Talk:Peinado/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 09:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

At a cursory glance, it doesn't have any reason to quick-fail. Looks like an interesting article.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Prose is broadly understandable to a broad audience.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Article comlies with MoS in lead section, layout, WtW, lists, and fiction

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   All citations are verifiable

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Inline citations back up their corresponding claims

   c. (OR):

   Article does not contain any original research

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Article does not contain any copyright violations

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   The article addresses the main aspects of the geological formation

   b. (focused):

   Article stays focused on the topic in an appropriate level of detail

   [OLD]: The article sometimes strays into unnecessary detail, such as in the geology where is lists other volcanoes in the region for some reason

   My thinking is that listing some neighbouring volcanoes is pertinent information, as context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No undue weight is given to any particular opinions

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit warring as far as I can see

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   Article image is tagged with its copyright status

1. There is only 1 photo (a sattelite) in the whole article

   Unfortunately, there aren't that many photos of this remote area.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Media used has relevance to the topic

2. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   While the article mostly meets the criteria, some areas require improvement before it metts good article critera

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Status query

DimensionalFusion, Jo-Jo Eumerus, where does this review stand? I see that both the start of the review and a response were posted on the same day over two months ago, and since then, nothing. Is there a way to get this moving, and hopefully on its way to completion? Thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I honestly completely forgot about the review as I was otherwise occupied. I’ll get back to reviewing this tomorrow DimensionalFusion (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

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.