Talk:Mont Aiguille/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 09:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am proposing to take on this review and will start in the next few days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

First reading
I have now read the article carefully. My first impression is of a reasonably well-written article conforming with most of the GA criteria. However, it is a very short article, so I had a look at other good articles on the subject of mountains. They are nearly all much fuller in their coverage of the topic than is this article. I appreciate that, unlike a FAC, the coverage does not have to be comprehensive but I think that this article fails Criterion 3 "Broad in its coverage".
 * If you wish to address this concern, sections you might consider adding are Climate, Ecology (or Flora and Fauna), Climbing and Means of access (not necessarily all of them).
 * The French language Wikipedia has information you might use.
 * I translated some from this and other languages.


 * Your references 3 and 4 have considerably more information that you have not incorporated into the article. I have not looked at the other references at this stage.
 * I included some more and will continue.


 * You should not mention in the lead facts that are not included in the main text. This is the case for the "Seven Wonders of Dauphiné" and the "Vercors Regional Natural Park".
 * I added them to the body as well.


 * The lead should introduce the article in an easily understood way and I think you should avoid the word "mesa" in the lead unless you explain what it means.
 * Explained (more or less)


 * "The nearest access by rail is in the village of Saint-Martin-de-Clelles and by road is from the north via the Col de La Bâtie." - You might like to expand this with some distances. How would a hiker using public transport get there?
 * "This has resulted in several unique features of Mont Aiguille, including the cliffs, which are almost identical to those on the eastern edge of the Vercors Plateau such as those on the edge of the Grand Veymont, which is the highpoint of the range" - This sentence is rather too long and complex.
 * I re-worded it.


 * " Another feature resulting from this is the presence of meadows on the summit plateau, which are similar to those to the west on the rest of the Vercors plateau." - When you say similar in this sentence, I assume you mean in botanical composition.
 * Yes, I changed it.


 * "The mountain was not climbed again until 1834, ..." - I do not see this information in the source you cited. Did it come from elsewhere?
 * Right, I believe the source has probably changed removing the information cited, but none the less I have found source for the date, but not the next part. I sourced it.


 * One image caption reads "Mont Aiguille with the arc of Little Needle" and I think this should be "arch".
 * No, it should be arc as it refers to the forested slopes in front of the mesa.
 * I thought it might refer to the arch on the skyline which I thought a most unusual feature to find high on a mountain.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh ok I checked it is seen from the little needle, which is a separate mountain that was probably my mis-translation.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 18:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Replied.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 19:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The gallery seems to be quite unnecessary, and the vague captions seem to confirm this. Galleries are not to be used unless to make some kind of point. I propose whatever images that are important to the article be incorporated into it, and the rest removed. Unless you can make it relevant, perhaps by showing the mountain from all sides, or whatever.
 * The lead should be a summary of the article, but it isn't yet, since it does not mention the issues noted under history, for example.
 * I added some.


 * What is a "technical climb"?
 * Anything grade 4 or above on the Yosemite Decimal System.


 * The sentence "which had been build previously using materials and men lifted to the summit previously by helicopters" seems awkward. It should be "built", and one "previously" could be replaced with another word, and the placement of the last one is weird.
 * I re-worded this to more accurately reflect the source.


 * I think it could be a good article when our comments are addressed, but for FA, you should take a look at some books or scientific literature (check Google scholar, for exampe), it seems you're mostly using Internet sites, which are usually scant on info, compared to books. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Criteria
Thank you for working on the points raised above. I think the article is much improved and now reaches the GA criteria.
 * 1a The article is well written and the prose flows smoothly.
 * 1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines and has been recently improved as suggested above.
 * 2a&b The article is well referenced and has inline citations for all contentious statements.
 * 2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
 * 3a&b The coverage is now broad enough and the article does not include irrelevant material.
 * 4 The article is neutral
 * 5 The article was greatly expanded by the nominator in May 2012 and has hardly been edited by anybody else since.
 * 6 The images are all appropriately licensed.
 * 7 The images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions. Although FunkMonk stated above that galleries were deplored, I think the inclusion of a modest image gallery is permissible for this topic.
 * Overall assessment - Pass.