Talk:Axial Seamount/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: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Tectonic setting

• "This position that is not yet entirely understood." - something missing here?

Meant as an introduction to the second para, moved it there now. ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• "pointing out that the high density of the chain's seamounts, which often overlap, runs counter to the long trail a hotspot would normally produce" - not clear to me

The local area is covered in seamounts small and large, as you can see from the infobox image; as opposed to other chains, which are more widely distributed. In fact I avoided saying "chains" entirely, as it is not one proper, using "group" instead. I've reworded for clarity. ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• "polysemous" does this mean or relate to Polysemy?

Linked it. ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

1998

• average 0.6°C - needs conversion

Done. ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 eruption

• Why is a paper linked in the article, instead of a footnote citation?

Because it's important enough for it. ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ecology

• "named CASM (Canadian American Seamount Expedition)" - shouldn't it be the other way around? - Canadian American Seamount Expedition (CASM)

Done. ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• "between 300 and 550 °C (572 and 1,022 °F) " and "35 °C (95 °F), approximately 30 °C (86 °F) " - do there have to spaces between number and degree here? (I know its a template - so there's no way around that?)

Yeah, although it's possible to do without the template, I think this looks fine...ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• I personally don't like curly quotes but there's no rule that I know of.

It's a template :S ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Altogether a wonderful article! I made some edits that you are free to change.[1]
• Temporarily on hold.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

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.