Talk:Taftan (volcano)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 19:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc Shearonink (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Well-written.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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:
What a pleasure to come upon a GA nominee with all the refs in place - thank you.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool and this article is as clean as a whistle.
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):
Is it neutral?
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:
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:
At first, the panorama photo of Taftan took me aback but now I've decided I like it - shows the sheer scale of the place.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
In general, the article looks to be in good shape. I do need to complete at least another read-through or two for any stylistic concerns, etc.

Having finished my last read-through of this article mentioned above, I am going to pass it to GA status. I realize this is often not the norm for GA Reviews so I'd like to explain a little further - I just can't find anything really wrong with it, certainly not enough to deny it being named a GA.

My only notes for future improvements is a personal preference to add some human history and maybe natural history to articles about geography. Is the mountain part of any local traditions or festivals? Does it figure in local stories or myths? Are there any rare flowers or plants that grow around the sulfur vents? I understand that human bits are probably not the norm for many of Wikipedia's articles on geographic subjects but our readership comes from many different walks of life and many different areas of the world. If there's some information in an article and it gets people to think a different way about their surroundings - that's not just a mountain made of cold rock, it's a place where many believe the ancestors live (and so on) - then that is a good thing. Thank you, Shearonink (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last eruption

In the article it's stated that the mountain last erupted in 1993. But according to this Iranian website (Please translate it) and other Persian sources, magma flew out of the ground in 2015 near the city of Mirjaveh (about two years after the 2013 Saravan earthquake). Can we relate this magma flow to Mount Taftan and hence, update the last eruption part? Aminabzz (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]