Talk:Tukgahgo Mountain/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 02:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'll review this one. The first review will be up in the next day or two. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose had major factual errors in it (directions reversed, incorrect numbers) which I've corrected, and I've begun to polish the prose through copyediting. There are repetitive sections about nearby towns and clunky phrasing in the discussion of mineralogical studies. The lead section isn't great, but that's really the fault of another issue I'll raise below...

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The citations support the text and are generally strong.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I've removed some excessive detail and trivia, but the article has nothing to say about the mountain's history or any trails, climbing routes or approach routes (all content that WikiProject Mountains calls for in a thorough mountain article). The coverage seems quite incomplete, though the real problem is probably more fundamental...

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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 images need better captions, at a minimum indicating the direction the viewer is facing so that some sort of orientation can be achieved. The nominator appears to have taken both pictures and so can hopefully elucidate.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The central problem is this: the article makes no argument for the topic's notability. Based on the content currently included, it seems that there is nothing of interest to say about this mountain beyond the fact that it exists, is located in a particular place, and is composed of particular kinds of rocks. If I strip all the nonsense out of the lead section, then there really isn't a lead at all, and that's because there isn't really much content in the article to summarize, and that appears to be because there isn't really much to say about this mountain. The sources cited are from government geological catalogs, which, while independent and reliable, are so comprehensive in their coverage as to contribute nothing to demonstrating notability (they catalog literally every peak in the United States). Why is this mountain notable? If the nominator can provide some reliable sources to show that there is something of interest that has been written about this mountain to distinguish it from countless other interchangeable summits across the world, then we can consider what form the article should ultimately take; if not, then it can't become a GA and should perhaps be AfD'd as likely non-notable.

I'm placing the review on hold for seven days to give the nominator time to respond to my concerns. If the article isn't substantially expanded to demonstrate notability and establish broad coverage by that time, the nomination will fail. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This nomination is now failed, for the reasons indicated above. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)