Talk:Strandzha Nature Park

A fact from Strandzha Nature Park appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 April 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Strandzha Nature Park (pictured) is the largest protected area in Bulgaria, covering over 1% of the nation's territory?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Strandzha Nature Park.

Wikipedia

Strandzha Nature Park has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 15, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Bulgaria High‑importance

	Bulgaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria 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.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Congratulations

Congratulations on making it to today's listing on the "Did You Know..." section of Wikipedia Main Page. The process of making it the listing takes a bit of effort and involves the quick cooperation of many editors. All involved deserve recognition, appreciation, thanks and applause.

Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 14:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent issues with the park

First of all, I want to congratulate the principal author, Gligan, as well. The pictures in this article bewitched me, leading me to translate it to my language (sl:Naravni park Strandža) as a contribution towards this year's Wikimedia CEE Spring initiative. I did some Google digging however, that uncovered several issues with the park's current conservation status, not the least of which is the fact that it's been without a management plan for 20 years now. The article would much benefit from adding a section on current legal issues. I invite the author or other contributors to translate the chapter "Legal and conservation status" ("Pravni in varstveni status") that I added to :slwiki's version. Google Translate should help, and there are many good sources available because it seems this has been quite a controversial subject in Bulgaria for the past 10 years. — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Id4abel (talk · contribs) 02:06, 12 February 2016 (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

Done The prose is very good, just needs some minor, grammatical and such, editing. Abel (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Went ahead and fixed the errors, please check to make sure all the convert templates have the right distance values.Abel (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for editing the text - prose is among my weak traits and the main reason I don't review other GA nominations. --Gligan (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to be of help.Abel (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Some references have errors. Abel (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Went ahead and fixed the errors, please check and make sure I got the names right. Abel (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have got all names right. I only corrected the link to the article of Vasil Gyuzelev. --Gligan (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even better.Abel (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Climate box needs a source. Abel (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As I normally look at the good articles being nominated, particularly geography and earth sciences, I would like to the point out that the climate box is unsourced. There should be a numbered reference after the source (not simply "source=stringmeteo.org") pointing to the data directly (or at least point you to a navigation page that will display the climate data) as using that one takes you to the main page, not to the data. A good example would be this example where the numbered references take you either to the data directly or to a navigation page that will display the climate data. I suggest finding it or removing it. Normally I would fix this on my own but I don't understand any Bulgarian. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found data for Malko Tarnovo in stringmeteo.org and put it into the table instead of the data for Ahtopol. --Gligan (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Ssbbplayer wants is the newest version of Kichukova M., 1983, Climate Guide of Bulgaria, National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Volume 3. Clearly there is a newer volume as the data includes 1985. Just copy and paste the English of the newest version of that publication and I can help you with the citation formatting. Abel (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now, the temperature data is from the climate guide and the precipitation data is from the website. Added a citation for the climate guide so that they are now both cited together.Abel (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for very much for improving the citation. And I would like to use the opportunity to once again express my gratitude for your work on the prose and, of course, for promoting the article. Best regards, --Gligan (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]