Talk:Sangay/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Will review this article shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- review
- mention in two different places in lede the danger from ejecta.
- You said you worked on the lead; this still an issue or have you fixed it yourself? ResMar 02:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- geology
- the first paragraph under this section is very dense reading. Is there any way it could be made easier to understand for the general reader?
- Hah, it does need some simplification. You want something like Mount Cleveland (Alaska)#Geological setting? ResMar 02:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- "The older southern rock is more stable than the northern crust, thus attributing for the long break in volcanic activity in the Andes;" - confusing
- the repeated use of "edifice" - are there other words that could be used?
- Sandwiching text between two large images makes reading the text difficult.
- I don't know how to fix this one easily. ResMar 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Basic needs disambig.
- Will get to this on the weekend. ResMar 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- comment
- Nominator has not returned to the article to address problems noted. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
- As an example, the first section of Geology is particularly dense and difficult for the general reader to read.
- repetition of word "edifice" as noted above
- B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Text is sandwiched in between two large images.
- Would be helpful to have subsections under Geology to help the reader deal with the dense material, since the section is so long.
- A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Provides references to all sources:
- B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Provides references to all sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Main aspects are addressed:
- B. Remains focused:
- A. Main aspects are addressed:
- Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- None of the points originally pointed out have been addressed; page has not been edited since March 28 by nominator.
- Pass or Fail:
- Article failed; points have not been addressed. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)