Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
A fairly short article that appears to be well-referenced and fairly comprehensive in scope. I will now start the indepth review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Appears to be compliant in respect of WP:verify.
- The Smithsonian ref in the bibliography mentions that the last activity was in 1967 (and its also in the Info box); but it is not mentioned in this section of the article.
- Yes it is, see the eruptive history paragraph.
- Sorry, I've read that paragraph at least three times and I did not see it until now. Pyrotec (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Possibly a bit on the short side, but for an article of this length it is reasonably. I would suggest a brief comment that it last erupted in 1967.
Pyrotec (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Pass or Fail:
Congratulations on the quality of the article: I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)