Talk:Lake Toba/GA1

GA Review[edit]

This article is now out-of-date. Its references to having caused a global cool down an being responsible for killing much of humanity has been proven wrong. Please go to this link for the reprot: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22355515 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.53.210 (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Geology section, "In 1949", it would be best if there was a comma placed after 1949.
Done. --Lord Sunday 22:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead seems a bit short, can more info. be added to summarize the entire article? The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here. In The eruption section, it would be best if "caldera" is linked once, per here. In the More recent activity section, why is "1987" linked? Same section, "September 12th, 2007", "th" needs to be removed, per here.
Done. --Lord Sunday 22:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
It would be best if the references use the {{cite web}} format. Also, Reference 3 needs to be fixed. Reference 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are missing Publisher info.
Done, and ref 6 is empty for some reason. It appears the website has been renamed. --Lord Sunday 23:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. 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):
Is there a source for this ---> "In 1949 the Dutch geologist Rein van Bemmelen reported that Lake Toba was surrounded by a layer of ignimbrite rocks, and that it was a large volcanic caldera. Later researchers found rhyolite ash similar to that in the ignimbrite around Toba (now called Young Toba Tuff to distinguish it from layers deposited in previous explosions) in Malaysia and India, 3,000 km away. Oceanographers discovered Toba ash, with its characteristic chemical "fingerprint", on the floor of the eastern Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal"? Does Reference 11 cover all this ---> "The eruption lasted perhaps two weeks, but the ensuing "volcanic winter" resulted in a decrease in average global temperatures by 3 to 3.5 degrees Celsius for several years. Greenland ice cores record a pulse of starkly reduced levels of organic carbon sequestration. Very few plants or animals in southeast Asia would have survived, and it is possible that the eruption caused a planet-wide die-off. There is some evidence, based on mitochondrial DNA, that the human race may have passed through a genetic bottleneck within this timeframe, reducing genetic diversity below what would be expected from the age of the species. According to the Toba catastrophe theory proposed by Stanley H. Ambrose of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1998, human populations may have been reduced to only a few tens of thousands of individuals by the Toba eruption"? Is there a source for this ---> "The volcanoes of Sumatra and Java are part of the Sunda Arc, a result of the northeasterly movement of the Indo-Australian Plate which is sliding under the eastward-moving Eurasian Plate. The subduction zone in this area is very active: the seabed near the west coast of Sumatra has had several major earthquakes since 1995, including the 9.3 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake and the 8.7 2005 Sumatra earthquake, the epicenters of which were around 300 km from Toba"?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the following statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to LordSunday who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]