Talk:Cordillera Blanca/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tisquesusa (talk · contribs) 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


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

Article is very short for a GA and is essentially a reduced translation of the article in Spanish with more references added, needs expansion of at least 100% (double) or 200% (triple size) to be eligible for GA. I would classify this article as a "C", not as a "B" and certainly at this stage not as a GA. It has potential, but needs expansion on the present chapters and new chapters added, see below for more details.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose and grammar are ok. The lead section is too short and the list of peaks should be in the form of a sortable collapsible and by default collapsed table with images of the peaks that are available.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The list of references is for an article where there's much more information to be found very short, contains relatively too many references of the MINCETUR and for example this 100 page pdf is not even listed.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There is no information listed about the geology, the climate is minimal and does not include Köppen zone, temperatures, relation with vegetation zones or variability in climates information. While the Spanish article lists a number of natural disasters, they are left out in this English version. Flora and fauna sections are minimal. No information on human settlement during the long pre-Columbian history, nor the Spanish conquest and the later history of 450 years.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * A viewpoint missing is the habitat loss for flora and fauna, the tourism is only mentioned as a side, not a main section, while trekking is a big part of that, the hot springs too.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Fine.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The captions of the images contain periods, that are only for full sentences and do not belong in captions. The amount of images for the current length is appropriate but for the required expansion more relevant images, e.g. of fauna, flora, geology, natural disasters (if available), lakes, settlement (if available), etc. are needed.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The infobox needs expansion to include all information possible; the parent range is not the Andes, yet the Cordillera Occidental. The information from the Cordillera Blanca Batholith needs to be included summarised in the article. The position of the Commons-link should be neatly under "external links", the reflist concised to 30em, the intro section needs expansion such that the intro+TOC span the length of the infobox that needs expansion too. All possible units need convert templates to serve the metric and imperial unit readers. The See Also section needs to refer to relevant Portals (Peru, Mountains) too. The different chapters are only minimally described and the human history of pre-Columbian settlement, the Inca history, the Spanish conquest and colonial period and the post-colonial Peruvian history need to be included. Also missing is information on mining activities.

See for an example the article I am working on Eastern Hills, Bogotá, a mountain range that is much shorter, with less peaks and thus much less to write about. I am not demanding such an extensive article for GA, but 17.5 KB for the Cordillera Blanca vs the 81, and in its final stage around 90 KB for the Eastern Hills is a big difference. Somewhere around 40 KB the Cordillera Blanca should have to pass the GA test, with 40-60 references instead of the current 19.

For another GA that I reviewed and that passed after edits, see Lake Tauca. That is on 1 paleolake with much more dispersed information sources. The Cordillera Blanca (if the English name "White Range(s)" is common, the article should be named like that) has all the potential to be like Lake Tauca in terms of length, completeness and interesting information that a GA should contain. Potential, yes, but at this stage this article is far short of being a GA.

Status query
Tisquesusa, Frank R 1981, it has been a month since this review was posted, and notification was posted on Frank R 1981's talk page, yet there has been no response to the issues raised or edits made to the article. What is the status here? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the pressure on the author/nominator shouldn't be there. The problem and backlog lies in the 485+ articles that are unreviewed and have to wait up to 7+ months standing there in GAN review needed without anyone looking at them. If the author is interested in addressing the issues, feel free to do so. I have some other articles planned in the coming days, so not really time now, maybe next week. Tisquesusa (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Tisquesusa, it's been another month, and Frank R 1981 has edited Wikipedia twice in that time, neither of them related to this nomination. Perhaps it's time to close the nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The article writer still can't be bothered to fix the issues it seems, so I'm closing this. Wizardman  00:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)