Talk:Monowai (seamount)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811:Greetings, is that review done? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'd say so, just the issues listed below to be fixed. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Second sentence of lead is a somewhat confusing run-on and should be split into at least two sentences, maybe 3, rephrased. Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] "Discovered at some point between 1877 and 1977" in lead is confusing and raises more questions than it answers - incorporate some history from discovery section or remove reference to discovery in lead Redid that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Second paragraph of lead should be incorporated earlier, perhaps when the Kermadec volcanic arc is first mentioned. Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] 'Discovery and research history' should be reworked, especially the first sentence, which drags on. Clarify date of discovery of various features - a 100-year-approximation is both implausible and confusing. I've attempted a rework. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] 'Geography and structure / regional' is good, nice section In 'Eruption history', add commas around 'for example' or remove phrase altogether. Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Last sentence of 'Eruption history', "Monowai may be... in the world" is both notable and interesting and should be incorporated into the lead Done, perhaps it could be moved up in the lead though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass. No issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass. No issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass - if 1877-1977 thing is fixed, that is.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. No issues. Checked against major sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass. No major issues or areas of topic uncovered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. Covers subject well.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass. No issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass. Most work done in February. No edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass. No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, although an additional image would be nice if one is available, perhaps of topography or similar. @Ganesha811:I'll look at some more images. Also, I shall note that as I found out some new sources were recently published and will need to be added; you may want to wait with passing this until I've added them, which may be today or tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Ganesha811:Noting that this is now ready for a re-review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, thanks, will look through tomorrow. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.

Pass! Issues fixed - made some last-minute copyedits myself. Congrats to @Jo-Jo Eumerus: and everyone else who worked on this article. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]