Talk:Glacier Peak/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the History section, "However, although the local people hosted Glacier Peak as part of their literature", the intro. of the sentence sounds odd, it would be best if it were re-written. Same section, "AS a result, gold miners eventually reached the area in the 1870s-1890s, searching for resources and rich land", "AS" ---> "As". In the Threat section, "hadn't" ---> "had not". In the Geology section, "Disappointment Peak" does it have to be capitalized?

   done. Yes, it is a sub-feature and thus it is a proper noun. Ceran^→//forge 23:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

   Half-check, you forgot the "However, although..." sentence.

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Throughout the article, link "naturalist", "ash", and "Sauk River" to their correspondence articles. In the Eruptive section, how is it that "lahar" is italicize, but later in the paragraph is not italicized? Same section, it would be best if "lahar" is linked once, per here. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here. In the Glaciers section, you need to have a consistency between numbers; If you see here, the MoS for numbers, it says "single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals", so I suggest spelling "eleven", "ten", and "fifteen" in numbers or vice versa, your choice. In the Recreation section, "Fall of 2003", with seasons differing in different part of the world, a different wording than autumn or fall should be picked, per here.

   done. Ceran^→//forge 23:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

   Half-check, "naturalist" is a disambiguation and the numbers consistency need to be fixed.

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References 15 and 16 are missing Publisher info. Also, "Seattle Post-Intelligencer" needs to be in the "work" format, than the "publisher", of the Reference. Also, spell out "USGS" in the general ref. In the External links, "Glacier Peak at Peakware.com" is dead.

   done. Ceran^→//forge 23:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

   Half-check, Reference 16 is missing an "accessdate" and a "date". Also, the "USGS" needs to be fixed.

   Half-check, "accessdate" and "date".

   done. Ceran^→//forge 23:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

   Check.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Does Reference 6 cover all this ---> "Around the area, there were many Native Americans, and along with other Washington volcanoes, the mountain was recognized by them as a spirit of some type. When explorers reached the area, they studied the people's traditions, including their literature. However, although the local people hosted Glacier Peak as part of their literature, when other volcanoes in the area were mapped, Glacier Peak was left out. In 1850, natives mentioned the volcano to naturalist George Gibbs that the volcano had once "smoked". In 1898, the volcano was finally documented on a map"? If it is, then you need to add the source after "smoked", per here and here. Also, do this after every occurrence of a quote.

   done. Ceran^→//forge 23:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

   Check.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   In the Geographical setting, this ---> "Apparently, eruptions within the range are irregular and do not occur all at once", sounds like POV.

   Done removed apparently. Ceran^→//forge 23:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

   Check.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to Ceranthor who worked so hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)