Talk:Daggett Rock

GA review

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 review is transcluded from Talk:Daggett Rock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Alces Alces Americana (talk · contribs) 16:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: I2Overcome (talk · contribs) 13:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I will begin reviewing this within the next week. I₂Overcome ^talk 13:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Corrected some grammatical errors, restructured a couple sentences
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, list incorporation, and table accessibility.	Remamed Geologic history → Geology, added unit conversions, otherwise looks good
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Added publisher (Maine Geological Survey) and date, corrected websites, otherwise looks good
	2b. 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).	Added a few additional citations. The wrong sources were cited for some claims; this has been corrected.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Two claims were not found in the sources: the southern segment is the largest and the rock is 0.25 miles from Wheeler Hill Road. These have been removed.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There was some close paraphrasing in the History section. I have modified some of the wording.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Very short, but there doesn't appear to be much else to say about this topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Nom was only significant author prior to my improvements for this review
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Added caption, only photo is the nom's own work
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, have suitable captions, and have alt text.	Another photo showing multiple segments of the boulder or an aerial photo would be nice, if available
	7. Overall assessment.	Had a few issues, but now meets the Good Article criteria. Nice article.

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected, closed by Launchballer (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Daggett Rock in Maine is said to have been split down the middle by lightning when a woodsmen stood atop it and cursed at God?

• Source: Weddle, Thomas K. (August 2004). "Daggett Rock - Maine's Largest Glacial Erratic". digitalmaine.com. Maine Geological Survey. Retrieved 1 January 2025.

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Alces Alces Americana (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Alces Alces Americana (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC).

• Looking at Talk:Daggett Rock/GA1, I am not convinced that I2Overcome performed a sufficiently rigorous review or that this article–which is almost a stub–to make sure it met the GA requirements. The sources are 1.) a small town historical society's brief web article 2.) a short Maine Geological Survey slideshow 3.) a decently moderated but still user-generated trail finder website 4.) a self-published book and 5.) a brochure. This is not a GA. This is almost not enough to qualify as good enough to run at DYK if it was brand new. The only reason I'm not rejecting this outright is because I want to ask other editors about what procedure should be followed here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

GARs are usually preceded by a talk page post, which this sort of is. I recommend bringing it up to spec here before popping this through GAR. Courtesy ping to @Alces Alces Americana:.--Launchballer 06:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

If the article is not going to be be sufficiently improved in the next few days, I'm also willing to extend a courtesy review as thought this were simply a new article. It was published to the mainspace only a month prior to nomination here, which is well outside the standard seven days, but I'd be willing to show some flexibility and leave it up to the DYK regulars to determine if that flexibility will break the project. The GAR has been opened. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• The nomination is now on hold pending the GAR. Note that it if fails the GAR, it would be ineligible because being created one month before nominating is far longer than seven days + 2-3 days extensions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I have closed the GAR as a delist. The article is now not eligible to run as a a DYK until it is either 5x expanded or it is again promoted to GA. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Daggett Rock

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. Pbritti (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

As I detailed here, this is an incredibly short article at just over 1,700 character of text that is inadequately sourced. The sources present are 1.) a small town historical society's brief web article 2.) a short Maine Geological Survey slideshow 3.) a decently moderated but still user-generated trail finder website 4.) a self-published book and 5.) a brochure. The subject is not encyclopedically covered in this article and the sources do not live up to the GA standard. Both the nominator and reviewer are relatively new and unexperienced editors, so this strikes me far less as a policy issue and far more as an earnest mistake in how to perform a review. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. I recognize this is a very short article, but I thought it met the bare minimum of the GA criteria. I did give it a thorough review and made several improvements, although I missed that the book was self-published. I disagree that Maine Trail Finder is user-generated. This a very narrow subject area (it’s a boulder in the woods), so I thought that the article’s coverage was sufficiently broad. The sources seemed reliable and supported what was written, minus two claims I removed. I₂Overcome ^talk 14:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello all,

First off, I apologize for my ineptitude in regards to my DYK nomination; as I'm sure you picked up, I have no idea what I'm doing half the time, but I am trying hard to learn. In regards to the short length of the article, as I2Overcome said, the article is "very short, but there doesn't appear to be much else to say about this topic". In regards to my inadequate sourcing, I had thought sources from both a Historical Society and State Wide Geologic Survey would suffice, but I greatly appreciate your input. Regardless, I have since reached out to said Historical Society asking for addition sources, and they should get back to me in the upcoming 48 hours. Thank you very much for putting up with my inexperience. Alces Alces Americana (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

You should give yourself more credit; it was a good effort, and there was nothing specifically wrong with the DYK nomination other than a disagreement over whether the GA criteria were met. I₂Overcome ^talk 15:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The DYK nomiantion is fine, but this is not GA material or article. It is not "Broad in its coverage", you said it yourself "it’s a boulder in the woods", unless it becomes part of scientific studies or envelopment in other areas, it is not more than a stub/start article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I interpret "broad in its coverage" as meaning the article covers the main aspects of the topic, which this article does. There’s no requirement that the topic of the article be the subject of scientific studies (although it has been the subject of geological study). I₂Overcome ^talk 16:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

The coverage here is insufficient to meet the broadness requirement. There are a small number of details regarding the folklore elements related to this rock, but they are rather weakly sourced. As such, we have very little cultural discussion of the rock. Glancing at recent news coverage, there is certainly cultural interest in the rock. However, I would encourage the consultation of larger databases like JSTOR or newspaper archives to locate additional mentions of the rock. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

https://www.pressherald.com/2015/07/05/its-worth-the-trip-daggett-rock-seems-supernatural/ An example of some of the “recent” news coverage. For reference, the Portland Press Harald is arguably the most reputable newspaper in Maine.Alces Alces Americana (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

So why is not that source in use? It would help improve MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Will do.Alces Alces Americana (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

If I may, I believe it is “Broad in its coverage”; as it addresses the main aspects of the topic and

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, as the good article criteria require.Alces Alces Americana (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

As soon as the Phillips Historical Society gets back to me I will share all the sources here.Alces Alces Americana (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't want you to share the source, I want you to improve the article. Its not your fault. The reviewer should have asked for a second opinion. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Any specific areas I should focus on?Alces Alces Americana (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Anything you can get your hands (source wise) just improve whatever you can. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t ask for a second opinion because I didn’t believe it was necessary. Clearly I was wrong. I’ve never reviewed an article this short before but I thought the coverage was broad enough for a very narrow topic area. I₂Overcome ^talk 17:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes. We are all humans. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm supportive of reassessment and think Pbritti has raised valid points. However, GA status in most cases is based on the opinions of two editors, and even experienced reviewers apply the GACR differently (broadness especially, in my experience). I don't think a reassessment means you did anything wrong- you meaningfully engaged with the article in your review (i.e. not just "looks fine, passing now"). Others may reasonably disagree with the outcome, but I hope no one involved feels too discouraged. This is a very natural part of the peer review process. Zzz plant (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that, Zzz plant. If my start of this reassessment was interpreted as "you're bad at Wikipedia" by anyone, let me clarify: no, a GAR means nothing other than one or more editors have concern about just the GA status of a single article. That you even bothered to write a decently well researched article on this subject is a sign that you are a benefit to the project, Alces Alces Americana. If you ever want a pair of eyes to assist you, please feel more than welcome to ask me. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Zzz plant and Pbritti: What is the status of this GAR? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Currently, I think this should be delisted. The Portland Press Herald source Alces Alces Americana mentioned has not been incorporated into the article, and I also see coverage on newspapers.com (a few examples: 1, 2, 3) over the last century. The sourcing currently in the article is not yet sufficient, which prevents it from broadly covering the topic. Zzz plant (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

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.