Talk:Ganges Mensa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 17:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The article complies with the relevant sections of MoS. I've done some light copyediting, but some prose issues still need to be cleared up. Many terms are wikilinked again and again throughout the article; once in the lead and once in the body is all that's called for (and in the infobox and perhaps in the caption of an image). There's no need to wikilink scientists who do not currently have articles.In "Geology", the sentence "The cap rock of Ganges Mensa ... appears to have horizontally stack the underlying layers" needs to be rewritten; I can't make out what it means to say. In "Subglacial volcanism hypothesis", I can't tell whether the sentence "Subglacial volcanism is understood as representative of the landforms that researchers have observed there" refers to landforms in Ganges Mensa or in the Azas Plateau; please clarify. In the observational history section, scientists sometimes have their institutions identified but sometimes not; if you're going to include that, it should be included for everyone, in a consistent format. There's no need to specify that South Dakota School of Mines and Technology is in Rapid City, that Skidmore College is in New York, or the other analogous mentions thereafter (the links to their articles suffice).
Wikilinking issue - I have gone through the article and removed redundant wikilinks, leaving (for the most part) one in the lead and one in the body of the article. There were a few instances where I suspected that redundant wikilinking might actually aid in comprehension; ~~I left wikilinking in the thumbnail photos. What are your thoughts on this?~~ (I actually partially did this and partially didn't - I'm just going to go ahead and remove the rest of the redundant wikilinks here) Also, the terminology used for "interior layered deposit" changed a bit over time, and I left "interior deposit" wikilinked in the observational history section...however, I could remove this and/or rewrite that section if you feel like it would flow better that way. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the case where two different terms should actually link to the same other article, it probably does make sense to wikilink them both, since that probably won't be obvious to a reader. This is good progress. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"stacking" grammar error - I've rewritten it slightly, how does it look? 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

subglacial volcanism sentence - I've rewritten it, what are your thoughts? 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are both much more clear now, well done. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Institution inconsistencies and locational naming - this is resolved. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The article has a reference section and shows no signs of plagiarism from online sources. The sources appear to support the assertions made in the article (assuming good faith on a few where only abstracts are freely available). ~~All the journal articles need DOIs, and all the journals that have Wikipedia articles should have their names wikilinked, along with any of the authors who have their own articles.~~
I have added DOIs to all articles. Will check the other two aspects shortly. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have wikilinked Steve Squyres in the references, as he seems to be the only researcher mentioned here who currently has his own article on the English Wikipedia. I have also wikilinked each journal (once, according to the first time it appears in the reflist). 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article seems to cover all the major aspects of the topic: its geographic context, its hypothesized geological origins, and the history of its study.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The coverage is appropriately neutral and doesn't e.g. advocate for any particular interpretation of the geology at the site.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The images in the article are relevant and have appropriate licenses, mostly from NASA or the original work of Wikipedians. There don't seem to be any other helpful images on Commons.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A solid article with lots of valuable content! With a little polish, it should be able to meet the GA standard. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review this article! I have left a couple comments for clarification and discussion, so please let me know what you think. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now it all looks good; the article is hereby promoted to GA. Thanks for the responsive editing! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]