Talk:Lake San Agustín/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 02:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- I'll be reviewing this soon. AryKun (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
- "in New Mexico which developed in the Plains of San Agustín during the Pleistocene, as a pluvial lake during glacial periods."→ "in New Mexico which developed as a pluvial lake in the Plains of San Agustín during glacial periods during the Pleistocene"
- Applied a variation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- "while during its drying it split into several separate lakes" → " and split into several separate lakes while drying out"
- I don't see a need to give the acronym for Last Glacial Maximum as it isn't mentioned again in the lead.
- It is mentioned elsewhere in the article however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- "At highstand" → "During its highstand" Also, highstand should be linked here
- "300 metres (980 ft) long drill core" → Should be metre, not metres.
- Sorry, but I don't know how to change this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- " made into the" → "of the"
- Applied a variation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- "Lakes may have existed" → Should the may be removed?
- No; it's not settled into stone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- "By 11,300-10,200 years ago, it" → Clarify what the "it" is.
- "when it was dropping" → "when it was shrinking"
- Pine, spruce, Pleistocene are dublinked.
- Will do so soon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- The list of mammals is just a sea of blue at the moment, perhaps you could add the scientific names to stagger it out?
- I don't think that would really help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- I feel like the lead could be bulked up, as it doesn't quite cover the whole article.
- Remind me, what other things could be mentioned? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll be passing. AryKun (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Pretty comprehensive article, but I have some issues with the prose. I've made some minor edits, and the rest of my suggestions are above.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail: