Talk:Appalachian temperate rainforest/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 16:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs) 15:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Brooklaika! I've read through your article and am working on my comments. I'm planning to have them fully completed by the end of the day (EST); I will add a table assessment with notes and such when I've completed the review.

You've written a fantastic article which I've thoroughly enjoyed reading and learned a lot from. There are a few barriers to GA currently, but they are small fixes that can be easily rectified. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I look forward to seeing your comments! Brooklaika (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've finally finished the review of the article; the source verification took me more time than I had originally anticipated. Your prose is very good and your sources back up the claims you make in the article. After going through the citations though, I've found some concerns mostly related to the scope of the page and, by extension, the source materials. I suspect that you could likely make the changes needed to pass within the typical week timeframe, provided you have the personal time to do so. But if you need more time, I can leave it open for a little while longer than that or I can fail it and you can ping me to re-review it once you've had time to fix and renominate it. Please see the following table for a more detailed report. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I have some free time this weekend that I will definitely be dedicating to this article, but there are a lot of things you mention that need to be worked on/changed so I think it might take me longer than a week to work all the way though. I'd like for it to stay open while I work through those changes though. The prose changes seem pretty straightforward to make. To me it looks like the two biggest issues are 2a: sources mentioning specific locations in the rainforest area but not saying "rainforest" or "cloud forest" explicitly, and 3b: the scope of the article being too broad. I think 2a will be relatively straightforward to correct (though very time consuming) but 3b is a bit harder to grasp. Is there any way you could point to specific article sections that are in violation? From what you wrote it seems to mostly be Climate and History, but I'm not sure how correct that is. Brooklaika (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can definitely keep it open then. If for whatever reason, someone comes through and closes it after a week, just resubmit it and ping me to review it again. With respect to your question, if you're able to fix 2a, it's likely 3b will be fixed as a consequence because the issues with the article comprise focus on the rainforest itself, not any factual or reliability issues; that is, all the information is correct but not constrained enough to the topic of the article, so if you are able to find sources that mention the rainforest/cloud forest explicitly to confirm what you've already written, then the scope is no longer too large because it's been confirmed by sourcing.
 * For example, you wrote the following: Below the spruce–fir forest, at around 1,200 meters (3,900 ft), forest composition shifts in favor of deciduous trees such as American beech, maple, birch, and oak., which is backed by source [13]. Source [13] doesn't mention the rainforest or cloud forest at all; it only mentions the trees indigenous to the Great Smoky Mountains as a whole. If you could replace source [13] with a source that confirms what you've written alongside an explicit mention of those trees within the rainforest's boundaries, then you don't actually need to change the sentence at all; that those trees are a part of the rainforest's ecosystem is now within the scope of the page. Does that make sense? I'm happy to explain more; I know it's a little confusing.
 * Also, if you'd like me to just take care of the prose issues, I can do that so you can focus solely on source farming. Just let me know! ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Status query
ThaesOfereode, Brooklaika, what is the status of this nomination? Nothing has been posted here or to the article in over a month, and it looks like Brooklaika has only made two edits on Wikipedia since their last post here. Is it time to close this review, or are there plans to do some concentrated work on the article to address the issues raised here. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No, I was wondering the same thing not too long ago. I think it's well past time to close this. Do you need me to fail it or can you do it on your end? I will tag the article with the appropriate tags via Twinkle. ThaesOfereode (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ThaesOfereode, as reviewer, it's up to you to close it as well as your decision to do so. Instructions are at WP:GANI. Thanks for your quick response. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'll close it then. Thanks for bringing this review back to my attention. ThaesOfereode (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)