Wikipedia:Peer review/Loihi Seamount/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Loihi Seamount[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed. Feedback came via the talkpage, instead. Now with a GA nom, so I'll close this one.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is part of a workgroup effort to improve articles related to the Volcanism in Hawaii (still a proposal). Loihi is currently B-Class, and nowhere near a GAC. I have opened a peer review to tackle the issues, and to in general raise it to GA quality. Reviews, please put down specific issues and I will tackle them; or be BOLD and do it yourself!

Thanks, ResMar 19:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem is obviously COPYVIO issues. Can you please point out specific trouble spots? ResMar 19:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, do you think that the article covers the topic comepletely, enough for a GA.?
  • Initial comments (coming back later):
  • The article doesn't look terrible, though it could use some thorough copy editing and expansion.
I've hit about a dozen resources, do you really think so? What part needs expansion? ResMar
Truth to be told I've exausted myself expanding it. See this diff. It made DYK, of course.

ResMar 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done More and more put in. Now 24,576 bytes, up from 21,000. I've basically spent all the non-subscription refs I can find. ResMar 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • First off, when using measurements you need to use the {{convert}} template. Ie. 30 miles
Except of the "Squared" mesurements (I Keep messing up there for some reason), that's all in order. ResMar
  • Images should not be directly under headers per MOS - you should check that out too.
Please clarify- do you mean that I should seperate the images from the headers with a few lines of text? ResMar
 Done Shifted all images into meatspace on right.

I'll be back with specific comments later! Ceranthor 22:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes please! ResMar 22:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, can you use this table here to tell me what areas still need improvement: {{check mark}} Green tickY {{N}} Red XN.

Assess Criteria
1. well written
   (a) clear prose, correct spelling and grammar
   (b) complies with Manual of Style:
        words to avoid
        list incorporation
2. factually accurate and verifiable
   (a) references for all sources; dedicated attribution section according to guideline
   (b) in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotes, statistics, public opinion, challengeable statements
   (c) no original research
3. broad in coverage
   (a) addresses main aspects of topic
   (b) stays focused without unnecessary detail
4. neutral
5. stable (no edit wars)
6. images
   (a) tagged with copyright status, valid fair use rationale for non-free content
   (b) relevant to topic with suitable captions