Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pedra da Gávea/1

Pedra da Gávea edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Khazar2 (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closer comment: Since there's clear consensus that there are serious errors here, and the article's original nominator agrees this should be delisted, there's no reason to let this turn into a pile-on. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has recently been brought up at ANI, where several users have contested whether it should of been promoted to GA. User:AfadsBad, who appears to have outside knowledge on this subject area, has written a blog post summarizing the issues xe sees in the article. Personally, I would not of promoted this as a GA, but it is probably worth a community discussion on the issue. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with AfadsBad's assessment. At the time of this article's promotion it contained several glaring grammatical and spelling errors, the geology content appears to be nonsense, and the content of its sections is poorly structured. It should not have been promoted. — Scott • talk 08:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree that this adequately sums up the state of the article? John lilburne (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HA! Yes! — Scott • talk 15:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke its status now. It's an embarrassment of incompetence. Discussion is not necessary since the review was only done by one editor so surely one editor can revoke the claimed "good article" status. jps (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. It seems there's some drama over this article which I'm blissfully unaware of. Nor, in the interests of avoiding a prejudicial opinion, have I looked at whatever blog post this spawned. But I can say that this article is far, far short of the quality standards expected by even GA. The geology content is unacceptably loose with terminology ("Morro"? This is a granite dome.), and at times factually wrong, misrepresenting what the sources actually say about the geology (especially regarding how dikes work and what does the intruding). And the referencing is far from ideal: summitpost.org doesn't strike me as a reliable source (but even there, it doesn't say what the article implies it does). This is a very well-studied feature; better sourcing should not be a challenge. Also, while GA isn't FA, this is not at all comprehensive (a discussion of climbing is warranted, at a minimum). Frankly, the volume of text dedicated to the Phoenician inscription in comparison to the paragraph and a half for everything else is a textbook example of undue weight. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the GA listing, the article "Morro", upon which this article drew, had been tagged as unreferenced for four whole years. That was hardly surprising, because upon investigating, I found it to be one of those curious imaginary topics that form from time to time on Wikipedia as a result of compounded ignorance. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morro. — Scott • talk 15:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Ouch... Yeah, I'm the editor that nominated this, and I focused most of my time on the "inscription", and added what I thought was correct info regarding geology. Thanks to the "Bad Science" article, I believe I've fixed/removed all the bad info, but that doesn't make this a GA. Sorry for wasting everyone's time.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my defense, I will say that AfadsBad was a little cataclysmic with some of his comments, but nonetheless, I have listened to him. Morro has been changed to "granite dome" per source given; the redundant phrase "igneous granite" has been removed (same with gneiss; I was trying to draw a difference between the two rocks, since one is igneous and the other is meta-sedimentary... aren't we supposed to write like the people reading are ignorant of the subject); the "introducing"/"intruded" fiasco has been fixed (that was just my bad... I read the source wrong); clarified, removed, and added sources point to what form of erosion (and counter to his point, source [8] refers to the face, which is the north side of the mountain, ergo, it's the "northern side"); and the section has been retitled to "Geology and ecology". Again, I will say, some of the blog's comments were a little spiteful ("A mountain is a stone outcropping? Poetic", his insistence that this is a WikiCup nomination), but he did provide some good points. I have tried to fixed all that I could. However, seeing as how the geology section is tiny on an article about a mountain, I can understand that this shouldn't really be a GA; I was basing most of the article around the "inscription" (I'm an anthropology and classics major, not a geologist)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]