Talk:Belknap Crater/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 17:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left" ! width="30" | Rate ! width="300"| Attribute !           | Review Comment
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 1. :


 * Very well written and copyedit. No prose issues found. Pass.


 * Pass. No issues.
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 2. :


 * Pass. No issues. Citations are extensive.


 * Mostly peer-reviewed scientific sources. No issues. When sources disagree (for instance on height), this is noted and discussed. Pass.


 * Well cited. pass.


 * Checked against sources - no issues. Pass.
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 3. :


 * Very good coverage. Comparable to existing GAs on volcanic structures. Only thing that turns up is a fire nearby in 2017 called the Milli fire, but this did not appear to directly impact the crater - it was just close by. Pass.


 * Plenty of geologic information, but never excessive, and jargon is handled well (defined or linked). Pass.


 * Pass. No issues.


 * Most work done in May. No edit wars. Pass.
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan="3" | 6. :


 * Pass. No issues.


 * Pass. No issues.

As far as I can tell, this passes GA review without the need for revisions. This is the first time this has happened in my limited experience, so it would be great to get a second opinion, say from or. I'll hold off on formally passing it until that's happened. Overall, great article though! Ganesha811 (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't mind taking a look. I can guarantee there will be something.


 * There is nothing wrong with a passed review, but there's always some commentary that can be done. Let me take a look. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Anything notable come up? If not, I'll pass it. Thanks for reviewing the article as well. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We should be in no rush here. I saw Lee was looking into it so I haven't gone further but a week is not an unusual amount of time for the process to play out. I'm sure Lee will be back with some thoughts. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

My comments
Sorry about the delay - Lots coming up at the moment.

Article is pretty good, here's what I saw from a brief scan:
 * No WP:Short description? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Belknap was named for J. H. Belknap, who lived along the McKenzie River and was the son of R. S. Belknap, responsible for developing Belknap Springs. - do we not have full names? I'm not sure how his father's name is ledeworthy.Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * .vThe Oregon Skyline Trail, - typo? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Third para in lede is very long Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * also true of Eruptive history third para Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And the recreation section Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 360 ± 160 years Anno Domini (A.D.) - is this really the right wording? Can we not say between the years 200-520 A.D.? I don't think it needs a link, nor to explain what A.D. is. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what the table is in Notable vents and subfeatures? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Any reason you used BCE rather than the more conventional BC? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * cosmogenic nuclide isotope 3He, which would require a longer surface exposure than - not a Science expert, but this reads weirdly. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Could we get some WP:ALTTEXT? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Completely up to you how you wish to address these issues and how you want to place the review, these are just some things I saw. Particularly the massive paragraphs and few typos are definately worth perusing. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, and sorry for my delay in getting back to you all. I will try to get to these ASAP (ideally tomorrow)  ceran  thor 00:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , hi! Any update? If you don't have time in the next couple weeks, no biggie, but would be good to know. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Will try to get to them tonight!  ceran  thor 10:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've gotten to all of them except the alt text - question, is that a requirement for good articles now? Re the table - did you want an explanation in the text? And I think the isotope note makes sense in the context of the rest of the sentence "the deposit contains concentrated amounts of the cosmogenic nuclide isotope 3He, which would require a longer surface exposure than Taylor's calculation would allow,[48]" - let me know if I'm mistaken. I've used CE and BCE for volcano articles forever, and plus CE is more standard I think.  ceran  thor 04:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ALTtext is not a requirement, but it's so easy to put in, and ideally would be on every article, we should be pushing it a lot more. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , - great improvements! Thank you for your assistance, Lee, and nice work on the article, Ceranthor. Since the main improvements have been made, and alt-text is not a requirement for GA status, I'm going to pass the article now. Of course we can all still make improvements going forward. :)  Ganesha811 (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and the pass. Made an attempt at adding some alt text - please feel free to tweak or make suggestions for me to change it further.  ceran  thor 16:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)