Talk:Mount Tendürek

Mount Tendürek has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 19, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Volcanoes Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mount Tendürek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I've fixed a couple of small formatting errors.

I've marked one paragraph in "Geography" as needing a citation.

Done Removed the paragraph because I forgot where I sourced it from and now I can't find it. Reego 41 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A statement in "Topography" was tagged back in August as needing clarification.

Done Clarified. Reego 41 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In "Topography", "the western peak, which is larger than the eastern peak, has a height" should read simply "the larger western peak has a height".

Done Reego 41 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In "Tectonic setting", "which is a result of complex deformation as a result of the collision" should read "a complex deformation caused by the collision".

Done Reego 41 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done The use of the terms sinistral and dextral needs to be glossed in the text as far as their meaning with respect to strike-slip faults is concerned (no issue with their basic left-handed, right-handed meanings which is clear enough, i.e. the reader needs to know briefly how faults can be left- or right-handed).

Added right-lateral and left-lateral next to the terms. Should be okay.? Reego 41 20:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, doesn't help. The links show any reader who doesn't know that dextral=right, but the question is different, as I already explained: what does right or left mean for a slip-strike fault?

What about now? Think it's a bit more clear. Reego 41 20:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What's really needed is a diagram as it's surprising that there can be handedness here, which is the same as saying that the fault has a definite front side and rear side, how do we know which is which. A diagram would instantly make this clear.

I feel like adding a whole diagram in the article would stray away from the topic. Maybe a note could be added with a diagram? That's the most I can do. I've already put a small definition of the words and the words are already wikilinked. If one reader doesn't understand they can click on it. Reego 41 15:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, OK.

That's good then :) Reego 41 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Sociology" section is oddly-titled and positioned. Since this is a geography article, the section should go at the end (just before References). A more typical heading for the section might be "In culture".

Done Good point. Reego 41 20:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further, "Sociology"'s two very short subsections (Religion, History) should be merged, i.e. the two subsection headings should be deleted.

Done Reego 41 20:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In "Religion", "is considered by some to be Noah's Ark, however this is disputed due to an absence of evidence." should read "is considered by some, without evidence, to be Noah's Ark."

Done Reego 41 20:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* In "Flora and fauna", "is home to multiple endemic plants. Some endemic plants in the region" should read (less repetitively) "is home to multiple endemic plants, including".

Done Reego 41 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In "Flora and fauna", the phrase "known to" is redundant, so please remove it (twice), and copy-edit to repair both sentences, e.g. "Birds of the region ...", "The steppe eagle resides ...".

Done Reego 41 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

File:LakeVanVolcanism.svg states that the base relief map was "retrieved from GEBCO". Where was that exactly (URL)? We need evidence that the GEBCO map is CC-BY-SA.
- The map was borrowed from this link and also per their terms of use the GEBCO grid is public domain. Reego 41 19:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok that's fine. It'd be wise to add this info on the file's Commons page also.

File:GACOSTendurekDeformationVelocity.png is from MDPI. Could you point me to where MDPI says the article containing this image is CC-BY-SA please? Not all MDPI articles are CC-BY-SA, and this article does not appear to contain any such statement. Instead the MDPI open access policy says "For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, ..." which means that each article has to state explicitly if it is CC-BY-SA.
- The PDF file on this link states in the first page in the bottom left corner that the article is open access by CC-BY 4.0. Reego 41 19:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. Again it'd be wise to add this on the file's Commons page.

Sources

In "Religion", sources [5] (Snelling) and [6] ("Mt Cudi") do not appear to be reliable sources. I think we can simply drop both of them, as sources [3] and [4] seem to be sufficient to cover the entire sentence, i.e. move [3] and [4] to the end of the statement and remove [5] and [6] altogether.

Done Reego 41 19:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The citations listed in "Sources" are all suitable and relevant.

Summary

With those changes, this interesting and informative article will make a worthy GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reviewing. I'll get on implementing your comments. Reego 41 19:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.