Talk:Desert of Maine

"Preserved as a natural curiosity"?

No, not natural. The "desert" is carefully maintained by the owners, with an aggressive weeding campaign to prevent plant growth, and a program of sand-replenishment. This is neither a "desert" nor a natural phenomenon. It's a sandy patch, maintained as a sandy patch, in order to attract tourists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The 13500 refers to the glaciers retreat from the area, not the rebound, per sources. Fixed the article wording to match. Crescent77 (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The 13500 refers to the glaciers retreat from the area, not the rebound, per sources. Fixed the article wording to match. Crescent77 (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Sand does not a desert make

The presence of sand no more creates a desert than the presence of ice creates a glacier; a sandy beach along the Amazon River is no more a desert than a frozen creek in the smokey mountains is a glacier. What makes a desert a desert is the scarcity of water (precipitation, etc). What is the precipitation for the Desert of Maine? I am not a geologist so possibly the Desert of Maine is in a micro-climate or rain shadow or something? Would like clarification if there is a precipitation anomaly in the DoM area.

The name "Desert of Maine" is a misnomer, there is average precipitation for the area. As the article states, the silt is there from improper farming techniques, and has been turned into a tourist attraction, much like the rest of Freeport.04redsox07 (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely true. The Carcross Desert is the smallest real desert. The Freeport desert receives the same precipitation as the rest of Freeport and the Maine mid-coast region, which I think we all can agree is not desert. --166.205.136.7 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I take it back: Even Carcross is not a true desert. So who even knows which true desert is the smallest. --166.205.136.7 (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Um...Is no one gonna talk about the trees?

No,we arent.

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:Desert of Maine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 22:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose standard is fine, and the article complies with the relevant section of MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The article includes references to published sources. The citations were a bit of a mess, with one source duplicated three times, newspaper writers misnamed, and many different citation styles; it would have been better to clean up the citations before nominating this for GA. I've tidied them up, but all of the journal articles should have links or DOIs added for the sake of verifiability. There's a major plagiarism hit, but from the chronology it appears to be another site that ripped off this article.

   The first sentence in "Tourism" says that the Desert has been a tourist attraction for "over 100 years", but the source cited says since 1925, which is less than one hundred years ago, and which also disagrees with the assertion at the end of "History" that it was made into a tourist attraction in 1926 (I can't read the NYT article to see what it has to say). The "Sifting History's Sands Source" also says 1925, and it say the land was purchased for $300, not the $400 figure that is again cited to the NYT. This should be cleared up.

   Likewise, the "Surficial Geology" source says that the isostatic rebound caused parts of what is now Maine to be underwater until "About 13,000 years ago", but the article says that coastal Maine was uncovered by the sea "by about 13,500 years ago". I'm not seeing where the "by 13.5 ka" detail comes from in the other two sources cited, either, though I can only see their abstracts. Details like these need to be reconciled with the sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article doesn't stray into trivia or tangentially related topics. I'd like to see one more basic detail covered, if it is known: When did the site start to be called "The Desert of Maine"? (I would guess when it started to be promoted as a tourist attraction after the Goldrup purchase?) This would also be a good point at which to include in the body the fact (currently stated in the lead without a citation) that the land isn't a genuine "desert" but is called that promotionally because of its sandy appearance. You could cite the fact to some sort of climate reference data, such as you might find here or here.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article is suitably neutral, not overblowing or advocating for the site.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article is stable and has not changed significantly since being nominated.

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):

   The infobox image is suitable and has an appropriate license. The article would benefit from more images, perhaps one illustrating the variety of tourist attractions found at the site today for the "Tourism" section. There's quite a selection in the Commons category; I like File:Desert of Maine - Freeport, ME - IMG 7926.JPG, but I'm open to the nominator's ideas.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There are a couple of details I'd like to see added to the body, and I'm concerned by a pattern of details in the text not quite lining up with the sources I can see. All of the scientific sources need some sort of URL or DOI added to them for verifiability, and the details need to be reconciled with the sources. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

   So essentially you're saying I just need to clean up the citations? AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

   Nope, I'm also saying that "There are a couple of details I'd like to see added to the body, and I'm concerned by a pattern of details in the text not quite lining up with the sources I can see. ... the details need to be reconciled with the sources." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

   I understand what you mean now, I will try to verify the information provided in the article. I didn’t write most of the article, do I don’t have direct access to all of the references. I am going to just start with checking websites linked to the article and finding incorrect information. AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

   Update:

   I checked a few of the sources and there were a couple of errors so I fixed them. AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

   The copyedits looks like a definite improvement. Still interested to learn about when and how the name "Desert of Maine" originated, to see DOIs or other links for all the scientific sources, and to see text-source contradictions like "over 100 years" resolved. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

   I added your name origin idea, and I fixed the source contradictions. For adding the DOIs, do you want me to add links to online domains where I can find most of these reference books? AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

   I believe in finished with the rest of your suggestions. [See Desert of Maine revision history] AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

   Some good progress here! I guess we can accept the word of the site itself as sufficiently reliable for the claim that it was Goldrup who named the "Desert", though I'm not thrilled to be using a self-published source like a YouTube video to back it up. The "Tourism" section now says that the attraction's been in operation "for 96 years as of 2023", but that seems to imply a start date of 1927, which none of the sources I've seen says, and it's phrased in such a way as to very quickly go out of date; further, the cited source only says "nearly a century", which is an example of the "concerning pattern" of infidelity to the sources I mentioned above. How about just "since 192X", once we pin down what that year should be, with a citation that actually gives the date? Likewise, nothing's been done about the disagreement among the sources as to whether the purchase price was $300 or $400. If you can justify a firm conclusion as to the correct figure for the date and price, then put that; if there's irreconcilable disagreement among the sources, then it's fine to just say "1925 or 1926" and cite sources that say both. I'm also still no seeing where the "13,500 years ago" figure comes from in the sources. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

   Noted, I will cite both of the sources and say 1925-1926 just In case. Although I couldn't find any other sources for how exactly the site was named, I'll find some way to incorporate it. AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

   I ended up deleting the first source all together, as it is slightly out of date and I believe new discoveries about the desert's history have been found since then. I ended up using the second source for the initial purchase and establishment. AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The 13500 refers to the glaciers retreat from the area, not the rebound, per sources. Fixed the article wording to match. Crescent77 (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

To be consistent with the chronology of the place, I'm inclined to put the geology before the history, and combine them into one section for narrative continuity. Thoughts? Crescent77 (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I personally think the history section before the geology section looks more visually appealing. AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

More good progress! Geology before History is what makes sense chronologically, but History is the section the average reader is likelier to want to read first; I'd keep it as-is. I agree that the "sifting the sands" source seems the most credible, so I support just going with its numbers. The only remaining issue is that the assertion in the lead that the area isn't actually a "desert" should be duplicated into the body, with some sort of citation to verify that the climate of coastal Maine is not remotely a desert climate. Almost there! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. I felt like mentioning it twice looks sloppy, but If you want me to add it in the introduction, I'd be happy to. AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way- I just updated the article with some new information I found. This should wrap up the review. Thoughts? AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! This article is approved for GA. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2023 (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.

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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Desert Of Maine

• ... that there is a "desert" in the U.S. state of Maine called the Desert of Maine? source
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk). Self-nominated at 23:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Desert of Maine; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Drive-by comment (not a full review): (1) "only desert in New England" does not appear in the article, and needs to before this hook can be approved; (2) quora is not a reliable source, and neither is the YouTube video used as a reference in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) AverageEstoniaEnthusiast Welcome. Regarding the hook it is catchy and would be a quirky hook, however it needs to be in the article. The article has the correct inline citations and is neutral. Recently promoted to GA so it fits our criteria for inclusion. First DYK nomination so a QPQ is not needed. Since there is no RS which states the hook it needs a reference. The article and hook are interesting. In addition to the hook I have a concern about a copyright violation, the detector picks up. See here. Bruxton (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• I edited the source and hook. The readability of the hook might be a little bit wonky, so let me know if you want it changed. I will start working on filtering out the plagiarism in the article.AverageEstoniaEnthusiast (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
• After doing a bit of investigating, I found that the version with the 'plagiarized' information was actually fully stolen from the Wikipedia article at the time. To be fair, the "Random Times" sounds pretty sketchy, so a stunt like this is most definitely something they would do. For proof of this, see Revision as of 14:17, 3 February 2021 Basically exactly what Crescent77 said.

It's pretty clear the article of copyright concern is copypasta that takes most of its material from WP, most of the rest from sources referenced here. Alot of the material in question has been on WP for years, while the article of concern is only a little more than a year old. Crescent77 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed a youtube reference see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Bruxton (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

From WP:RSPYT: "Content uploaded from a verified official account ... may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." The content being cited comes from the management of the attraction, which would be an unreliable source for anything with promotional tendencies, but I think it can be accepted for something as neutral as when the attraction got its current name. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0, AverageEstoniaEnthusiast, and David Eppstein: Bryanrutherford0 you have left out the most important part of WP:RSPYT where they give an example of a verified account that is acceptable such as that of a news organization. This video is a YouTube cartoon created by a privately owned company. Is it really needed for the article? It seems easy to replace this with another reference and maybe move this YouTube video to external links? The article is somewhat incomplete (D7) in that we also do not list the recent new owners or previous owners in the article. Also here is an archived Boston Magazine article about the place. Possibly some lines in that article would support ALT0 with cultural definitions of desert. I hope to approve a new hook or find support for ALT0, but we have these other issues to sort out. Bruxton (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

A news organization is, indeed, mentioned as an example of a source that might post Youtube content that might be relevant to a WP article, but the guideline certainly doesn't say, "Only content from news organizations has the potential to be cited in a WP article." The citation is used to support the assertion of the date of origin of the attraction's current name, and refusing to accept a business's assertion of its own date of establishment, in the absence of controversy or conflicting published claims, seems excessively pedantic to me. As for whether it's needed, not at all, if you're aware of another published source that documents the same fact. The attraction's owners aren't notable, and there would be nothing to say about them beyond their names, which would add nothing to the article for any reader not already personally acquainted with them. Given how little the article would gain in context from the inclusion of a non-notable name, I incline in the direction of respecting the privacy of persons who aren't the subject of the article, as discussed at WP:LPNAME. The Boston Magazine piece looks like an excellent find, and should definitely be used to improve the article. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Bryanrutherford0:, our article does not say that this is privately owned until the end of the article I think it should be in the lead. The privacy of the owners is probably out the window when they have RS about them. I will await a new ALT or support for ALT0 and I will not edit war the YouTube source. I think if it can be replaced it should be. Two editors here have called it out as red. I am but one editor here and whatever I approve will get scrutinized by an admin queue promotor and then it will be subject to errors. Perhaps the nominator can return to add information and get a hook back on track? Bruxton (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with Bryan Rutherford that YT is an acceptable source in this case, but I did find an alternate to keep folks happy.

I agree with Bruxton that the lede should indicate the site is privately owned, so I edited as such.

I agree with Bryan Rutherford that the inclusion of a list of owners is both unneccesary and undesirable.

Crescent77 (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Crescent77: I appreciate your efforts and thank you for the opinion. I think the ownership is is more about adding the timeline of ownership, and maybe the 2018 price, 725k. Also these articles list property amenities like a gift shop and barn which is more than 225 years old, which are not in the article. 1, 2. It is about the article being complete (D7). ATM, we are giving the article the appearance that this is some geology museum and not a private business. So that is where my confusion came in. When I first read the article this seemed like a park, not a private business. Even now it also uses a museum infobox. It calls the area a "Geology museum" in the infobox, but Geology museum is not mentioned or referenced in our article. The owners make no such claim, they simply call the place a "Tourist Attraction". The article is also listed in three museum categories. But Museum is not mentioned or referenced at all in our article. If this is a museum or geology museum, that should be made clear in the article. Bruxton (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0, AverageEstoniaEnthusiast, and Crescent77: The nomination has been stalled just shy of three weeks without action. The unaddressed issue is outlined above and I am wondering if anyone plans edit the article so that the nomination can proceed. This is strictly a tourist attraction but the article is in three museum categories- those should be removed. I see that "Geology museum" has been removed from the infobox so that is one step. Our article probably should also use the "attraction" Template:Infobox attraction and not the museum one. Our article should make it clear that this is not a museum and it is a tourist attraction. Bruxton (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Bruxton, I'm wearing my editor hat and not my DYK hat, so this is not a re-review. That said, I made the changes mentioned above. AEE already implemented the infobox fix, and I fixed the cats and moved the YouTube video to the EL section. I don't think there's anything left that suggests this is a museum. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: thank you much, please review - I think all they need is a hook that is in the article. Bruxton (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

ALT0 has been edited since the first reviewers looked at it, and I think it's supported now. We could also do:

• ALT1: ... that there is a "desert" in Maine?
  • as a final slot hook maybe? The hookiness does depend on basic reader awareness of Maine climate/geography though.
• ALT2 ... that a farm was treated so poorly that it turned into the Desert of Maine?

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@AverageEstoniaEnthusiast and Crescent77: Checking if you like either of these. Bruxton (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The nominator has approved ALT1 here. Thank you @Firefangledfeathers: Bruxton (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with Bryan Rutherford that YT is an acceptable source in this case, but I did find an alternate to keep folks happy.

I agree with Bruxton that the lede should indicate the site is privately owned, so I edited as such.

I agree with Bryan Rutherford that the inclusion of a list of owners is both unneccesary and undesirable. Crescent77 (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Bruxton Darn! Right out of time! I just checked wikipedia today, and I saw your message so I fixed the infobox.