Talk:Machu Picchu/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Nominator: JustEMV (talk · contribs) 03:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 18:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be taking this on. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

The sources in this article have been raised as an issue. It is certainly true from a quick glance that they are weaker than they should be in a few places, so I will work through them.

Working from this revision.

[1]

A better source is needed for the claim that Machu Picchu was abandoned in 1572 than LiveScience. This claim also absolutely needs to be in the body text. If it is true, then more academic sources, likely already in the article will already be making this claim.
Coming back to this after reading further in the article, this information appears to be wrong

[2]

"on a 2,430-meter (7,970 ft) mountain ridge" -> tall/high
I don't know how this sources the claim "Construction appears to date from two great Inca rulers, Pachacutec Inca Yupanqui (1438–1471) and Túpac Inca Yupanqui (1472–1493)." given that neither are mentioned.
"In 1983, UNESCO designated Machu Picchu a World Heritage Site, describing it as "an absolute masterpiece of architecture and a unique testimony to the Inca civilization"." This quote does not appear to be in the source, and it was accessed only 5 days ago. I hope you can point out where this is.

[3]

"Often referred to as the "Lost City of the Incas"" This is the closest inline source to this claim/quote. It needs to be mentioned in the body. If it's not, it needs an inline source after it.
This is a quite average source for "It is located in the Machupicchu District within Urubamba Province", it is hard to find on the map and I find it hard to believe it's not mentioned in a prose source. Not GA requirement.

[4] I'll assume the claim is in here, although it's unclear why the source needs to non-English. Not GA requirement.
[8] Appears to be a university blog, without author attribution. Very weak source, too weak for an article of this standing.
[10] A self-guided tour 30 page text is very very weak. Not GA requirement.
[11]

It is unclear if this is editorial/opinion piece. Either way, not a good source.
Can't be used to say restoration continues, considering it was published almost 25 years ago, and the author is arguing to stop restoration.
"Photo by Hiram Bingham III in 1912 after major clearing and before reconstruction work began" is not sourced by this text.

[12]

"The Inca built the estate around 1450 but abandoned it a century later, at the time of the Spanish conquest. According to the new AMS radiocarbon dating, it was occupied from c. 1420–1532." These two sentences completely contradict each other.

[13]

Nitpick: the research was published in 2021.

[16]

You need to provide a page number for this.
There doesn't appear to be an entry for "picchu", but there is one for "pikchu".

[18] Says nothing about "old mountain"
[19] Definitely not a RS.
[20] Not a RS

So, now that I've looked at 20 sources, I can quite confidently say that the sourcing is insufficient for this article. Quite a few sources that are not RS, inline cites not sourcing claims, incorrect information in a few places. Many just very weak sources. I'll close this down, I hope you can take these points and use them to improve the article.

Quickfail as "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria", specifically "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);"

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2024 (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.