Talk:Minasgeraisite-(Y)

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:Minasgeraisite-(Y)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Cathodography (talk · contribs) 22:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: I2Overcome (talk · contribs) 01:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article over the next several days as part of the October GAN backlog drive. Fun fact: if this GAN passes, it will be only the third article about a mineral species (or previously accepted mineral species, in this case) to reach GA status or higher (the other two are Diamond and Widgiemoolthalite).

Discussion

• Did you use AI to help write this article? There's no policy specifically against this, as long as everything is properly sourced and formatted, which I will determine later. I only ask because GPTZero has high confidence this article is a mix of AI and human content, but it may be wrong. I₂Overcome ^talk 04:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Since mineralogy is not my primary area of expertise, I did use a LLM to help with drafting, but I revised the text myself and created the article because it relates to a Brazilian topic. The article's structure is mostly inspired from Widgiemoolthalite. Cattos^💭 17:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

    No problem; thanks for answering my question. I₂Overcome ^talk 00:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Are there any other images that could be added to this article? I₂Overcome ^talk 04:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• The image in the infobox needs a caption. I₂Overcome ^talk 04:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Done Cattos^💭 17:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• The image in the infobox is under copyright (see below). Please remove it and find another image, if available. Never mind, there is apparently an email from the author on file with WMF, but the author did not give Mindat the same license (which is unusual). I₂Overcome ^talk 04:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• The infobox has parameters that allow you to change the text and background color. Some editors of mineral articles (myself included) like to set the background color to a common color of the mineral, though this is not required.
  • Done Cattos^💭 18:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Have you considered making Characteristics the first section of the article? I₂Overcome ^talk 04:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Widgiemoolthalite places the Characteristics section last, but I agree it could also make sense to move it to the beginning. Cattos^💭 17:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• under the name minasgeraisite-(Y) Is it necessary to restate this? I₂Overcome ^talk 04:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Removed Cattos^💭 17:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• late-stage cavities of zoned granitic pegmatites Is this clear enough to be understood by the average reader? I₂Overcome ^talk 04:27, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• in a paper by Eugene E. Foord et al. Is it necessary to include this in the prose? I₂Overcome ^talk 05:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I think it's worth keeping, since it provides clear attribution to the authors who described the mineral. Cattos^💭 17:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• complex, zoned pegmatitic formations Explain what "zoned" means in the article? I₂Overcome ^talk 05:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Done Cattos^💭 17:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• was later modified to minasgeraisite-(Y) Modified from what? I₂Overcome ^talk 05:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Clarified Cattos^💭 18:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Minasgeraisite-(Y) occurs as a late-stage accessory mineral. I suggest removing this sentence, since it is repeated later in the section. I₂Overcome ^talk 07:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Removed the second instance Cattos^💭 17:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• and is typically associated with minerals such as milarite, albite, quartz, and muscovite. This is also repeated from earlier in the same section. I₂Overcome ^talk 07:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Removed Cattos^💭 17:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• The full details of the type locality are mentioned three times in the article. Ideally, it should only be once in the lead and once in the body. I₂Overcome ^talk 08:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Done Cattos^💭 17:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
• You have a monoclinic space group in the infobox with triclinic listed as the crystal system. In the Structure section, it lists three possible space groups for the mineral: P2₁/c, P2₁/a, and P1. From what I can tell, the most recent sources (1,2,4,6) affirm that this mineral is triclinic and in space group P1. It also appears the originally defined formula of Y₂CaBe₂Si₂O₁₀ is not accurate (see sources 1,2,4). I₂Overcome ^talk 23:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Fixed Cattos^💭 18:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that the most recent research determined the mineral to be in space group P1, meaning the earlier research suggesting the other two space groups was incorrect. I went ahead and removed them from the infobox so it just says P1, since that’s what sources 1 and 2 say. I can only read the abstracts of sources 4 and 6, but The crystal structure is typically understood as composed of alternating layers parallel to the (100) plane within a monoclinic symmetry, most commonly space group P21/c. seems to be referring to the consensus prior to 2018 when Cooper and Hawthorne determined it to be triclinic P1 and 2023 when the mineral was officially discredited. If so, this sentence should be changed to something like Prior to recent reinvestigation, the crystal structure was typically understood… I₂Overcome ^talk 21:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

    Thanks for the clarification. I replaced the sentence. Cattos^💭 23:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• other REEs Either replace with rare earth elements or define REEs somewhere in the article. I₂Overcome ^talk 00:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• characteristic 4.8² net Not clear what this means I₂Overcome ^talk 00:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Done Cattos^💭 18:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• Link monoclinic, triclinic, anion, cation, hydroxyl, oxygen I₂Overcome ^talk 00:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Done Cattos^💭 18:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
• sixfold-coordinated M site Not clear what this means. The Structure section may be somewhat too technical overall. I₂Overcome ^talk 00:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Done Cattos^💭 18:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Everything else looks good so far. Once all the above comments are addressed, I will begin spot checks.

Spot checks

• Hand specimens of minasgeraisite-(Y) tend to be in a purplish-lavender color. Minasgeraisite-(Y) is transparent in hand sample with a sub-vitreous, resinous, dull luster and a pale bluish-green streak. The mineral is brittle and breaks along its fiber contacts. Its observed specific gravity is 4.29, with a hardness of 6–7 on the Mohs scale.[1][2][3]
  • Color:  Done
  • Luster/transparency:  Not done

  [1] Sub-Vitreous, Resinous, Dull; transparent

  [2] glassy, earthy; translucent

  [3] earthy to subvitreous; no mention of transparency

  I recommend citing only source [1] for the first two sentences, and remove "hand sample" since no source says that

  • Streak:  Not done

  [1] Very pale purple

  [2] pale purple white

  [3] pale purple

  Change to pale purple streak

  • Tenacity:  Not done

  [1] brittle

  [2] not found

  [3] not found

  Cite only source [1] for this sentence and remove "breaks along its fiber contacts" as unsourced.

  • Specific gravity:  Not done

  Only source [1] mentions specific gravity as 4.29. Cite only this source here

  • Hardness:  Done

I was not planning to spot-check the second paragraph of Characteristics, but it appears I need to:

• When viewed with polarized light under a petrographic microscope, minasgeraisite-(Y) appears colorless, pale grayish yellow, and lavender purple and moderately exhibits pleochroism. It is biaxial positive and has a high optic angle (or 2V). When measured along different crystallographic directions, its refractive indices are nα 1.740, nβ 1.754, and nγ 1.786. This gives it a birefringence of 0.046.[1][2][3]
• The first sentence is only supported by [3]  Not done
• 2V is 68° at all sources, but [3] describes it as "average," not "high". The other sources do not specify. Only cite source [3] for this sentence and change "high" to "average," or simply say 68°. Also please fix this in the infobox.  Not done
• Refractive index and birefringence:  Done

I'm concerned at this point, because there were a few things in that section that didn't come from the cited sources (and even contradicted them, like the streak color). How exactly did you use the LLM as an aid in drafting this article? If there is any possibility there is unreviewed content from a LLM in this article (which it appears there is), that would mean the whole article needs to be verified, and that's outside the scope of a GA review. This article is fairly short and I would be willing to do it, but the Wikimedia Foundation let their subscription to Cambridge Core expire in September. This means that I cannot access sources [4], [6], and [10], which is a significant chunk of the article. There is an open Phabricator ticket to get that access back, but I have no idea how long it could take. My understanding of these circumstances (and I might be wrong, I'm very new to this) is the GAN should be failed on criteria 2b and 2c, and it would be your responsibility to verify the sourcing of the whole article before re-nominating it. However, I really don't want to do that, so I'm going to ask for a second opinion first. Another possibility could be to put the article on hold until the Cambridge Core sources become available, but that could possibly take months.

Edit for clarity: the specific claims above that may have come from an LLM are: transparent in hand sample, pale bluish-green streak, breaks along its fiber contacts, and high optic angle

Another comment: besides the unsourced statements, the whole Characteristics section was WP:SYNTH, which I also recommended changes to correct. I₂Overcome ^talk 06:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Update: I have identified that all of the above claims are taken verbatim from the Characteristics section in Widgiemoolthalite, suggesting either a poor copy, paste, and replace job or that a LLM was provided the text of Widgiemoolthalite and asked to write this section based on it. Either way, it is clear that this is not GA-quality right now. I am unfortunately going to have to fail this GAN, but I encourage you to re-nominate it after going through and verifying everything. I also strongly discourage you from using a LLM to draft articles in the future. I₂Overcome ^talk 07:30, 3 October 2025 (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.	See above comments, but it is evident that this article was so closely modeled on Widgiemoolthalite that irrelevant information was copied directly from it.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Characteristics section moved to beginning of article, added links, everything else 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.	reference list 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).	There are claims that are not properly cited (see last comments above)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Probably contains unreviewed content from an LLM mixed in with properly sourced content (see last comments above)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The copyvio detector says violation unlikely with 4.8% similarity, so for now I will consider this met.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	covers what is known about this rare mineral variety
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Somewhat technical, especially in the Structure section, but additional explanations and links have made it understandable to a layperson interested in mineralogy.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	no issues
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring; nom is primary author
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.	Image in infobox is under full copyright at according to mindat.org (See ). I will nominate it for deletion. However, the WMF has an email on file from the author that apparantly confirms a CC 3.0 license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	one image in infobox, caption was added per reviewer comment
	7. Overall assessment.	See above comments. Please re-nominate after doing a source check of the full article and removing the content from an LLM and/or Widgiemoolthalite.

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.