Talk:Laguna Miscanti/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 05:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at this tomorrow when I am more awake! — Ghost River 05:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

No comma after "of the Antofagasta Region"
Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Miñiques volcano" → "The Miñiques volcano"
I don't think that a "the" is strictly necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be pedantic, the "Antofagasta Region" is not mentioned in the body and is not cited
Now it is with citation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diacritic needed in "Laguna Miñiques"
Done? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna Miñiques should be linked upon its first mention (5,000 tourists) and delinked in the following clause
It already is in the lead? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a maximally" → "Laguna Miscanti is a maximally"
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diacritic needed for Cerro Miñiques
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delink Laguna Miñiques in this section

"ranging from the Miocene to Holocene age"
Not sure that this is correct - Miocene is often a modifier to "age" rather than a proper noun. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"a little warmer" – can we be more precise?
No, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delink Holocene, linked above
Hyphen to em dash in "late Pleistocene-early Holocene wet period"
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources are inconsistent with the citation style used in all future refs
All online sources should have access dates, including the journal articles being linked
I don't think that journal sources get access dates even when linked. I think I got the reports, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image and map are properly licesned and relevant
No stability concerns in the revision history
Earwig score looks good
@GhostRiver: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jo-Jo Eumerus I have left additional comments on the sections I did not get to earlier. — Ghost River 01:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @GhostRiver: I think all is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have made a few additional changes myself; things linked in the lede still need to be linked upon their first mention in the body. In any case, I am passing this article. — Ghost River 16:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]