Talk:Laguna del Maule (volcano)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tisquesusa (talk · contribs) 03:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Excellent complete article, definitely GA

1. Is it well written?

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

   Well written, perfect prose, grammar good

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

   All very good

2. 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:

   Sources are linked and accessible, also sources where no subscription is needed are available and kept up-to-date

   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:

   Perfect

   C. It contains no original research:

   No OR, just a good compilation of information that was already available but never this well summarised

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Nope

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Enough overview of the various themes

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   And also enough detail in the chosen chapters

4. Is it neutral?

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

   No issues

5. Is it stable?

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

   Nope

6. 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:

   All ok

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

   Added some relevant ones, could be more added, but that's a personal taste

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   No doubt; another excellent article by Jo-Jo Eumereus, well written, complete, detailed, heavily referenced, interesting and just good

Hum. @Tisquesusa: seems like the passing has not been registered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)