Dents du Midi was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 24, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dents du Midi in this context means _tooths of south_ not _mid day_.. This name happens if you face the moutain directly from Lake Geneva side, you are looking south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.13.236.72 ( talk) 19:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.248.77 ( talk) 14:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I just finished translating the French article and wanted to explain the process so everything is clear. I wrote the French article myself back in april 2020 and brought it to the equivalent of Good Article over there. I used DeepL for this translation so I could do it faster but I have checked the text to make sure it still made sense. There might be some things that still need fixing as I do not have a lot of experience on the english Wikipedia. Thank you for letting me know of any issue. I will nominate the article for Good Article this evening or tomorrow as I belive it should meet the criteria. - Espandero ( talk) 19:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 23:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from first reading (arranged by position within article, not by GACR rule number):
Overall impression:
Lead section and infobox:
Names:
Location:
Topography:
Geology:
Hydrography
Seismicity and landslides
Fauna and flora
History
Sports tourism
Economy
Environmental protection
Culture
References
Overall, this is a pretty good article, but I think it still needs a fair amount of copyediting to meet the good article criteria (primarily criterion 1). I'm placing the nomination on hold to give you time to make these changes. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Lead "dating from the Valanginian in its upper part": the prose is now more idiomatic, but my concern about which of multiple targets the pronoun "its" refers to is still present. Moreover, why is only the timing of the upper part lead-worthy? Is it accurate to say "dating from the Valanginian" if that is actually the more recent of the dates of those rocks?
"A footpath around the Dents du Midi exists since 1975.": You "fixed" my complaint about exists being a weak verb by removing the stronger auxiliary verb that was overshadowing it, but it is still a weak verb.
"represents a local symbol": what symbol does it represent?
Geology: request to find a way to mention Alpine orogeny: Nothing has been done.
"were then linked", now "were then connected": underlying concern about vagueness of what "then" means has not been addressed.
Concerns about timing and chronological ordering have not been addressed.
Lack of information about how the flysch mysteriously appeared has not been addressed.
I could go on but I think it's safe to say that the revision so far has addressed only the superficial wording issues and that any deeper concerns remain. Still on hold. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Long after this discussion, nothing has happened.
Serious issues with the chronology of the geology section, raised in the GA review, have not been addressed, and indeed have been quickly set aside with "I don't know how to do this", as if it is only possible to make changes if led by the hand with a precise description of what the new content should be - The Alps, in general, were created in the Alpine orogeny, which happened beginning roughly 65My ago but were a long ongoing process. Our article does not need to detail that whole process (that would be off-topic) but its statement that they appeared, as if from nothing, at the precise date of 60My ago is misleading and unhelpful, and its summary as a collision only between Africa and Europe is inaccurate. - The section is out of chronological order, with the mountains being created first and only later a description of the creation of the rocks they were made from. My request to fix this was met with "Not exactly sure what to do about this ... I don't have a lot of time right now to fix this". - Within the part of the section on the creation of the rocks, it is again not possible to understand the chronological order of the layers. - This chronology is extremely relevant for understanding the banding pattern of the image in that section and no such understanding is evident in the article.
Later on, my question about internal contradictions in the chronology of landslides was met only by excuses rather than any attempt to clarify the article. The same excuses and lack of interest in improvement were the response to my observation that the section on history went into inappropriate detail on one specific facet of history (the history of climbing the summits), which made more sense as part of the section on activities one might perform on these mountains.
It's a shame, because I still think this is close, and many of my other requests were reasonably handled, but I don't think I can pass this at this time. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Dents du Midi was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 24, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dents du Midi in this context means _tooths of south_ not _mid day_.. This name happens if you face the moutain directly from Lake Geneva side, you are looking south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.13.236.72 ( talk) 19:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.248.77 ( talk) 14:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I just finished translating the French article and wanted to explain the process so everything is clear. I wrote the French article myself back in april 2020 and brought it to the equivalent of Good Article over there. I used DeepL for this translation so I could do it faster but I have checked the text to make sure it still made sense. There might be some things that still need fixing as I do not have a lot of experience on the english Wikipedia. Thank you for letting me know of any issue. I will nominate the article for Good Article this evening or tomorrow as I belive it should meet the criteria. - Espandero ( talk) 19:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: David Eppstein ( talk · contribs) 23:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Comments from first reading (arranged by position within article, not by GACR rule number):
Overall impression:
Lead section and infobox:
Names:
Location:
Topography:
Geology:
Hydrography
Seismicity and landslides
Fauna and flora
History
Sports tourism
Economy
Environmental protection
Culture
References
Overall, this is a pretty good article, but I think it still needs a fair amount of copyediting to meet the good article criteria (primarily criterion 1). I'm placing the nomination on hold to give you time to make these changes. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Lead "dating from the Valanginian in its upper part": the prose is now more idiomatic, but my concern about which of multiple targets the pronoun "its" refers to is still present. Moreover, why is only the timing of the upper part lead-worthy? Is it accurate to say "dating from the Valanginian" if that is actually the more recent of the dates of those rocks?
"A footpath around the Dents du Midi exists since 1975.": You "fixed" my complaint about exists being a weak verb by removing the stronger auxiliary verb that was overshadowing it, but it is still a weak verb.
"represents a local symbol": what symbol does it represent?
Geology: request to find a way to mention Alpine orogeny: Nothing has been done.
"were then linked", now "were then connected": underlying concern about vagueness of what "then" means has not been addressed.
Concerns about timing and chronological ordering have not been addressed.
Lack of information about how the flysch mysteriously appeared has not been addressed.
I could go on but I think it's safe to say that the revision so far has addressed only the superficial wording issues and that any deeper concerns remain. Still on hold. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Long after this discussion, nothing has happened.
Serious issues with the chronology of the geology section, raised in the GA review, have not been addressed, and indeed have been quickly set aside with "I don't know how to do this", as if it is only possible to make changes if led by the hand with a precise description of what the new content should be - The Alps, in general, were created in the Alpine orogeny, which happened beginning roughly 65My ago but were a long ongoing process. Our article does not need to detail that whole process (that would be off-topic) but its statement that they appeared, as if from nothing, at the precise date of 60My ago is misleading and unhelpful, and its summary as a collision only between Africa and Europe is inaccurate. - The section is out of chronological order, with the mountains being created first and only later a description of the creation of the rocks they were made from. My request to fix this was met with "Not exactly sure what to do about this ... I don't have a lot of time right now to fix this". - Within the part of the section on the creation of the rocks, it is again not possible to understand the chronological order of the layers. - This chronology is extremely relevant for understanding the banding pattern of the image in that section and no such understanding is evident in the article.
Later on, my question about internal contradictions in the chronology of landslides was met only by excuses rather than any attempt to clarify the article. The same excuses and lack of interest in improvement were the response to my observation that the section on history went into inappropriate detail on one specific facet of history (the history of climbing the summits), which made more sense as part of the section on activities one might perform on these mountains.
It's a shame, because I still think this is close, and many of my other requests were reasonably handled, but I don't think I can pass this at this time. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)