Talk:Desert of Maine/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 22:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The prose standard is fine, and the article complies with the relevant section of MoS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The article includes references to published sources. The citations were a bit of a mess, with one source duplicated three times, newspaper writers misnamed, and many different citation styles; it would have been better to clean up the citations before nominating this for GA. ~~I've tidied them up, but all of the journal articles should have links or DOIs added for the sake of verifiability.~~ There's a major plagiarism hit, but from the chronology it appears to be another site that ripped off this article.

The first sentence in "Tourism" says that the Desert has been a tourist attraction for "over 100 years", but the source cited says since 1925, which is less than one hundred years ago, and which also disagrees with the assertion at the end of "History" that it was made into a tourist attraction in 1926 (I can't read the NYT article to see what it has to say). The "Sifting History's Sands Source" also says 1925, and it say the land was purchased for $300, not the $400 figure that is again cited to the NYT. This should be cleared up.

Likewise, the "Surficial Geology" source says that the isostatic rebound caused parts of what is now Maine to be underwater until "About 13,000 years ago", but the article says that coastal Maine was uncovered by the sea "by about 13,500 years ago". I'm not seeing where the "by 13.5 ka" detail comes from in the other two sources cited, either, though I can only see their abstracts. Details like these need to be reconciled with the sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article doesn't stray into trivia or tangentially related topics. I'd like to see one more basic detail covered, if it is known: When did the site start to be called "The Desert of Maine"? (I would guess when it started to be promoted as a tourist attraction after the Goldrup purchase?) This would also be a good point at which to include in the body the fact (currently stated in the lead without a citation) that the land isn't a genuine "desert" but is called that promotionally because of its sandy appearance. You could cite the fact to some sort of climate reference data, such as you might find here or here.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article is suitably neutral, not overblowing or advocating for the site.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
The article is stable and has not changed significantly since being nominated.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The infobox image is suitable and has an appropriate license. The article would benefit from more images, perhaps one illustrating the variety of tourist attractions found at the site today for the "Tourism" section. There's quite a selection in the Commons category; I like File:Desert of Maine - Freeport, ME - IMG 7926.JPG, but I'm open to the nominator's ideas.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
There are a couple of details I'd like to see added to the body, and I'm concerned by a pattern of details in the text not quite lining up with the sources I can see. All of the scientific sources need some sort of URL or DOI added to them for verifiability, and the details need to be reconciled with the sources. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So essentially you're saying I just need to clean up the citations? AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm also saying that "There are a couple of details I'd like to see added to the body, and I'm concerned by a pattern of details in the text not quite lining up with the sources I can see. ... the details need to be reconciled with the sources." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean now, I will try to verify the information provided in the article. I didn’t write most of the article, do I don’t have direct access to all of the references. I am going to just start with checking websites linked to the article and finding incorrect information. AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

I checked a few of the sources and there were a couple of errors so I fixed them. AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The copyedits looks like a definite improvement. Still interested to learn about when and how the name "Desert of Maine" originated, to see DOIs or other links for all the scientific sources, and to see text-source contradictions like "over 100 years" resolved. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added your name origin idea, and I fixed the source contradictions. For adding the DOIs, do you want me to add links to online domains where I can find most of these reference books? AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in finished with the rest of your suggestions. [See Desert of Maine revision history] AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some good progress here! I guess we can accept the word of the site itself as sufficiently reliable for the claim that it was Goldrup who named the "Desert", though I'm not thrilled to be using a self-published source like a YouTube video to back it up. The "Tourism" section now says that the attraction's been in operation "for 96 years as of 2023", but that seems to imply a start date of 1927, which none of the sources I've seen says, and it's phrased in such a way as to very quickly go out of date; further, the cited source only says "nearly a century", which is an example of the "concerning pattern" of infidelity to the sources I mentioned above. How about just "since 192X", once we pin down what that year should be, with a citation that actually gives the date? Likewise, nothing's been done about the disagreement among the sources as to whether the purchase price was $300 or $400. If you can justify a firm conclusion as to the correct figure for the date and price, then put that; if there's irreconcilable disagreement among the sources, then it's fine to just say "1925 or 1926" and cite sources that say both. I'm also still no seeing where the "13,500 years ago" figure comes from in the sources. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, I will cite both of the sources and say 1925-1926 just In case. Although I couldn't find any other sources for how exactly the site was named, I'll find some way to incorporate it. AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up deleting the first source all together, as it is slightly out of date and I believe new discoveries about the desert's history have been found since then. I ended up using the second source for the initial purchase and establishment. AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 13500 refers to the glaciers retreat from the area, not the rebound, per sources. Fixed the article wording to match. Crescent77 (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent with the chronology of the place, I'm inclined to put the geology before the history, and combine them into one section for narrative continuity. Thoughts? Crescent77 (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the history section before the geology section looks more visually appealing. AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More good progress! Geology before History is what makes sense chronologically, but History is the section the average reader is likelier to want to read first; I'd keep it as-is. I agree that the "sifting the sands" source seems the most credible, so I support just going with its numbers. The only remaining issue is that the assertion in the lead that the area isn't actually a "desert" should be duplicated into the body, with some sort of citation to verify that the climate of coastal Maine is not remotely a desert climate. Almost there! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I felt like mentioning it twice looks sloppy, but If you want me to add it in the introduction, I'd be happy to. AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way- I just updated the article with some new information I found. This should wrap up the review. Thoughts? AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! This article is approved for GA. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.