Talk:Fueguino/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 13:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying a good article review. (talk)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

There are a few errors based on the good article criteria.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
"it lies on Cook Island, Tierra del Fuego, and also extends over nearby Londonderry Island" a comma should not preceed "and" to make it coherent with other lists like "1712, 1820 and 1926". and "are Rio Gallegos, Puerto Natales, Punta Arenas, Rio Grande and Ushuaia" here too.
Rearranged a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Both volcanoes belong to the Austral Volcanic Zone" since two specific volcanoes are being referred, then "the" should be used.
I don't think this needs a "the". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Since the Paleocene, a transform fault, which bisects the island,[4] has been moving the southern part of Tierra del Fuego[5] eastward along the South America Plate, accompanied by tectonic uplift that persisted into the Holocene except when it was offset by glacial loading effects" Since the ... so ... .
@Adityavagarwal: Not sure that I understand the problem...? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I misunderstood. Also, an image should be there right?Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Adityavagarwal: Added one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"and volcanic activity" and their volcanic activity?
Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the ice ages, a substantial" "ice ages"?
Inclined to leave as-is; "the ice ages" usually refer to the Pleistocene ice ages which are the topic, while "ice ages" could be taken as referring to e.g the Andean-Saharan glaciation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Images?

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I looks fine for a GA. Good work! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]