Talk:Huangshan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I started reading this article. Images and references look fine. After I finish reading it, I anticipate passing it without delay. Crystal whacker (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"watching the sunrise is considered by many to be a "mandatory" part of visiting the area." Does the reference say that it's "considered by many" or is the reference speaking only for itself? I'm just making sure you're not "cheating" here. :) Crystal whacker (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected (diff). The ref doesn't say anything about "many," and I think I originally included the "by" phrase just to distance myself a bit from the statement. But I think the new wording should be ok; it's probably closer to what's in the source, and I can attest from my own experience that it is accurate (as part of "conventional wisdom" among many Chinese people I've spoken with during my time over there). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The mountains were formed in the Mesozoic, about 100 million years ago, when an ancient sea disappeared due to uplift.[citation needed]" As I said in a previous review, I will pass an article with only one missing citation, but I do need to ask. Every other statement that should need a citation has one. Crystal whacker (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good catch...that bit was added while I was on a short wikibreak and I must have missed it. I will leave a message with LedRush, who I believe is the editor who added it and who might have a copy of the book (ref 8) that the surrounding statements are taken from. If we can't find the source for it, I wouldn't have a problem with removing it or commenting out it (I think it was commented out in earlier revisions, as well). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just left a message with LedRush asking if he can check the book. I just noticed, though, that pretty much the same statement is included, in a shorter form, in the History section: "Mount Huang was formed approximately 100 million years ago and gained its unique rock formations in the Quaternary Glaciation.[8]" It doesn't mention Mesozoic, but it does say 100 million years ago, so I imagine that stuff is all from the same ref and the ^{[citation needed]} could be removed from where it appears earlier; I don't mind waiting a bit, though, to see if LedRush can confirm it for us. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. The issue with the citation appears to be a non-critical item, and I will pass the article regardless. I encourage you to work it out with Led Rush.

I believe there were two sources for the mesozoic, one from a bad chinese website and one from my book, hence the two statements. I can't check until tomorrow though, as my book is at work. I'll check the chinese website (which I think we've removed as a possible source because of possible quality concerns) and report back tomorrow.LedRush (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I checked out my book and it has a cite for everything in the sentence except that 100 million years ago it was indeed the Mesozoic. I don't believe it is original research to state what geologic era it was at a specific time in the past when a reference for that time is provided. However, if we lose the link, I don't think the article suffers too much, so I will defer to the better judgment of more experienced editors.

Finally, so we know how it came about, this statement was included in the stub article before I started to try and make it better, and before Politizer came and really made it better. We had cites for the 100 million bit and I saw through the link that 100 million years ago was indeed the Mesozoic and I thought that the link could only help the article. Anyway, there you go...LedRush (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...we can accept that 100m years ago was the Mesozoic, so as long as we've got the footnote for 100m years then the whole thing is fine. Thanks for digging up that source! Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on an outstanding article with beautiful photographs. I learned something by reading it. Crystal whacker (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]