Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Earth/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC) [1].

Earth

edit
Notified: Femke Nijsse, Graham Beards, RJHall, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject Geology, WikiProject Science, WikiProject Solar System
The talk page discussions initiated in August 2020 should have been linked here, both for compliance with FAR instructions, and for a list of issues. See here.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is not well-written and not well-researched, as raised by Femke Nijsse and Graham Beards. RJHall nominated this article for FA status in April Fools' 2007 (17 years ago). --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Not well-written and not well-researched" is rather nonspecific. Can you offer some specific criticisms that might help in this review? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Femke Nijsse pointed out the following issues:
  • Too much of the article is too difficult (not well-written). This article should be understandable to a 16-year old. Yes, I'm struggling as a physics graduate.
    • the very first paragraph is too difficult. Per WP:ONEDOWN, words like sidereal day should definitely be avoided.
    • Further examples of things that may be too difficult include sentences like: . At the equator of the magnetic field, the magnetic-field strength at the surface is 3.05×10−5 T, with a magnetic dipole moment of 7.79×1022 Am2 at epoch 2000, decreasing nearly 6% per century
    • No idea what mean solar time is meant to be.
  • Many of the key facts are outdated (not well-researched):
    • for instance, the article now states that the oldest material ever found in the solar system is 4.56 BYA, while a 2010 study found an older piece: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/8/100823-oldest-solar-system-two-million-years-older-science/. Dunno if that is the oldest one still.
    • Future section is full of research that has specific years and often based on one old primary source.
    • The final brightness of our Sun (5000 times as bright) is referenced to 1993 article. Still up-to-date?
    • Human population in 2050 is estimated using 2009 UN numbers
    • The amount of irrigated land is given for 1993
  • Quite some unsourced paragraphs (not well-researched)
  • I don't think individual weather events are due (summary style). The article now mentions a very controversial heat record, without giving context but it's likely an artefact of poor measuring. I think both temperature records should be deleted.
I had resolved some of them, but since I am underexperienced (a 16-year old dole), I have to leave it for someone else. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced this was a good example of talk page discussion with identification of issues, but scanning the page, one easily finds indications of deterioration since RJHall retired, including being crammed full of sandwiched images, some uncited text, and some repetition in the lead. A tune-up might be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfortunately relatively busy both on Wikipedia and finishing my thesis, but I will try to improve the under-sourced parts of the atmosphere and climate section over the next two weeks. There are a few sections that need either expert attention or quite a big time investment to update I think, for instance the future section, but possibly also the geological history and early life sections. Do we know any geologists that might be willing to help?
(@SandyGeorgia: what would be a better example of a talk page discussion?) Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because a number had been resolved, and Graham Beards questioned others, it might have been better to ping involved editors to talk, or ask for help from WikiProjects, and to give it more time ... but here we are, no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soumya-8974: thank you very much for your help with this (although I have no idea what a "dole" is) - hope you are enjoying your return to education. I could fix this article but I would rather spend the considerable time needed on some more specialist articles which there is no chance of others updating. All I can suggest is that if anyone does fix it they ask an intelligent 16 year old such as Soumya-8974 to read through it once they have finished to make sure it is understandable.Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what a "dole" is – "Dole" is a clipping of adolescent. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John M Wolfson
  • I'll note that this is a Level 1 Vital Article, so I'm going to be stricter in my interpretations of the FACR with this than I would an FAC of a "normal" article (or even anything that's not our Top 10 most important subjects).
  • Sourcing is of the utmost importance, especially here. From a brief inspection of the references list, I see a citation to The Alcalde (an alumni magazine) and Live Science. While I'm sure that Live Science is an adequate source, it is by no means the top-notch source in discussing something as scientifically commonplace as winds. Speaking of winds, that Live Science citation (Ref #157 as I type this) is part of a bulleted list whose other constituents are uncited without adequate excuse. There are also a few journal articles from the 1960s. Already these issues would severely compromise if not sink an FAC, IMO.
 Partly done: the wind paragraph is now fully cited to a HQRS. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Nijsse that the lead, while understandable to me as a Geology graduate, is inappropriately dense, not to mention disjointed. I would put About 29% of Earth's surface is land consisting of continents and islands. The remaining 71% is covered with water, mostly by oceans but also lakes, rivers and other fresh water, which all together constitute the hydrosphere. The majority of Earth's polar regions are covered in ice, including the Antarctic ice sheet and the sea ice of the Arctic ice pack. Earth's interior remains active with a solid iron inner core, a liquid outer core that generates Earth's magnetic field, and a convecting mantle that drives plate tectonics. right after the first sentence, as the first paragraph.
 Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Etymology" section, the Beowulf image and notes, while cool, are ultimately "cruft" that should be removed to streamline the article, IMO.
  • "Billion years ago" should be clarified to refer to the short-scale "billion" (109, not 1012); very ideally (though this is admittedly just my preference) "Ga" would be substituted for "BYA".
We could use "Billion years ago (109 years or Ga)" at the first mention in the lede, and Ga thereafter, but I'll go with what the consensus is on this. Whichever we go with, there needs to be consistency - the lede and the "Origin of life and evolution" both use billion (although the latter switches to Ma in its second paragraph).Mikenorton (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • to form linking to Phase transition (in "Geological History") should either be dropped or have the link be reduced to simply form.
 Done: part of a rewrite of that paragraph. Mikenorton (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-exhaustive run-through. Overall this is salvageable but needs attention. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Femke Nijsse
  • in addition to previous comments, I've now added 11 citation needed and six update needed tags in the article. Most of those are beyond my sphere of knowledge. Mikenorton, you seem to be knowledgeable about geology. Do you think you might have time to further help out here? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done:I've rewritten the paragraphs on continental growth and tweaked the bit on supercontinents - I hope that's clearer now. Mikenorton (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done:I have attempted to clarify how the age of the Jack Hills zircons matches with the Acasta Gneiss being the oldest known continental crust. Mikenorton (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've also reworded the bit about mass extinctions. Mikenorton (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: in trying to address the issues raised by me and others, I'm constantly finding new issues and have come to the conclusion that concerted efforts are needed to save this article. There are now 13 citation needed tags, and I'm discovering more prose that is subpar ( and it is of the lithosphere that the tectonic plates are composed), I'm finding many dead links to sources, and it is not always clear whether all the sourcing is high quality, with a high reliance on self published websites by what seems to be academics (f.i. http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/models/constants.html). Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Devonian Wombat has been great in getting high-quality citation into the article; only four citation needed tags left. The major lay-out issues have also been resolved. I'm confident we'll get this back to at least GA quality, and maybe FA (never have done a FA, so not sure how high we have to aim). Slow but steady progress. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Holding, per Femke. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment everything bar two statements now has a citation. I've been going over the entire text of the article to identify which parts need updating, did some updating myself and tagged a remaining 10 statements in need of updating. Once that is done, I'll ask some of the more experienced FA people how far we still have to go. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All needs updating tags have been dealt with . The current project is to improve the organisation of the article, identifying parts that don't have summary style, identifying omissions and making sure the lead is a proper summary of the article.
There is one part of the article dealing with the historical notions of earth that were struggling with. I've asked help from the WikiProject history of science, but no response as of yet. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hanif Al Husaini, I've replaced it by a fungus and noticed the article doesn't even talk about fungi. Will add a sentence talking more about how life interacts with Earth, recycling minerals and other stuff like carbon and nitrogen. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead: "Over 99% of all species that ever lived on Earth are extinct." But it is not mentioned in body. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now mentioned in the body and cited.
  • Request for final(?) feedback I believe all comments above have been addressed. Considering the vast amount of work that had to be done I suspect there are some more details that need addressing. FAR regulars, John M Wolfson, would you be willing to give some more feedback so that we can work towards closing this FAR? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Femke, a new review

Alert: I am less strict on older FAs that have already run on the mainpage. And it is important to save as many stars on broadly important articles as we can.

  • Noting that it is commendable that this article on a clearly broad topic stays below 8,000 words of prose (reinforcing my long-standing argument about the proper use of summary style and that we should not need to expose our readers to 45 minutes of reading).
  • I recommend moving the Spoken Wikipedia link in External links to the talk page ... it is 8 years old.
  • Why the CNN link in External links? I would think that belongs at that country article or elsewhere ... otherwise, should that information be incorporated into this article?
  • In the section Origin of life and evolution, there is MOS:SANDWICH and image links go after article links in the section hatnotes.
  • Overall, I suggest there is an excess of images, causing clutter, and the least useful should be eliminated.
  • There is quite a sea of blue: need to run the dup links checker, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt
  • How much of that "See also" is already linked in the article (or should be already linked in the article)?
  • Clear on most of the other MOS items I usually check. And no unnecessary "however"s ... nice!
  • The prose is quite competent!
All  Done. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that Jo-Jo Eumerus might have a quick glance, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Also, @Graham Beards: for a re-check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson 2, Earthbound Boogaloo
  • I still think the notes in the "Etymology" section ought to be removed and if applicable incorporated into the prose.
I missed that before. I moved the notes to the talk page for if anyone wants to incorporate them. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • definite in definite sense should link to definite article, whose link should be removed from "the", which if need be can be emphasized using <em> tags or {{em}}.
 Done. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Greek Gaia and Gaea comes Gaian and Gaean. should be cited, which should be easy to do.
 Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Google Earth in the External Links duly licensed? If so, is it appropriate?
    How would I figure this out? I think Google Earth is one of the most relevant external links you could have for this article.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of duplinks, using the highlighter.
 Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing seems fine.
Other than that, this is acceptable to retain the star, although do fix the issues Sandy and I were talking about. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've finished copyediting; found nothing major, just a few dead links in the references (that I updated) and a few random uppercases in the text. I did some spotchecks of the hard data while I was reading, and found no problems. Some of the sources are a bit more "general" instead of "scholarly" (National Geographic, some newspapers, Iberdrola, you know what I mean), but they are supporting stuff like "Earth has resources that have been exploited by humans." and "The seven continents of Earth", so they're fine in my view. To Femke: could you please change that "To second order" in the text? It's the only thing that I did not get and my "research" only led me to Second-order, which left me even more confused. Thank you for your work on this article. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Earth/archive1&oldid=988742429"