Nauru
← Older revision
Revision as of 16:22, 24 January 2017
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 361:
Line 361:
* '''Not Yet''' Being such a small island/country, I think we can do better. For example "you may see remnants of WWII" (which should be in the "See" section not "Do"). What and where are they? This is not a destination crawling with so many things to do that things like the Japanese post can be glazed over. Reading the article suggests it essentially has nothing to see/do, so why would we NOT mention the few things that do exist? To go along with that, the "See" section could use an intro of some sort, because the listings don't draw me in. This article relies too heavily on the pictures (which are too many) to speak for it. The picture of Anibare Bay shows beautiful coral jutting out of the water, but read the description of Anibare Bay. No mention of that. Instead it reads like a copy-and-paste description of what all tropical beaches are. Why? What about those phosphate mines mentioned? Can you or can't you visit there? We should know and have information. I wonder if there are any interesting flora/fauna. As I said, right now, the writing is dull and doesn't really sell the island as worth visiting. Since this is the only article for the country, I think it deserves a bit more attention before featuring. [[User:ChubbyWimbus|ChubbyWimbus]] ([[User talk:ChubbyWimbus|talk]]) 10:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
* '''Not Yet''' Being such a small island/country, I think we can do better. For example "you may see remnants of WWII" (which should be in the "See" section not "Do"). What and where are they? This is not a destination crawling with so many things to do that things like the Japanese post can be glazed over. Reading the article suggests it essentially has nothing to see/do, so why would we NOT mention the few things that do exist? To go along with that, the "See" section could use an intro of some sort, because the listings don't draw me in. This article relies too heavily on the pictures (which are too many) to speak for it. The picture of Anibare Bay shows beautiful coral jutting out of the water, but read the description of Anibare Bay. No mention of that. Instead it reads like a copy-and-paste description of what all tropical beaches are. Why? What about those phosphate mines mentioned? Can you or can't you visit there? We should know and have information. I wonder if there are any interesting flora/fauna. As I said, right now, the writing is dull and doesn't really sell the island as worth visiting. Since this is the only article for the country, I think it deserves a bit more attention before featuring. [[User:ChubbyWimbus|ChubbyWimbus]] ([[User talk:ChubbyWimbus|talk]]) 10:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
* Slush? Given the objections and the question whether they have been fully addressed should we really consider featuring this? [[User:Hobbitschuster|Hobbitschuster]] ([[User talk:Hobbitschuster|talk]]) 15:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
* Slush? Given the objections and the question whether they have been fully addressed should we really consider featuring this? [[User:Hobbitschuster|Hobbitschuster]] ([[User talk:Hobbitschuster|talk]]) 15:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
+
::Patience. Sometimes when there are a large number of problems with an article but each of them individually are relatively minor in scale, one can be led to believe that an article is in worse shape than it really is. We have several months before Nauru is due to go on the Main Page, and the prescribed fixes can be undertaken in a few hours. Slushing it would be premature at this time. -- [[User:AndreCarrotflower|AndreCarrotflower]] ([[User talk:AndreCarrotflower|talk]]) 16:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
===[[Groningen]]===
===[[Groningen]]===