Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Caroline Island

Caroline Island[edit]

Self-nomination. Since creating this article about two years ago, I've developed it up to a point of rather remarkable comprehensiveness for such an obscure and unsung corner of the world. It's presently a good article, and having gone through peer review, and many rounds of being inflicted upon folks in the IRC channel for comment I feel that it's ready for the next step and for the worthy nitpickers of WP:FAC. -- Seth Ilys 03:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Superb article. Rebecca 03:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Minor object~~ a few easy fixes

The lead could be a beter summary, for example shouldn't the lead mention that the islands are uninhabited, and how does "near pristine" fit with the cited fact that much South islet was deforested to make way for coconut palms?

Actually, the lead does mention that the islands are uninhabited, and sources are uniformly consistent in calling Caroline one of the most untouched islands in the world. However, I've reworded the introduction to mention human impact on the islands, which is an important part of their history, and to clarify that Caroline is "relatively" untouched I also moved the "near pristine" quote down to the flora/fauna section. (I was never thrilled with it in the introduction, but your comment finally helped me figure out where it should go.) Any additional hands at polishing the intro would be welcome. -- Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the non-geographer, an expalnation of how several islets are considered a single island would be useful.

This is well-explained in coral atoll, but I've also added a clause to the geography section noting the common origin of all the islets. -- Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article also says that there are 40 islets, the intro on the list says 39.

The article actually said "around 40," but I've corrected to the precise 39, the number given by the Kepler survey, which was the most recent and most detailed. - Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islet sizes are given in km² and others in Ha, a consistent unit would be good.

Converted all areas in the main article to km² - Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Peta 04:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, thanks for fixing those so quickly.--Peta 06:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ Support. Peta raises a good point. And, if you want nitpicking, I would like to ask that Imperial units be inlcuded after metric ones, for all of us in the United States who don't use the metric system. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 05:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to do this, but I've made another pass through the article and found a few places I previously missed. Let me know if you notice any remaining instances where I've neglected to include imperial units. -- Seth Ilys 05:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's accounted for, and I have accordingly changed my vote. Thank you for your promptness in these changes. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there some reason the map and pictures of celebration are external jump and not in footnote/refs?Rlevse 12:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those two links are immediately relevant to the portion of the article where they occur and I felt like it would be most useful to readers to have them within the body of article text; however, I've now duplicated them within the "external links" section as well. Does this satisfy your concern? -- Seth Ilys 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, in this case, yes. Rlevse 16:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And thanks for your improvements to the article as well! -- Seth Ilys 17:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I threw out my object vote... I modified some of the conversions on the page to be a lottle bit more precise, so now i'm all for this article.

Daniel: It would be useful to know precisely which conversions you are referring to. Some of the figures in the article I have quoted as approximate (such as distance to neighboring islands or the overall dimensions of the atoll) because sources disagree and I would rather be accurate but less precise than precise but less accurate. Let me know which ones you find deficient and I'll be happy to improve them. -- Seth Ilys 19:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan: You mention that some of the metric/imperial conversions are done "approximately or inaccurately." The reasons that some of the figures may appear approximate is that the original measurements are approximate. Sources disagree, for instance, on the precise north-south dimension of the island, which I have quoted as "9 km (6 mi)" -- I have done so because then both units have the same degree of precision (significant figures). Likewise, the maximum elevation of the islands above sea level (6 meters) is an approximate figure and does not warrant a precise conversion (which is why I used the round figure of 20 feet rather than 19.7, as you have done.

Furthermore, I believe that your attempts to "correct" my area conversions are also somewhat misguided. 1.04 km^2, for instance, is actually equal to 0.40 mi^2, as can be verified by Google's calculator tools. I believe that your changes actually decrease the accuracy of the article, and therefore request that you revert them to my original figures. -- Seth Ilys 19:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: User:Simetrical has done so. Thanks. - Seth Ilys 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support – as reviewed in WP:PR. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I did some copyediting and passed it for WP:GA over an month ago, the article is very good Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. However I am curious about the fact that the atoll is considered pristine, what with so many introduced species stil present. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources (cited in the article) are consistent about naming Caroline Island as pristine, although I tried to indicate (whenever such a statement is made in the article) that 1) this is a relative assessment, and 2) there was a significant amount of human impact. I'll see if I can't tweak those bits to make it clearer. -- Seth Ilys 12:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - doesn't need anything further done to it (I fixed a typo!). Superb. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]