Talk:Pedra da Gávea/GA1

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

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 01:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article. I'll begin with some initial comments sometime within the next 24-36 hours after a few readings and confirming some of the citations, etc. Thanks! --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Image Review (per criteria 6)

 * File:Pedra da Gavea proche.jpg - It is listed as public domain and on commons, but the information is written in Portuguese and will require confirmation by translation. Nao fala portugues. Please clarify.
 * I will fix this.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was written in both Portuguese, French, and English. I tidied it up a bit, though.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   23:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Silva Ramos, Pedra da Gavea, interpretation.gif - is given a public domain tag claiming it is 70 years since the death of the author, but no public domain tag explaining its usage with regard to the United States. The book this image is taken from was published in 1932, which would not be public domain in the US. I have to check is this is permissible vis-à-vis the GA criteria. Please clarify.
 * Scratch what I last said. I have uploaded a new version of the image onto Wikipedia. In this version, I have corrected the licensing (it is public domain in Brazil, but not in the US) and have argued that the image can and should be used in this article under the proper fair use rationale.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for addressing this.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

First comments

 * General comments
 * The article needs an intensive copy-edit because of awkward idioms, improper syntax, and sentence constructions. Some of the statements do not flow well in English.
 * Check the article for verb tense agreement.
 * I'll comb over both of these.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You have two sections on history--effectively splitting the discussion of history. I would reorganize the article's sections to reflect Geology, History of its discovery/settlement/role in community, The inscription and its analysis, and alternative theories (their statement and refutation).
 * I renamed the second "History" to "Timeline" to emphasize that it is focusing on the inscription's history, rather than the mountain itself.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just renaming one of the two history sections doesn't fix the fact that you're splitting historical content that ought to be put into one section.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * "The rock is composed of gneiss and granite, and due to its position, size and coastal location, as well as the lack of purchase for vegetation."
 * This sentence is either not clear or badly constructed or both.
 * due to its position/size/location/etc...what exactly? Usually if you point out that "due to this" you have to mention the result of those variables.
 * what do you mean by "lack of purchase for vegetation"?
 * That was just a bad sentence. Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Damage caused to one side of the rock creates the impression of a stylized human face, and erosion on another face has been interpreted as an inscription"
 * Split into two sentences - one focusing on the damage (whatever it is), and the second focusing on the erosion.
 * Damage from what? Mention it. Further, if the damage happened in the past, the sentence should be "has created", not a present tense verb. (especially since the second clause in this sentence uses the "has been interpreted" past tense
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "This inscription has been claimed by many, including Brazilian archaeologist Bernardo de Azevedo da Silva Ramos, to be of Phoenician origin and to be proof of pre-Columbian contact from the Old World."
 * rephrase: "Several scholars, including Brazilian archaeologist Bernardo de Azevedo da Silva Ramos, have advanced the position that the inscription is of Phoenician origin and possibly proof of pre-Columbian contact from Old World cultures."
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Other claims have been put forward as well, such as that the rock was a Viking colony or that it is a UFO hotspot."
 * Rephrase..."Alternative theories proposed include that the rock was the site of a Viking colony or that it is connected with suspected UFO activity."
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "almost unanimously agree" - rephrase that "almost unaminously" - "Geologists and scientists are nearly in agreement that..." or similar.
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "No evidence has ever been garnered" - syntax - no one uses that idiom in English in this context.
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * official archaeology in Brazil - is there an official government office issuing edicts on the subject? or is it just in the academic community? Rephrase it as "the consensus of archaeologists and scholars"
 * Fixed.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Geology
 * While you mention that the rock is gneiss and granite, you don't sufficiently explore why this is important or unique (the mix of metamorphic and igneous rock), the forces that brought this into creation, when in the geological time this happened, etc. Was this because of tectonic plate movement? volcanism? some prehistoric orogeny? The lack of geological information is very telling--it renders the article skewed (WP:UNDUE) with undue weight toward the inscription and its theory without discussing the topic adequately for its position as a geological feature (this goes right to the 3a criteria on sufficient coverage of major aspects).
 * Tracking down this info was a little hard, but I added quite a bit more about its creation. How does it look now?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added even more. How does it look?-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   23:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If this inscription is due to rain/water erosion/weathering patterns, discussion of these historic/prehistoric weather patterns and analysis should be discussed in geology as well.
 * Again, this was hard to find, but I added a bit about it. Most of the references to erosion are vague and simply concluded that it was eroded, without going into great detail.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

More to come - awaiting nominator's response to this before proceeding. nominator pinged. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see any remaining issues regarding prose. Thank you for doing a copyedit/revision on the article, and for finding some good geological information.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Review and criteria analysis
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Article's prose is clear and concise, no evidence or indication of copyvio issues, no obvious spelling and grammar issues.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Article complies with the criteria 1b MOS requirements.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * Article present a suitable reference section that complies with MOS and citation guidelines.
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * Article is sufficiently sourced and employs appropriate inline citations.
 * C. No original research:
 * No evidence or indication of original research.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Article sufficiently addresses the major aspects of the subject.
 * B. Focused:
 * Article's content is focused and complies with WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Article appears neutral as there is no evidence or indication of a bias or POV.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Article's history is stable and there is no evidence or indication of content disputes that led to disruptive editwarring
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Article presents two images which are suitably tagged with fair use rationales per the image use policy. One image is non-free content with an appropriate explanation and minimal usage.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Images are relevant to the article's subject and are suitably captioned per WP:CAPTION.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Promoted to GA

Comments from others
I have no idea how this is supposed to work, I'm just going to comment here: this review is, frankly, a joke. You only have to get as far as the second paragraph to encounter the mangled mess of Differential weathering has caused to one side of the rock has created the impression of a stylized human face. Once you manage to parse that head-scratcher, you come to the geology content of the article. has done a thorough analysis of it. Unlike me, and apparently unlike the editors responsible for this article, AfadsBad actually seems to know something about geology. Reading what he or she has to say about this article, it appears to be little more than word soup. This article should be declassified from being "good" immediately until someone who actually possesses some education in geology has had the chance to fix its numerous glaring factual errors. —  Scott  •  talk  20:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Scott, AfadsBad's rant is about as credible as seeking reason in the flailing of a Mantis Shrimp...a lot of misdirected rage and not worth my time or anyone else's. His behavior was rather troll-like and petulant. I recommend he consider therapy for his rage issues because he apparently has severe frustration and stress over his experiences with Wikipedia--most of which was self-inflicted. I addressed your sentence issue...that looks like it was my fault in revising that section myself combined with another editor's attempt to address my comment on that section days ago. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, you need to immediately stop making personal attacks. I don't care if you have a prior disagreement with this other user. Either you downgrade this article, or I will shortly do so myself; it is completely unworthy of being described as "good". —  Scott  •  talk  21:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Woo. Ultimatums. Seems like rage issues and petulance are en vogue anymore. Nothing stopping you, Scott. Enjoy your power-trip.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to the next administrator that you encounter to address your obvious conduct problems when interacting with other editors. In the meantime, I am rescinding this article's GA status until its severe issues with factual content are resolved. —  Scott  •  talk  21:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. Take a chill pill. You aren't that important, so you can come off that pedestal of yours. Such hubris. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to rescind the GA status, you don't just change the talk page because that's consider vandalism or disruptive...you go to WP:GAR. In this case, because it's a contested issue, you apply for a community reassessment. The point of GAR isn't to delist an article, but to bring it up to snuff. So if you think GAR will automatically get you your wish, you are in for a learning experience. The sources that the nominator provided in the article established the material presented. AfadsBad's blog, sadly, is not a reliable source no matter how loud he choses to argue and rant while looking in the windows from outside. If he (or you, by proxy) have other reliable sources that say otherwise, bring them to bear. Unforunately, academic pissing matches are often petty, and Wikipedia is not a battleground. So keep that angry mentality and ultimatums to yourself.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

As a coda to this charming little exchange for the sake of future readers, the article was downgraded by fast, unanimous consent based on AfadsBad's concerns and ColonelHenry was strongly warned to refrain from making personal attacks in future. —  Scott  •  talk  23:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)