Talk:El Laco/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
It will be great to review one of your volcanoes again. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- General
- I see some duplinks. You can fix them yourself by this tool.
- Lead
- Citations are generally excluded from the lead unless you are saying something controversial.
- Geology
- What is "poryphyric"?
- What is "metasomatic alteration"?
- Iron-rich deposits
- Try adding some subheadings
- These iron oxide deposits were found in 1958 By?
- Petrology
- The iron-containing rocks are subordinate Can you add what exactly "subordinate" means here?
- You can try combining a few lines using semicolons.
- crustal contamination or isotopic effects during fractional crystallization Wikilinks possible?
- Some atmospheric water influence Does this mean "influence of atmospheric moisture"?
- Link sulfur at first mention
- What is "hydrothermal alteration" (if you link this, link at first mention in the article) and "alteration halo"?
- Environment
- Can you explain a bit about "low bushland"? Bushland may be linked, but some readers may not understand "low"
The prose reads well and is quite interesting. Those were all my comments. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sainsf Not sure about whether cites in the lead are actually discouraged - WP:LEAD does state there is no blanket rule. The source does not say who the discoverer(s) in 1958 were. Not sure which sentences should be combined, honestly. I think I got the other issues.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not exactly discouraged, just that it is expected that lead stuff also occurs in the main article, and is cited there itself. So there is no need for citations in the lead, unless it is controversial and can be challenged. Combining sentences is not necessary, and I see the difficulty in such a factual article. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Sainsf: I've backed out the now unnecessary sources in the lead section.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am sure this can be promoted now. Awesome article! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not exactly discouraged, just that it is expected that lead stuff also occurs in the main article, and is cited there itself. So there is no need for citations in the lead, unless it is controversial and can be challenged. Combining sentences is not necessary, and I see the difficulty in such a factual article. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)