Talk:Big Cave/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 09:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I see that has written some improvement but FAR away from a good article... Imma ask what that means.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * "in the southeastern direction", should that not be "in southeastern direction"?
 * Fixed.  ceran  thor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) 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:
 * 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * There seems to be disagreement about the height of the volcano between sources; why is one height measure preferred? Source #1 probably needs explicit page links associated.
 * I fixed the url for source 1. Which source differs on the height; they all seem the same to me?  ceran  thor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * GVP gives a height of 4130ft. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus - I didn't even catch the difference! Is it more clear now?  ceran  thor 15:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * There is nothing on vegetation, human history etc.?
 * Nothing specific that I've been able to find. I suppose I could do something for the general area; would you prefer that?  ceran  thor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * See first part of 2c
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * There is no image whatsoever of the volcano?
 * None that I've been able to find.  ceran  thor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I've replied to a few and fixed a few comments. Thanks for the review.  ceran  thor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * None that I've been able to find.  ceran  thor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I've replied to a few and fixed a few comments. Thanks for the review.  ceran  thor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)