Jump to content

Talk:Big Cave

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Big Cave/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 09:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


I see that Tisquesusa has written some improvement but FAR away from a good article... Imma ask what that means.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    "in the southeastern direction", should that not be "in southeastern direction"?
    Fixed. ceranthor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    There seems to be disagreement about the height of the volcano between sources; why is one height measure preferred? Source #1 probably needs explicit page links associated.
    I fixed the url for source 1. Which source differs on the height; they all seem the same to me? ceranthor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    GVP gives a height of 4130ft. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jo-Jo Eumerus - I didn't even catch the difference! Is it more clear now? ceranthor 15:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    There is nothing on vegetation, human history etc.?
    Nothing specific that I've been able to find. I suppose I could do something for the general area; would you prefer that? ceranthor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    See first part of 2c
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    There is no image whatsoever of the volcano?
    None that I've been able to find. ceranthor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've replied to a few and fixed a few comments. Thanks for the review. ceranthor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]