Talk:Olallie Butte/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 05:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

Well-written:

With the issues below having been addressed, the article's composition also complies with MOS policies. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses numerous reputable sources, and makes plenty of citations to them. No signs of original research. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) 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)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article seems to cover all relevant aspects of its topic to a decent level of detail. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

There is no evidence of any sort of bias in the article's tone. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Since its creation, the article has not been subjected to any disruptive editing behaviours. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Comments

"Intro" In the second paragraph of the intro, it states that the volcano has not erupted in the past 10,000 years, but in the infobox it further details that it has not erupted in the past 25,000 years. Shouldn't the 10,000 statement be rewritten to correlate with this, or is there a specific reason why 10,000 is mentioned; i.e., a significance pertaining to a minimum of 10,000 years of inactivity? We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilhelmina Will: Oops - good catch. Fixed. ceranthor 15:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Having finished reading the article now, however, it seems this was done again in the section "Eruptive history". We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelmina Will - in eruptive history it's just clarifying that it's no younger than 11,000 years old. I realize now that this is redundant after saying it's at least 25,000 years old, so I just cut that part out entirely. ceranthor 18:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Human history" In the intro, it states that the Forest Service fire lookout tower was the building that was abandoned and had its roof collapse in, but in this section, it seems to imply that it was another building that this happened to, instead. Unless, of course, the cupola cabin was an extension to the lookout tower? We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that error. I think it was a remnant of the original version of this article when I started revamping it. Changed to "A Forest Service fire lookout tower was built on the summit in 1915 but abandoned in 1967; the summit also had a cupola cabin from 1920 until its roof collapsed in 1982." What do you think of that version? ceranthor 18:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any update, Wilhelmina Will? ceranthor 22:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Been called away by things offline. I need to handle another thing first, then I'll get this done. :) We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yup! Looks great, now! We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It took a while on my part, but I believe this article satisfies the GA criteria. Congratulations! We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.