Jump to content

Talk:Belknap Crater

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 15:31, 11 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Volcanoes}}, {{WikiProject Mountains}}, {{WikiProject Oregon}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
[edit]

This article is almost a (or is exactly) word for word copy from Wood (p182) and I presume needs to be replaced with something else? --Burntnickel 02:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the book in question, and are sure it is copyvio, then the page should be blanked until it is rewritten; we just can't host copyvio material here. Since I don't have the book I'll leave it up to you. Doc Tropics 02:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done as per Wikipedia:Copyright problems --Burntnickel 02:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I checked your page and saw this is your area of interest; hopefully you'll be doing the rewrite? I usually try to help resolve problems once I notice them, but this is way outside my area. Doc Tropics 02:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My original intent was to just add some more information to the page, but now it does indeed look like I will need to get started on a replacement. --Burntnickel 10:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting this, Burntnickel. But I disagree with your course of action. The {{copyvio}} template is only appropriate when all of the article is a copyvio. In this case, the photo, infobox, ext links, navbox, etc. are not copyvio, so they should be retained and only the actual copyvio text deleted. I think it is best to avoid blanking pages and using the (very ugly) copyvio template if at all possible, while still actively removing blatant copyvio text. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it appears that the initial copyvio (article created: 18:50, 13 February 2004 David Newton (Talk | contribs | block) (CVO site text.) ) was accidental and in good faith, thinking that the text was public domain because it was on the USGS CVO website here. But it is clearly marked (at least now) as coming from that copyrighted book. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I hadn't thought to salvage the added content, that was a good move and I'll remember it in future. My initial concern was simply the removal of the copyvio (thereby protecting WP), but the page certainly looks better this way, and at least it has some minimal content. Nice one, Seattle : ) Doc Tropics 19:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a better course of action as the infobox was not part of the copyvio. Thanks for the cleanup. I concur that it is easy to see how the original content was assumed to be public domain, I wonder if any of the other similar volcano articles have had the same thing happen? I'll see what new content I can provide. --Burntnickel 20:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belknap Crater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Belknap Crater/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  • Very well written and copyedit. No prose issues found. Pass.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Pass. No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • Pass. No issues. Citations are extensive.
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).
  • Mostly peer-reviewed scientific sources. No issues. When sources disagree (for instance on height), this is noted and discussed. Pass.
2c. it contains no original research.
  • Well cited. pass.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Checked against sources - no issues. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Very good coverage. Comparable to existing GAs on volcanic structures. Only thing that turns up is a fire nearby in 2017 called the Milli fire, but this did not appear to directly impact the crater - it was just close by. Pass.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Plenty of geologic information, but never excessive, and jargon is handled well (defined or linked). Pass.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Pass. No issues.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Most work done in May. No edit wars. Pass.
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.
  • Pass. No issues.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • Pass. No issues.
7. Overall assessment.

As far as I can tell, this passes GA review without the need for revisions. This is the first time this has happened in my limited experience, so it would be great to get a second opinion, say from @Barkeep49: or @Lee Vilenski:. I'll hold off on formally passing it until that's happened. Overall, great article though! Ganesha811 (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind taking a look. I can guarantee there will be something.
There is nothing wrong with a passed review, but there's always some commentary that can be done. Let me take a look. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anything notable come up? If not, I'll pass it. Thanks for reviewing the article as well. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should be in no rush here. I saw Lee was looking into it so I haven't gone further but a week is not an unusual amount of time for the process to play out. I'm sure Lee will be back with some thoughts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

[edit]

Sorry about the delay - Lots coming up at the moment.

Article is pretty good, here's what I saw from a brief scan:

Completely up to you how you wish to address these issues and how you want to place the review, these are just some things I saw. Particularly the massive paragraphs and few typos are definately worth perusing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, and sorry for my delay in getting back to you all. I will try to get to these ASAP (ideally tomorrow) ceranthor 00:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor, hi! Any update? If you don't have time in the next couple weeks, no biggie, but would be good to know. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811: Will try to get to them tonight! ceranthor 10:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811: @Lee Vilenski: I think I've gotten to all of them except the alt text - question, is that a requirement for good articles now? Re the table - did you want an explanation in the text? And I think the isotope note makes sense in the context of the rest of the sentence "the deposit contains concentrated amounts of the cosmogenic nuclide isotope 3He, which would require a longer surface exposure than Taylor's calculation would allow,[48]" - let me know if I'm mistaken. I've used CE and BCE for volcano articles forever, and plus CE is more standard I think. ceranthor 04:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ALTtext is not a requirement, but it's so easy to put in, and ideally would be on every article, we should be pushing it a lot more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor, Lee Vilenski - great improvements! Thank you for your assistance, Lee, and nice work on the article, Ceranthor. Since the main improvements have been made, and alt-text is not a requirement for GA status, I'm going to pass the article now. Of course we can all still make improvements going forward. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811: @Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the review and the pass. Made an attempt at adding some alt text - please feel free to tweak or make suggestions for me to change it further. ceranthor 16:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Belknap_Crater&oldid=1206228902"