Talk:Land/GA1

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

Reviewer: Praseodymium-141 (talk · contribs) 16:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Article seems fine at a glance. However, I will need to take a closer look before deciding whether to pass or fail.  141 Pr  {contribs} 16:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC) (Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * See below.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * Mostly good. Just checking:
 * Is Online Etymolgy Dictionary a reliable source?
 * No consensus from this 2020 RSN discussion. The author might arguably be a WP:SME. It apparently compiles and interperets various sources. See also Online Etymology Dictionary. I think its up to you. If you still think it unreliable, I'll remove it and try to find an alternative. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 22:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is ref 123 (in Finnish) reliable?
 * Is ref 116 (in Russian) reliable?
 * Also add citation where it says citation needed in the section Trade. 141 Pr  {contribs} 09:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * Formation section is probably too long.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * See below.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (focused):
 * Formation section is probably too long.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * See below.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * See below.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

Images
Many of these images seem to be decorative. See:
 * Mount Fuji in section Terrain
 * Clouds above Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia and Yemen in section climate
 * Kukenán-tepui mesa in Mountains and plateaus (it doesn't talk about mesas at all)
 * Safed in culture
 * A train in travel
 * Checkerboarding in land use

Feel free to tell me how they are related to the sections and are not just decorations. 141 Pr  {contribs} 08:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead

 * - add at the start of sentence.
 * - add at the start of sentence.
 * - seems to contradict with the definition in the coast article.

Etymology

 * Is the second paragraph related to the etymology of land?

Physical science

 * This section is quite long and probably goes into to much detail on the formation, and maybe geomorphology of the land.
 * Formation is mostly talking more about the Earth than the land.
 * - I don't know, but I feel as though at the start of the sentence reads better.
 * Terrain seems to be filled with definitions.
 * More definitions in geomorphology.

Features

 * - same thing as with the lead.
 * - add ref.

Life science

 * Check whether ref 122 references everything before it. Otherwise, add some refs in that desert bullet point.
 * ref 127 - page needed.

Environmental issues

 * More refs needed near the start of subsection biodiversity loss.

Overall
Article seems fine, will pass if issues above are fixed.  141 Pr  {contribs} 20:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

All the issues raised are above, I will give you a while to work on these. As stated above, I will pass this if issues are fixed.  141 Pr  {contribs} 20:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * ,, , , , , , . See above for issues that need to be resolved for GA status. I have already found the pages for ref 127, and adjusted the pictures of Mt Fuji and Safed to more relevant ones. --Cdjp1 (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is NOT a good article. I feel that there's a sense of vagueness and the lack of actual detail here. For example, Land have a very unscientific way of grouping terrestrial features together. There's too much focus on the human stuff and not enough focus on the animal/plant stuff. Also, there's no talk about extraterrestrial surfaces, which for solid planets such as Mars they can also be called as "land". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll put this article on hold, and will fail this article if the issues not fixed on 1st May.  141 Pr  {contribs} 07:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll try to fix some of these. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 22:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Helped with a few, but I have to agree that the article isn't GA material yet; hadn't realized how much work still remained DFlhb (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Article has potential, but currently not up to GA standard, so I'll fail this article.  141 Pr  {contribs} 07:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)