Talk:Three Fingered Jack/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 02:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor, first and foremost, I would like to thank you for your phenomenal contribution of this Three Fingered Jack article to Wikipedia. I will be engaging in this GA review shortly. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@West Virginian: Just checking in - still planning to review this? ceranthor 17:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor:, I do indeed, and I apologize for the hiatus in the review. I am copying over my comments as we speak. Thank you for authoring this most tremendous article! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Ceranthor, I've completed my review of your phenomenal article, and as illustrated above in the GAR template, I find that it meets the criteria for Good Article status. Before passing this article, however, I do have a few comments and questions that I have provided below. Once these have been addressed sufficiently, we will begin the process of passing this article to Good Article status. Thank you for your thorough research of this topic, and for writing such a comprehensive article on this little known shield volcano. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns for me in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Per the MoS Lead guidance, this article's lead paragraph succinctly summarizes the most important points covered in an article.
You may want to consider rephrasing the lead's first sentence as: Three Fingered Jack is a shield volcano of the Cascade Range in the U.S. state of Oregon. This way, you can introduce Three Fingered Jack as being one of the volcanoes constituting the Cascade Range, and establish that it is within the U.S. state of Oregon for the few readers unfamiliar with Oregon. Again, this is just a suggestion for your consideration.
You may also want to consider wiki-linking epoch to Epoch (geology) for those readers who may want to quickly reference what an epoch entails. Again, this is merely a suggestion.
Similar to the article for Mount Jefferson (Oregon), you may want to consider including some content from the Ecology, Human history, and Recreation sections for a more comprehensive lead paragraph.
You may also want to consider adding alt captions for all the images in this article. All the images are acceptable for use in this article.
Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the prose below, those references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Geography

What is the definition of a "draping relief"? I didn't see this covered on the terrain article, so perhaps a brief footnote would do here.
Would either of these rephrasings work? "Three Fingered Jack and Mount Jefferson are both prominent features of the wilderness area." or "Along with Mount Jefferson, Three Fingered Jack is a prominent feature in the wilderness area."
Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Ecology

This section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Geology and subfeatures

Per Wikipedia:Citation overkill, you may want to consider just three inline citations along with the footnote in the first sentence of this section.
Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Eruptive history

This section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Human history and Recreation

These sections, too, are well-written, their contents are cited within the text, their references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for these two sections. -- West Virginian (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@West Virginian: I am shooting to get to these tonight. Will ping you again when I've gotten to them. Best, ceranthor 18:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: take your time! Thank you for creating yet another amazing article. -- West Virginian (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@West Virginian: Besides the citations for the geology section, I have implemented all your suggestions. I just think that it is slightly unclear which volcano type TFJ falls under, so I want to clearly support the article's statement with as many reliable citations as possible. Thanks for the review, and let me know if you have additional comments! ceranthor 13:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor:, you are amazing! I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! Congratulations on a job very well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]