Talk:Technical geography/GA2

• I note that the GA1 review was largely complete and making good progress when the reviewer became unable to continue. The review essentially (and correctly) accepted the structure and content of the article, and would surely have passed it without much more work had it run to completion. I have therefore attempted not to duplicate the review effort already made.

• Two citations have been removed as from a duff journal. They have been marked as "citation needed" and need attention.
  • Comment: I have removed the now uncited claim as I'm unable to find an adequate source from an appropriate journal at this time. I will continue to pursue this in the future, but for now think it is best to remove the now unsourced claim. Reading the removed citation, I believe it is pointing to non-English sources that might be a bit older. I've struggled to track them down. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Those missing citations concern 19th century notions of what "technical geography" was. We cannot safely assume that an 1860 mention of TG denoted the modern understanding of the term, not least because most of the modern statistical and computational techniques associated with it did not exist. What did the 1860 TG actually entail? I think this should briefly be glossed in the section.
  • Comment: The two sources in the 19th century discuss the term a bit, specifically stating that technical meant "especially appropriate to any art or science" in the 1889 edition of the journal School and Home Education. The 1891 International Geographical Congress at Berne listed mathematical geography, geodesy, and cartography as topics under the discipline at the time.

• The same consideration applies in 'Early history and etymology' where the mention of TG needs some critical (and sourced) discussion to avoid charges of WP:OR. In particular, how can we say that the "TG" of [7] Cave 1749 is the same in any useful sense as the TG of 2025? The use of [7] (a primary source) here, on its own, is concerning; does [32] Sitwell do anything to explicate the usage? (In contrast, and as illustration of the non-OR requirement, [34] Gee does exactly what is needed to validate Eratosthenes' claim to TG.)
  • Comment: Sitwell as a source is an annotated bibliography of geography books in English that predate 1888. It discusses the book "Geography reformed: a new system of general geography, according to an accurate analysis of the science in four parts," and that is the earliest I could find reference to "technical geography" in English (hence sayying "at least as far as 1749" rather then exactly to it). I included it to verify that the source exists. It also provides an outline of the publication, in which Sitwell does not say it was the first instance, but it does say it listed technical geography. The 1749 the oldest I could find after a fairly comprehensive literature review. In the description of the topic, Sitwell states of the book "It reads as a work by a scholar with an interest in the problems of obtaining accurate information about the countries of the world. He is more concerned with the construction of accurate maps (and globes) than with the descriptions that would accompany them. Sources are cited. " Modern technical geography has Geographic information systems and Computer cartography, as well as new techniques, but the goals are still largely aligned with Sitwells description of the work. Technical geography was focused on making maps in the 1700s, it was focused on mathematical geography and cartography in the 1800s. While the technology has changed, I don't see any reason to think the concept isn't the same then as today. Added a bit from Sitwells description for this.

• Overall the article is a model of textual clarity, avoiding jargon and needless complexity. It is also a model of well-chosen illustration.

• I am not sure that a list of 'Academic programs' is appropriate here; and it seems very US-centric. It would be better to have it as a stand-alone list article.
  • Comment: Those were included for proof of modern usage and verification. I'm not sure I remember the full context, but it was a talk page discussion that sparked the inclusion. It was earlier in the pages conception, before there were as many sources. Would a stand alone list page be preferred? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  That would definitely be better, yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm looking for a model list article to base this title/format on. Do you have one in mind? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Models, hmm. There are so many lists out there. List of biology awards seems perfectly decent if unexciting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the example. I have been tossing around ideas for a list article and am going to try and work out something along the lines of "List of Institutions with Geography programs" that builds upon the list of schools with "technical geography" as part of their curriculum. A bit ambitious and will take some time, but removed the section from this page and will consider it a separate topic. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you.

• I am similarly doubtful about the list of 'Influential geographers'; this is lacking dates, which have a large effect on what we'd expect a geographer to be able to do. This too would be better stand-alone, though it evidently overlaps with List of geographers. The alternative would be to mention each person briefly in the section of this article (the topic) where they were pioneers.
  • Comment: This section was included based on the model set by geography. Based on this feedback, I think it is best to remove the content. I moved List of geographers to the see also section and think that adequately covers the topic. Many (such as Tobler), were mentioned in the text already. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  Great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• I am doubtful about the relevance of the mammoth tusk and erdapfel images; the criterion for inclusion isn't their interest to Geography (not in doubt) but their claim to be (proto-)technical. If the T in TG isn't just decoration, it must mean that TG is a distinguishable subset of G, i.e. that the rest of the Venn diagram is out of scope.
  • Fixed, removed these images. You're right they are not really the best fit, and I included them mostly because I thought they looked cool. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• The Tobler image should be |upright, and the caption should say how he is relevant to TG (with ref), summarizing the article text as needed.
  • Fixed, improved caption. I think I made it upright, but I'm not sure I did that correctly.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• The TR-1 recce aircraft image should similarly say why it is relevant here, especially as the plane is not even mentioned in the text.
  • Comment: specified aircraft types in the text, elaborated in the caption. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• What has the (delightful) photo of Stourhead to do with Geodesign?
  • Comment: my thought process here was that it was the main image for the page Landscape architecture. When I looked into it, the publication GIS-based landscape design research Stourhead landscape garden as a case study discusses it and uses the term "geodesign" 16 times throughout the text. Seemed enough reason to include. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• As far as I can ascertain, the images are all on Commons, and suitably licensed.

• GeogSage: The text, structure, and illustrations are in good shape. Attention is needed to the appended lists, and to the multiple book sources that currently lack page numbers. There are some minor image issues as well.

GeogSage: I'm not seeing any movement, nor even a response. Could you tell me your timescale for addressing this review? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

Sorry for the late reply, I saw the notices and have begun looking over them and intend to dig into them Monday/Tuesday. Last week I had some work stuff that came up and kept me from focusing on more brain intensive aspects of Wikipedia. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry again for the late reply. Had to redo some stuff because of the recent changes in data availability caused by stuff happening in the federal government. I have addressed some comments, and will work more tonight. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 00:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)