Talk:Mount Gareloi

Mount Gareloi has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 22, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 21, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1929 eruption of the Gareloi Volcano created a fissure running down the mountain's southern summit?

Volcanoes Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: History / Physical geography Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gareloi Volcano/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

This article appears to be at or about the right level for a GA-class article.

Here are my initial comments:

I'm not sure that History is a suitable title for the two sentences that it contains, particularly when there is another section called 'Eruptive history'. Perhaps 'Discovery' or 'Discovery of the island' might be a more apt title?

Done.

The page numbers quoted for the 'Coombs, McGimsey and Browne' in-line citations do not match what is in that paper. They might be pdf file page numbers, but they don't match the page numbers in the article.

My computer doesn't let me see those article numbers, I apologize. Would you mind adding them for me? Sorry to be a bother. ceranthor 16:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was just about to do it and then I noticed your remark above.Pyrotec (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Pyrotec (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threat - This is much more 'woolly' than Coombs, McGimsey and Browne. I'm fairly certain that it is not an accurate summary of what they wrote (but I will be checking it).

I will get around to rewriting the section today. ceranthor 16:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

main review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A interesting topic on an isolate area.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA status.Pyrotec (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Threat section can be deleted, of not greatly reduced. It merely states the obvious, and is contradictory concerning tsunamis. When I read it I see meaningless "scare" hype. Bob Webster (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gareloi Volcano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090315074210/http://www.agu.org:80/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate to http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm04&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm04%2Ffm04&maxhits=200&=%22V43E-1454%22

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eruption

Just a heads-up. Gareloi has erupted yesterday, as proved by satellite infrared images (ash plume moving south). No official statement yet (that I know of), but SI might probably have it on their weekly report that should come out in a few hours. --Thogo 18:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]