Talk:Hualālai/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Dsiclaimer: I have made a few edits to this article and lived there for a couple years, but not "contributed significantly" I would say. After a quick look there are several glaring errors that need to be fixed. The main pic caption: it is from the northwest, looking southeast. The vital date of the most notable resident. Not sure what "major museums" you mean? There is a dusy ship model in the church, but I have not even uploaded my pic of it since it looks unremarkable. And Huliheʻe has only three or four rooms, hardly "major". A few diacritics are missing. Some links need fixing (e.g. using historic articles if talking about history instead of modern CDPs). I might have time to fix some later today or tomorrow. 20:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I worked on the human history section so fixed most of my issues. Please could we get an outside reviewer? Thanks.00:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

One more issue: instead of using Google Maps as a citation, I prefer using the {{coord}} template, since it allows the use of other maps like topo etc. I thought there was a policy explicitly saying that anything verifiable from any non-specialized map does not need an inline citation, but I cannot put my finger on that rule now. Clicking on the coord template gives me one fewer step to finding where the place is. Any good reason to use the Google maps only?

Reviewer: W Nowicki (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by xover

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Nicely written and informative article about a volcano i'd never heard of before.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The prose has a few rough edged and is a bit choppy in places. Some sections read almost like a list of facts with periods instead of bullet points to separate them. But the criteria for GA is “reasonably well written” and not “brilliant prose”, so this is not a showstopper. I would recommend some copyediting before taking this to FAC though.

I assume you mean the Geology section. As such the references from which the section was largly taken are themselves choppy, with short analyses of different structural charecteristics, something difficult to smooth out entirely. ResMar 03:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance:
But see the image issues below.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Some of the sources superficially contradict each other (e.g. regarding the number of eruptions), and while reliable are somewhat weak (i.e. an informal info page is not as good as a book or an article from a peer-reviewed journal). I'd recommend going through them to make sure the facts are given in the article is correct, and see if better sources can not be found. Given the quality of the sources and the multiple references to the same source from different parts of the article, I'm also a little concerned about novel synthesis. I didn't spot any obvious instances of that here, but then I didn't read all the sources thoroughly; but this would definitely be something to watch out for before any FAC.

Ah, but I don't intend to take it to FAC. It's good as it stands. ResMar 03:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I was expecting more coverage of Sociological and Anthropological aspects of the subject (i.e. “stuff about humans, not about volcanoes”) , but since the criterion at GA is “broad” rather than “comprehensive”, it's within the criteria. The “human” aspects should probably be expanded, if possible, before any FAC.

Probably more an issue of low related references. In this particular instance Hualalai doesn't stand out signifigantly in human terms. ResMar 03:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:
File:Kaloko Fish Pond.jpg is of rather poor quality. Could not a better one be found?
In addition, there are several instances where the main body text is sandwiched between an image and an infobox or a quote box. These should generally be avoided by moving images around, without moving them outside the section they illustrate.

The primary problem is the fishpond/quote juxtiposition, however the quote is related to the adjacent text and moving it lower would divert it from its intended purpose. ResMar 03:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Some issues, but it passes within the Good Article criteria.

Note that it is up to the first reviewer to decide whether the article should pass or fail, so this review must be considered a sort of extra comment or second opinion. I'll leave a note at the first reviewer's talk page to let them know about this review. --Xover (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...this page has been ongoing review and I didn't even know it...Res Mar 03:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up with Kaloko pic: when I was there I only made it to the southern part, never got to the fishpond myself. So the Kaloko pic is low resolution (I would say decent quality, if you could find a higher rez) right from a National Park web site. I see the other pic from the park in this article is File:Hualalai from Kalako.jpg which has a bad file name. It is not from Kaloko but from Honokōhau, as the caption says. It is also on English wikipedia instead of commons, so perhaps we should move it to commons with the right name and delete this one. The other pics on the park article (besides the fishpond one) were taken by me. The fishpond at Honokōhau has not been reconstructed so does not look as interesting. Maybe we could use one of those, or whatever, but generally the layout is fine with me. W Nowicki (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to recuse myself since I am a contributor and appologize if I did not follow exact proper procedure. I do not think there are objections, so what do we do next? W Nowicki (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like me to take over as the primary reviewer, you can just let me know and I'll take care of the administrative bits. According to my review the article passes under the Good Article criteria, so what's left to do on that score is just updating status and listing it in the various places. Incidentally, there's a really good point by point recipe for how to go about reviewing articles for GA at the very top of the Good Article nominations page; and process—apart from the actual review—is mostly about putting the right templates and other technical stuff in the right places (cut&paste, and fill in the blanks). It's a bit of drudge work, but nothing too terribly complicated. Anyways; I'd be happy to take care of it if you like. --Xover (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do that and I will try to follow to learn it. Do you have any opinion on using the coord template as I propose instead of the google maps in the references? It saves a click and allows one to use topo maps etc.

By the way, I took the liberty of trying to enhance the USGS pic from Honokohau to compensate for the vog and uploaded that to Commons. Now need to figure out how to delete the one on English wikipedia. Most of my shots of Hualalai are even voggier. Too bad— a couple times early in the mornings in the winter I could see the snow-covered summit of Mauna Loa just barely behind Hualalai, but did not have my camera and not sure it would have been visible on a picture anyway. W Nowicki (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest just removing the cite to Google Maps. Google Maps isn't a reliable source for much of anything, so citing it is fairly pointless. If you want to include a map reference in order to illustrate or provide context for the reader then I would suggest you use the {{coord}} template instead of linking to Google directly; you generally shouldn't link to these kinds of services directly, which is why linking ISBNs using Special:Booksources is preferred over linking directly to Google Books. Using the template provides the reader with a choice of services, and they produce useful metadata that can be parsed by computers (which, incidentally, is how Google Earth can show you relevant Wikipedia articles in its map display).
For moving an image to Commons, see the instructions; and for dealing with the leftover image on enwiki, use the {{NowCommons}} template.
I'll take care of passing this article as GA shortly. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]