Talk:Llullaillaco/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 17:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I am trying a good article review. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
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:
- "The volcanic zones are separated by areas where the angle of the subducting plate is flatter and volcanism is absent." is it angle between the subducting plate and something? Maybe something might be missing there.
- "Llullaillaco is located c. 300 kilometres (190 mi) east of the Peru-Chile Trench.[10] The Wadati-Benioff zone is 180 kilometres (110 mi) deep.[11]" what is the c? There may be something over there right?
- "With a summit height of 6,723 metres (22,057 ft) it is the second highest active volcano in the world after Ojos del Salado (6,887 metres (22,595 ft), 27°07′S 68°33′W).[15][1]" perhaps there is a comma missing.
- " An alternative height is 6,739 metres (22,110 ft).[2]" can be merged with the preceding line right? "With a summit height of 6,723 metres (22,057 ft), and an alternative height is 6,739 metres (22,110 ft), it is the second highest active volcano in the world after Ojos del Salado (6,887 metres (22,595 ft), 27°07′S 68°33′W).[15][1]" instead?
- "Dos Naciones, Cerro Silla, and Cerro 5074" could be referenced to their wikipedia articles as well right? Similarly for other such things. It might be easier for the reader to refer to.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- 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:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- 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:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
- @Adityavagarwal: The "c" is a display form of the {{circa}} template. The smaller volcanoes around Llullaillaco do not have Wikipedia articles for the most part. Got the other issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- The article seems fine and nice. Nice work. Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)