Talk:Gongnyong Ridge

Gongnyong Ridge was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 19, 2020	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 29, 2019.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Gongnyong Ridge (pictured) in Seoraksan National Park, South Korea, acquired its name (lit. 'Dinosaur Ridge') from its peaks looking as "vigorous and dynamic as a dinosaur rising from the ground"?

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gongnyong Ridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 04:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your efforts to bring this article up to GA status. I'll be reviewing it against the criteria and posting concerns, questions, or suggested improvements as I read. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton, Thank you for your comments. I will start fixing them this weekend and let you know when they are done. Taewangkorea (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and presentation

It is the central ridge of Seoraksan, dividing it in half. - I suspect "in half" is imprecise, unless both sides are actually exactly equal in size.
- Fixed.
The phrase "due to" has a very specific meaning and should, where possible, be replaced by "because of", "from", or another preposition. It is used nine times in this article.
- Fixed.
The "Geography" section contains many mentions of place names without appropriate links or context. For example, are Sockho and Inje-gun valleys? Regions?
- I blue-linked the geographic names.
To what does "Seorak" refer? Is it simply short-hand for Seoraksan? And is Seorak Mountain synonymous with Gongnyong Ridge?
- the suffix -san means mountain in Korean, so Seoraksan is Seorak Mountain. Gongnyong Ridge is a ridge in Seorak Mountain.
"raising the body of rock" - Can this be inferred to mean bedrock?
- The source says bedrock so I changed it.
Is the ridge made of a different mineral than the surrounding granite that eroded away? If not, why is the "solid core" so durable?
- I think that from the source (http://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Contents/Index?contents_id=E0074971) it says that both the rock that eroded away and the solid core is granite, although the granite that got washed away was stressed more due to the geologic action.

References and verifiability

I have some significant concerns with the citations, particularly with regard to consistency and missing information:

Reference #1 is a deadlink.
- Added a different one.
Some references are specified as being in Korean, while others are not.
Ref #11 uses a different citation format from the rest.
Publisher information is needed for all citations; simply stating the url is insufficient.
Check for appropriate authors; the work cited in ref #7 lists Romainjohn Boulesteix as the author, but this is not reflected in the article.

As far as verifiability:

"vigorous and dynamic as a dinosaur rising from the ground" - Direct quotes must be attributed.
- Fixed
What is the source for the "area" field of the infobox? I'm somewhat skeptical of the claim; 1.3 million m^2 is comparable to the main terminal of Istanbul Airport, which strikes me as very small for a mountain range.
- The source is the Korean Cultural Heritage Administration which I have now linked. I think that the area is correct, as the ridge is not very long (the trail through the ridge is 5.1 km).
Statements about rankings should be attributed in-text. Who says it is #1 among scenic sites?
- The data file by the South Korean government (https://www.data.go.kr/dataset/15012727/fileData.do) contains the information.

Comprehensiveness

This is where the bulk of my concerns rest. I feel that the article is missing a substantial amount of information. Examples:

More details about the geography and setting of the ridge. What is the length? Are there any other landforms around it? Waterways?
- A map might be helpful in my opinion, but it is created by the Korean government and I do not know if it is appropriate to use here (I know for US government stuff it is in public domain but I do not know about Korea). Do you have any idea?
You mention that the ridge has an influence on the local climate. More climate info should be sought – if orographic lift creates persistent clouds, it must also lead to unique precipitation patterns. What is the temperature range?
Human history: who were the first peoples on the ridge? What did they do there? When it was first formally explored and charted? Has it had any impact on culture in the region? When was the ridgetop trail established? Has the ridge been exploited for natural resources?
There is a section header for "protected status", but no text concerning conservation or protection.
A "flora and fauna" section is conspicuously absent.
I'm interested to learn more about recreation on the ridge. With so many accidents to report, it must be a very popular hiking destination. What is the trail network like? How is it accessed? Have there been any attempts to document the number of visitors each year? Are there other opportunities for recreation other than hiking – rock climbing, etc?
All of the recent accidents discussed in the article occurred within a few days of each other in mid-2010. Have there been any since then?

Miscellaneous

Images are appropriately licensed. File:Dinosaur Ridge of Seoraksan.jpg is a gorgeous photo! The article history is stable, and I see no neutrality issues.

This is an interesting geographical feature, and the article is in fair shape. However, I believe there is still significant work to be done before it meets the GA criteria. In particular, the research feels incomplete, and this should be prioritized. I'm placing the GA nomination on-hold for now, to allow for these improvements to take place. Best regards, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton, I am making these corrections. However, for the human history, flora and fauna, and more info on recreation, I believe that any info on this would better apply to the article on Seoraksan and Seoraksan National Park as any sources on this that I found deals with the area as a whole, not just the ridge. Taewangkorea (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Taewangkorea: Acknowledged! I'll revisit tomorrow (well, later today, technically). Within the next day, in any case. :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton, Ok. Thanks. And because I am quite busy, I am working my way down the list (a bit) slowly, so if you can bear with me making the edits that would be really great. Taewangkorea (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taewangkorea. I noticed it's been over a week since the last edits were made, and I still feel that the article is a fair way off from meeting GA status. With all this in mind, it seems best to mark the nomination unsuccessful for now. You'll be able to make the necessary improvements and re-nominate at your leisure. If you have any questions or need a hand, please feel free to reach out! Regards, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]