The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is in the main a well-structured, well-cited, and well-illustrated article, largely ready for GA status.
However there are texts, including the first paragraph of the article body, the whole "In fiction" section, and several images that require citations. Reviewers have the choice of quick-fail for articles in this sort of state.
The "In fiction" section is, in addition, formatted as a list of what looks much like pop-culture trivia. The options are to remove it, or to rewrite it as a paragraph of discursive with reliable secondary sources, i.e. not attempting to rely on the media themselves but naming and citing critics or scholars who reliably discuss and analyse the media.
In "Base depth" is the assertion "The table to the right shows that the first hundred metres of permafrost forms relatively quickly but that deeper levels take progressively longer." This has several problems: "to the right" is false on small screens where the table will be above or below the text; it is uncited; and the table does not have a row for "100 metres" so it's not easy to see how the claim (cited or not) can be derived from the table. The sentence needs to be replaced with a statement that can be based on Lunardini 1995 or a similar source, and cited to that source.
Why are italics used in "Massive ground ice"? Seems inconsistent.
Strictly speaking, discontinuous permafrost section uses them too, and for the same purpose - to highlight specific terms, which may otherwise get overlooked. The logic of whichever editor did that years ago seems to make sense to me, but I'll admit I didn't check what WP:MOS has to say on this particular point. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section on "Landforms", main link Patterned ground, provides 8 detailed images but only a very brief text. Since the illustrated landforms appear relevant, a slightly more detailed summary is needed that at least states what a palsa and a pingo is, and that mentions very briefly how palsas, pingos, polygons, rings, and ice wedges form, and what solifluction is.
Two "excerpts" are used in the article ("excerpt|Permafrost carbon cycle#Carbon release from the permafrost|paragraphs=1-3}}" and "excerpt|Permafrost carbon cycle#Cumulative"). I'm very doubtful if this is (ever) a wise approach when the relationship between science articles is parent topic to child topic, as the coverage requirements are completely different in the two cases. This, the parent article, should provide not an excerpt/copy of the same text, but a brief summary-style paragraph of the key points, with a "main" link to the child/subsidiary article. This may well use some of the same citations as the child article, but it should be briefer and not go into any of the details. The sort of inappropriate detail is well illustrated by "would add 0.06 °C (0.11 °F) (with a range of 0.02–0.14 °C (0.036–0.252 °F)) 50 years after the last anthropogenic emission,". Instead we should be saying (broadly) that the scenarios are serious and would have major effects on global temperatures over timescales of decades to centuries.
The section "Revival of ancient microorganisms" is almost 1000 words long, on a topic which is at best tangential to the subject of the article, in other words WP:COATRACK probably applies. It should be replaced by a "main" link and a short summary of the key points; the "main" link should point to a subsidiary article called Revival of ancient microorganisms in permafrost or something similar.
I would rather not simplify warming effects too much. There is no reason to use numbers and percentages with geographic data yet go vague with climatological information, and doing so would only breed confusion. Still, you make fair points about the reliance on excerpts and section size: I aim to write a couple of summary paragraphs for the carbon cycle, and to split off the microorganism section into something like Microbiology of permafrost (not to mention expanding the section on landforms). These changes are going to be time-consuming, though, so don't expect much progress until around the weekend. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In "History of scientific research", you mention "the Russian term vechnaia merzlota". Since this is then discussed and the English translation is criticised, we need to know what the Russian actually meant in detail. Suggest you format this as {{lang|ru|vechnaia merzlota}} and provide both the Cyrillic script of the Russian words and a literal translation (vechnaia seems to mean "eternal, everlasting" and merzlota seems to mean something like "frozen soil", needs checking).
It's not that big of a point when compared to the rest of the article, and the source is not fully available without subscriptions, so it may be easier to omit or minimize the mention of this. I'll see what works later on. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added language formatting and found a very recent source providing an alternate translation. I also found another article which talks in depth about the objections to the term brought up in the paywalled book which I originally cited. While the article appears really detailed, I don't know if citing that particular website is in line with best practices, so I'll ask for your input on this. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a nonprofit org. is fine but since it may be political I'd suggest you say it's a nonprofit when introducing it, i.e. "According to the nonprofit organisation" or "...the pressure group ..." or something like that. But it doesn't sound as if you really need it anyway?
No, not really. It certainly is political, and while the parts where the article seems to retell the book are fine, they are combined with what seem to be their own opinion in a way that'll likely be too confusing to disentangle. The other reference should be fine. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly too many, too similar images of Herschel Island. The image next to "frozen debris lobes" in "Thaw-induced ground instability" possibly actually shows such a lobe, in which case the image needs to be labelled as such. If not it's probably superfluous.
When an image caption is not a complete sentence, but consists only of a noun phrase, it should not end with "."; there are multiple images in this state.
The image at top of "Classification and extent" contains substantial commented-out text including citations. Not clear why that is; a citation is certainly needed, and (brief) explanation would probably be appropriate?
Well, I am not sure when this happened, but uncommenting the text results in a really awkward and overly large caption, in addition to a couple of simple paragraphs that do not easily fit into the current structure. I'll have to think more about how to rewrite this properly. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should also say that I'm not sure about some of the "citation needed", particularly the ones in the construction section. What kind of a reference would be needed for those images/sections, specifically? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matti&Keti: you seem to have made more than a few edits to this article, and over a longer period of time than I have. I wonder if you would be willing to comment on this, or if you have any ideas on how to improve the citations of the images that are currently tagged? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key point is that where a caption strays from simple description (in the manner of 'a house on stilts') to argumentation ('...intended to prevent the thawing of permafrost') then a citation is required. This can be fixed by citing the caption, or by cutting it down to simple description. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are mostly in Last, First format, but there are several instances of "vauthors=" (giving a format like Bloggs JC rather than like Bloggs, John C., e.g. refs [104], [105]) which should be (globally) replaced with Last, First.
Spot-checks on sources are mostly ok but see the following items. I've spelt out a couple of page ranges for you.
It's a bit surprising to have New Yorker cited in a science article but the instance seems reasonable here.
[2] says "(15% of the exposed land surface area in the Northern Hemisphere)" but our "Classification and extent" section makes the different claim "Because permafrost zones are not entirely underlain by permafrost, only 15% of the ice-free area of the Northern Hemisphere is actually underlain by permafrost.[2]" --- needs fixing.
[21] (Circum-Arctic...) needs all its authors, publisher.
[33] is EB; surely we can find something better than that.
[51] (French 2007) needs ISBN, page number(s). The three instances may need different pages. Curiously, the sentence "Intrasedimental or constitutional ice ... injection ice." is cited to French (without pages) and Shumskiy & Vtyurin 1966, but multiple other sources, post-1966, with discussion, are commented out. Are French and Shumskiy & Vtyurin the right sources to cite here?
[95] (Russia declares emergency) should use Last, First format.
[96] USES CAPITALS.
[102] is apparently written by a certain Mr. U.N.E. Programme: something wrong here.
All the simple corrections are done. Rewrote [2] to not just match the text but also hopefully be more readable. Replaced [33] with a scientific paper, and had to rewrite quite a bit of the section to reflect its information. With Shumskiy & Vtyurin, I am wondering about the necessity of citing so old myself now. I will most likely seek newer, alternate sources this upcoming weekend. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this item still outstanding?
No, it was about the section I rewrote. Kept that particular 1960s reference for posterity, looked up a couple of those old, commented-out references and folded them back into text, but I also found 5 or so references from the last 5 years to balance it out and keep the section up to date. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following recent edits, refs [104] and [108] contain pointers to IPCC refs that don't exist.
This should be fixed by now? I went through practically all the references, discovering many issues in the process (i.e. some references not using a template, others only a generic "Citation", imprecise dates on many references, lack of DOI links on too many journal citations, etc.) While the preview window still flags two reference template maintenance messages and one maintenance error, I can't spot where they are, and I don't think it's to do with the IPCC citations. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article has several issues which may take some time to fix. There isn't a hurry but we need to agree a timescale, and keep to it, so please let me know what you want. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Chiswick Chap and InformationToKnowledge, I just wanted to give you moral support for this work, and say thank you to both of you for your work on bringing this article to GA status! Much appreciated. EMsmile (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
