# Talk:Réunion National Park

Hi, I wanted to review this article for GA but I noticed that the nominator @Tylototriton: has not been active for a few weeks. Is there anyone else who can work with me on Tylototriton's behalf while I review the article? The article looks ripe for promotion but there might be a few concerns here and there that need to be addressed before a decision is made. Cheers, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 13:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@ComputerJA:, it would be great if you could review this article! I'm in a somewhat busy phase ATM, so it might take me a while to make any changes, but I will respond. Thanks! Tylototriton (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Réunion National Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ComputerJA (talk · contribs) 13:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


### Review
Initial comments: Hi, I'll be happy to review this article. I took a look at the articles and I think this is ripe for promotion. The layout, prose, and sources look great. My review usually consists of two parts. In my first part, I will review the article's prose and post any suggestions/mistakes that need to be addressed. In my second part, I will try to go through every source and make sure the information is attributed correctly. I cannot read French but I can use Google Translate or my Spanish skills (if that is of any help) to go through the texts. I'm also thinking of doing a courtesy archiving of the sources by using WayBack Machine, WebCite, or Archive.is. Let me know if you're interested in this and I will archive the sources once the GA review concludes. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this! I look forward to reviewing the article. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 13:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, saw your comments and copyediting, thanks a lot! Will work on it but give me one or two weeks... Tylototriton (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Tylototriton: Will do. I will put the review on hold. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 13:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@ComputerJA: Went through your review and made changes. Very constructive, thanks a lot! Tylototriton (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, just to say, I also inserted a gallery of endemic species instead of the rather dull picture of the "petit mahot". Tylototriton (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


#### Part 1
Here is the first part of my review. I made several corrections and I was reading the article, so please go back and check them and see if I made any mistake or changes you disagree with. Most of these improvements below are minor; feel free to disagree with any of them you think I'm wrong in. Thanks! Part 2 coming later. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 19:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I agree with most of your suggestions! Tylototriton (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
should be created in Les Hauts – I would link it per WP:REDLINK using Les Hauts
Done.
The French Ministry of the Environment was officially asked for the creation – I would say officially consulted for the creation of the park.
Done.
the French Prime Minister signed a decree – does the source say who it is? Below you mentioned the President so I guess you can add this guy too. I could not find the person in the source so you may have to add another that cites him/her
The source does not say who it was, and I don't think it's relevent anough to include another source... I only mentioned the president as he was mentioned in the respective source.
On 1 August 2010, the UNESCO World Heritage committee – please link UNESCO World Heritage Committee and capitalize c.
Done.
Brasilia – accent on the í
Upon re-reading I actually thought it's not really relevant where the session took place, so I removed that part.
Pitons, cirques and remparts of Reunion Island – accent on the é in Reunion
Done.
identifies four great objectives – I would change great to main per WP:WEASEL
Done.
Two volcanos form its backbone – should be volcanoes since it is plural.
Done.
Mare Longue forest – link to the French article using the template above.
Done.
Forêt de bois de couleur des Bas – the article says it is the same, but French Wikipedia has a separate article. I would say link both and just remove the parenthesis and add comas.
According to the French articles, "Mare Longue" is the forest as a geographic place, and "Forêt de bois de couleur des Bas" is a vegetation type. Tried to make this clear and linked both.
Cirque de Salazie – link to German Wikipedia (a bit surprised this was in here but not in the French one!)
For both Cirque de Cilaos and Cirque de Salazie, there actually is a redirect to the respective communes on English Wikipedia. This is not perfect, but I still linked them.
Piton d'Anchaing – link using French article
Done.
Grande Chaloupe – La Grande Chaloupe
Linked.
semi-evergreen forest – Semi-deciduous
Linked.
Mauritius and Rodrigues – links for these too
Done.
All three islands have been uninhabited before the 1600s – were uninhabited before the 1600s
Reworded.
Less than 25% of Réunion is thought to be covered with original vegetation – According to whom? Feel free to put According to X, or "covered" only
Added "according to the World Wildlife Fund".
Madagascar and Indian Ocean Islands – I do not think this should be italicized. I went through the source and checked online as well. Correct me if I am wrong.
Put this and "Mascarene Forests" in citation marks as they seem to be fixed geographic terms.
Plaine des Sables – link to French article.
Done.


#### Part 2
Text seems to check out with the sources. Several links were dead, but I made sure to retrieve them with WayBack Machine. I decided to archive the rest using either this archive tool, WebCite, or Archive.is. I only have one concern with the sourcing. The infobox has a citation, which violates WP:INFOBOX, which states that citations should not be in the infobox. Make sure the "maximum integrated area" and "Governing body	: Parcs nationaux de France" claims are cited in the body paragraphs, since all information in the infobox has to be cited elsewhere. Once you're done with that, I can red link Parcs nationaux de France since there's only a French article. Thanks, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 23:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for archiving the sources. I removed the ref for the area from the infobox (it's referenced under "Geography"). Did not really find a specific reference for the governing body, but since all national parks in France are governed by Parcs nationaux de France, don't know if this really needs a citation, since it's an easily verifiable fact? Tylototriton (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)