---

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

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

Reviewer: Praseodymium-141 (talk · contribs) 16:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Article seems fine at a glance. However, I will need to take a closer look before deciding whether to pass or fail. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 16:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   See below.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Mostly good. Just checking:

   • Is Online Etymolgy Dictionary a reliable source?
     • No consensus from this 2020 RSN discussion. The author might arguably be a WP:SME. It apparently compiles and interperets various sources. See also Online Etymology Dictionary. I think its up to you. If you still think it unreliable, I'll remove it and try to find an alternative. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
   • Is ref 123 (in Finnish) reliable?
   • Is ref 116 (in Russian) reliable?

   Also add citation where it says citation needed in the section Trade.¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 09:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

   Formation section is probably too long.

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 non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See below.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Comments[edit]

Images[edit]

Many of these images seem to be decorative. See:

• Mount Fuji in section Terrain
• Clouds above Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia and Yemen in section climate
• Kukenán-tepui mesa in Mountains and plateaus (it doesn't talk about mesas at all)
• Safed in culture
• A train in travel
• Checkerboarding in land use

Feel free to tell me how they are related to the sections and are not just decorations.¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 08:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

• Land terrain varies greatly, consisting of mountains, deserts, plains, plateaus, glaciers, and other landforms. - add the at the start of sentence.
• Land is commonly defined as the solid, dry surface of Earth. - add the at the start of sentence.
• the shoreline is defined as the area where dry land meets any body of water. - seems to contradict with the definition in the coast article.

Etymology[edit]

• Is the second paragraph related to the etymology of land?

Physical science[edit]

• This section is quite long and probably goes into to much detail on the formation, and maybe geomorphology of the land.
• Formation is mostly talking more about the Earth than the land.
• Terrain refers to an area of land and its features, or landforms. - I don't know, but I feel as though the at the start of the sentence reads better.
• Terrain seems to be filled with definitions.
• More definitions in geomorphology.

Features[edit]

• The area where land meets the ocean or another large body of water like a lake is called a coast or, alternatively, a "coastline". - same thing as with the lead.
• The line of mountains in a mountain range are usually formed from the same orogeny events, and their study is important to historical geology. - add ref.

Life science[edit]

• Check whether ref 122 references everything before it. Otherwise, add some refs in that desert bullet point.
• ref 127 - page needed.

Environmental issues[edit]

• More refs needed near the start of subsection biodiversity loss.

Overall[edit]

Article seems fine, will pass if issues above are fixed. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 20:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cdjp1: All the issues raised are above, I will give you a while to work on these. As stated above, I will pass this if issues are fixed. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 20:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane:, @DMT Biscuit:, @Helloheart:, @MRN2electricboogaloo:, @DFlhb:, @PerfectSoundWhatever:, @OliveYouBean:, @Spinixster:. See above for issues that need to be resolved for GA status. I have already found the pages for ref 127, and adjusted the pictures of Mt Fuji and Safed to more relevant ones. --Cdjp1 (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is NOT a good article. I feel that there's a sense of vagueness and the lack of actual detail here. For example, Land#Features have a very unscientific way of grouping terrestrial features together. There's too much focus on the human stuff and not enough focus on the animal/plant stuff. Also, there's no talk about extraterrestrial surfaces, which for solid planets such as Mars they can also be called as "land". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put this article on hold, and will fail this article if the issues not fixed on 1st May. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 07:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to fix some of these. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helped with a few, but I have to agree that the article isn't GA material yet; hadn't realized how much work still remained DFlhb (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has potential, but currently not up to GA standard, so I'll fail this article. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 07:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]