Talk:South-west Corner Marine Park
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Evad37 in topic Name of the "reserve", and thus the article
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 | Content of at least one revision of the associated article was derived in whole or part from non-free copyrighted material on the website http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/marine-reserves/south-west/sw-corner. This material was (prior to placement or subsequently) freely licensed in a manner compatible for Wikipedia's use by the posting of one or more compatible copyright licenses on the external website. Though the release notice for the material, which is irrevocable, may have been later removed from view, or the URL may have changed or gone dead, an archive of that webpage, including the copyright release notice, is available at http://web.archive.org/web/20131214042346/http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/marine-reserves/south-west/sw-corner For further information, see the Department of the Environment's copyright policy: http://www.environment.gov.au/node/12996 (archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20131102211052/http://www.environment.gov.au/node/12996 ). |
Name of the "reserve", and thus the article
editThe cited web page [1] does not mention "South-west Corner Commonwealth Marine Reserve". Searching from that page for South-west Corner Commonwealth Marine Reserve (no quotes) finds this list which includes "South-west Corner Marine National Park Zone II", but that's as close as I get. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place. In the interests of pedantry accuracy, it would be helpful if either:
- we had a reference that listed the name of the reserve as used by the article, or
- the article title and lead sentence matched the name of something in a ref,
whichever is appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Fixed, no need to change the article title - Evad37 [talk] 04:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Would http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/marine-reserves/south-west/sw-corner be a better (more specific) ref - for the lead sentence - than http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/marine-reserves/south-west ? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Good question, (1) if it remains the stand alone article about a single reserve that is a component of the larger range of 12 reserves - then the second is better as it alerts to the other reserves, however (2) if all the other component 11 reserves have articles created, then the first would be better. (It will be unlikely that I start 11 stubs before bedtime...) satusuro 14:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with the more specific link is that it doesn't actually have any information on it's location, and so doesn't verify "lower south west and southern coast of Western Australia". - Evad37 [talk] 15:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Good point Evad37. I've added the specific ref, and also mention of the network (keeping the network ref).
- Would http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/marine-reserves/south-west/sw-corner be a better (more specific) ref - for the lead sentence - than http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/marine-reserves/south-west ? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
