Talk:Belknap Crater/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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: No WP:Short description? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Belknap was named for J. H. Belknap, who lived along the McKenzie River and was the son of R. S. Belknap, responsible for developing Belknap Springs. - do we not have full names? I'm not sure how his father's name is ledeworthy.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] .vThe Oregon Skyline Trail, - typo? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Third para in lede is very long Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] also true of Eruptive history third para Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] And the recreation section Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] 360 ± 160 years Anno Domini (A.D.) - is this really the right wording? Can we not say between the years 200-520 A.D.? I don't think it needs a link, nor to explain what A.D. is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Can you explain what the table is in Notable vents and subfeatures? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Any reason you used BCE rather than the more conventional BC? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] cosmogenic nuclide isotope 3He, which would require a longer surface exposure than - not a Science expert, but this reads weirdly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Could we get some WP:ALTTEXT? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] 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]

GA Review

My comments