Talk:Mount Redoubt/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:

   Are there no specific dates, besides years, that the volcanoes erupted? Also, is that the only information found for the for the 1881 and 1902 sections?

   No more info is available for 1881, I will try to get the dates. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   Alright, I can wait for more info.

   Alright, if no more info. can be found, I guess this will have to do.

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

   In the lead, the period should come before Reference 5. Also, do the same for Reference 10. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here. How is it that "lahar" is not italicize in the Geology section, but it is in the 1989 section?

   It's a foreign term, done. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   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:

   Reference 2 needs Publisher info. Also, Reference 13 needs to be properly formatted and the title in Reference 15 is not supposed to be in all capitals, per here.

   done. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:20, 10 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 7 cover all this ---> "emitting a white smoke but no fire which made some think it was no more than a white thick cloud such as we have frequently seen on the Coast, for the most part appearing on the sides of hills and often extends along a whole range and at different times falls or rises, expands or contracts itself and has a resemblance to Clouds of white smoke. But this besides being too small for one of those clouds, remained as it were fixed in the same spot for the whole time the Mountain was clear which was above 48 hours"?

   Yes, it does, that's a quote. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

   Alright, just needed to know.

   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:

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) 21:31, 9 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) 15:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)