source, which I'm not sure contains all the information it's supposed to be citing
- Quite a few sentences at the end of paragraphs in Ecosystems and Fauna
In terms of coverage, this giant national park could and should easily have details on its history, tourism, and much more detail on e.g. geology of the mountains. There's none of this.

Overall[edit]

Quickfail - does not meet several criteria: coverage, referencing, prose to a lesser extent, and, importantly, copyright. Kingsif (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]