Jump to content

Talk:Lascar (volcano)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DYKUpdateBot (talk | contribs) at 00:00, 23 October 2017 (Article appeared on DYK on 23 October 2017, adding {{DYK talk}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 21 December 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Is this a reliable source?

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lascar (volcano)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HeyJude70 (talk · contribs) 15:45, 11 January 2017 (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. Formal text used.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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. All information adequately sourced.
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). The formatting of the sources is well used, as the in-line citations link (occasionally) to a singular text or website that is well-cited under the page's "Sources" tab.
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The 'Town distance from Lascar" table, is it really necessary? Please, in the discussion area below this table, if anyone has any opinions please share them.

To date, no one has been able to replace this with an appropriate picture or diagram. This leaves me no option but to fail this part of the criteria, and give the article an overall fail.

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). (see above)
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. (No edit wars)
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. All images accounted for in terms of rationales.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. If anyone views this discussion and has any ideas or comments to add, please do so. There are points that need deciding or acting upon. Future decision will be based on actions or discussion placed. Many thanks. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion, the table showing the neighbouring towns is not appropriate for the article as the strays from the main focus of the article. It needs to be replaced with a map or image (see discussion below) that can show the volcano's placement with relation to the towns without speaking only of the towns themselves. As a result, I believe this article fails the Good Article criteria. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@HeyJude70: Not sure about that table. A map of neighbouring towns would surely help to establish the importance of the volcano for neighbouring communities, but perhaps a more selective one would work better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: If it was possible for such image to be used to replace the table I'd gladly change the review to show that it satisfies the Good Articles criteria. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HeyJude70: Unfortunately I don't have such a map. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See if @Volcanoguy, Mamayuco, GeoWriter, and Corinne: (the only editors I know which commented on my volcano articles) have ideas on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the past I used NASA World Wind to pinpoint the locations of volcanoes then upload the satellite imagery onto Commons for use in articles. See this for an example. I would create something similar that marks the whereabouts of those towns around Lascar but I have been having problems loading NASA World Wind for the last couple years (don't know why) so I haven't been able to make more of those maps. Volcanoguy 12:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a lot of experience searching for images or uploading them, but I did two searches on Google: Antofagasta Region + aerial images, and Lascar volcano + aerial images, and I found quite a few, but I can't judge which ones would be most useful.  – Corinne (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Corinne: Were any of the images you found under free use? As long as one is free, shows the area well and is relatively relevant it will suit what is needed. Thanks. ThomDevexx ॐ (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry, ThomDevexx and Jo-Jo Eumerus, that I didn't look at the photos again. I'm not that familiar with image licenses and would have to look closely to find whether they are free use, and I've been busy both with real life and with editing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I apologize if my lack of response hurt the article's chances.  – Corinne (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lascar (volcano). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 04:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lascar (volcano). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 11:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lascar (volcano)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Anne drew Andrew and Drew (talk · contribs) 14:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Well written
    • Prose: Green tickY Very well written and informative. No issues here.
    • Style: Green tickY Great
  2. Verifiable
  3. Broad in coverage
    • All major aspects: Green tickY All major details covered
    • No unnecessary detail: Green tickY Good to see that the town distance table has been replaced with an image as requested in GA1. No more issues here.
  4. Neutral point of view: Green tickY All good
  5. Stable: Green tickY No edit warring
  6. Images: Green tickY Very well illustrated, no copyvio issues. Even includes a Commons Picture of the Year.
  7. Pass/Fail: Pass! Thanks for your contributions.
  • Comment: Great work on this article - almost featured quality. Happy to pass.

Discussion

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lascar_(volcano)&oldid=806588583"