Talk:Sangay/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Will review this article shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

review

• mention in two different places in lede the danger from ejecta.

You said you worked on the lead; this still an issue or have you fixed it yourself? ResMar 02:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

geology

• the first paragraph under this section is very dense reading. Is there any way it could be made easier to understand for the general reader?

Hah, it does need some simplification. You want something like Mount Cleveland (Alaska)#Geological setting? ResMar 02:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• "The older southern rock is more stable than the northern crust, thus attributing for the long break in volcanic activity in the Andes;" - confusing
• the repeated use of "edifice" - are there other words that could be used?
• Sandwiching text between two large images makes reading the text difficult.

I don't know how to fix this one easily. ResMar 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Basic needs disambig.

Will get to this on the weekend. ResMar 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

comment

• Nominator has not returned to the article to address problems noted. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   As an example, the first section of Geology is particularly dense and difficult for the general reader to read.

   repetition of word "edifice" as noted above

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Text is sandwiched in between two large images.

   Would be helpful to have subsections under Geology to help the reader deal with the dense material, since the section is so long.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   None of the points originally pointed out have been addressed; page has not been edited since March 28 by nominator.

• Article failed; points have not been addressed. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)