Talk:Ojos del Salado/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next week. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2022 (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.	Full review to come, just a quick note: "complex volcano" is jargon and should be wikilinked. Hmm? It is linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I added the link as I did my prose tweaks/review. A few other notes: Is the volcano active, dormant, or both? The lead states it is dormant, but then immediately says it is the highest active volcano. I thought the terms were mostly mutually exclusive? If they're not, that should be made clear. Removed the "active"; there is no other volcano this high, Aconcagua isn't a volcano and Monte Pissis is lower. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] The sentence "Mass movements have left traces..." wikilinks to the political term, which presumably is not what you meant. If there is no article for geological mass movements, the term should be explained in-text as it is otherwise unclear jargon. Changed the link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure what this sentence means: "Ice buried beneath sand and rocks and ice encased in moraines is more important, it is also retreating but the insulating effect of the cover slows the retreat." More important than what? Please rephrase to clarify. Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] "it did not get much attention from travellers and mountaineers" - this is a little vague. Did not get attention until when? The present? A date in teh past? Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] "In that year an expedition from Tucumán a mountain south of Ojos del Salado, which they mistook for the volcano." Is this missing some words? I'm not sure what it means - did they measure it? Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] All the above issues have been addressed 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.
	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).	Pass, no issues, sources are of very high quality.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Quick note: It would be good to include an English translation of the name ("Eyes of salt"? "Eyes from salt"?) in the lead or 'Name' section as appropriate. I am concerned that this kind of literal translation may imply a semantic meaning that the name might not have. Toponyms are often false friends. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] That's reasonable - pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The list of other 20,000-foot prominences around the volcano is excessive detail, which I've removed. If you disagree, let me know and we can discuss. No big deal, I think. The prominences can be discussed in their articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] 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.	Pass - no edit wars, highly stable.
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.	Wikilink penitente in the image caption as well as in the text. Other than that, no issues, nicely illustrated. Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Issue addressed. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: the review is now complete. There are a few issues to sort out, but I don't think we'll have trouble getting to GA shortly. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: this article now passes GA! Congrats to you and to anyone else who worked on it. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]