Talk:Licancabur/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying a good article review. Adityavagarwal Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

There are a few errors based on the good article criteria.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the subheading, General setting, "farther south" should it be "further south" instead?

Both are correct, "farther" would be preferable if a distinction were to be made. See [1] -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but since there was yet another further used instead of farther, so I thought it would be cohesive and similar to use further instead. However, as you pointed about distinction, I do not think I thought about that point as well. Also do feel free to amend my mistakes, as this might eliminate my mistakes. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the subheading, Local setting, "Among the region's active volcanoes are Putana (erupted at the end of the 19th century), Llullaillaco (1868) and Lascar (1993)[a][14] Other stratovolcanoes are Tacora, Nevados de Payachata, Isluga, Tata Sabaya, Ollague, Tocorpuri, Sairecabur and Socompa.[15] " Seems like there is a fullstop missing.

" Nineteen kilometres (12 miles) southeast, " Instead, to maintain similarity with other occurences of length, which was seemingly in numbers instead of words, I think even this one should be in numerical instead of in words.

Numerals are written out when at the beginning of a sentence, so this is correct as is. See WP:NUMNOTES -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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:
The introductory paragraph has only any reference. Even though the information might be present in the successive references, but the paragraph and/or the lines within the paragraph as well can be referenced to those references.

Lede can be entirely free of references if none of the material is likely to be challenged, and non-controversial material referenced later is best left unreferenced when summarized in the lede. See WP:LEADCITE.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, did not know that. I could figure out that the information in the introduction was anyways reference to later references, yet I thought if readers had to know which reference the information was from, they might have to search and all. Appreciations for making it clear. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Removed a duplicate header. Thanks for looking at this, Adityavagarwal; I'll look at the issues soon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, also was that a quick response, which is appreciated. :) I as well fixed the redirect.Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityavagarwal and Elmidae: Took care of some of the issues pointed out; I did also change "farther" to "further" before seeing Elmidae's comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems fine for becoming a Good Article. Nice work @Jo-Jo Eumerus:. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Adityavagarwal if you did pass this review, it seems like you missed some steps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was sort of thinking as to why the plus sign did not appear on the article, so I as well asked to some people. You perhaps noticed it, also let me know if I missed an steps.Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]