Talk:Black Buttes/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 12:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria As is standard for me, I shall put comments that aren't directly about GA criteria and thus not necessarily a problem here: "Climbers should approach as though intending to climb Lincoln Peak, but instead they should follow heather to the southwestern ridge, then ascend a ridge to a false peak." reads a bit like a how-to guide, which is frowned upon per WP:NOT
 * I changed it to "Climbers are recommended to approach as though intending to climb Lincoln Peak, but instead to follow heather to the southwestern ridge before ascending a ridge to a false peak."  ceran  thor 22:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * "and lasts for approximately four hours"? Not sure that the "Heather" link you are mentioning there points to the correct place. "the rest of its remnants" is odd verbiage.
 * Fixed the first and third comments. The source wasn't more particular about heather so I just linked it non-specifically.  ceran  thor 22:40, 15 March 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:
 * I see that source #1 in the "Colfax Peak" subparagraph does not mention "East Butte" which instead is supported by source #8 elsewhere in the article text. I am not sure what source #2 supports in the lead, and the source apparently does not say anything about glaciers. I take that 500,000 to 300,000 was rounded; generally that source would work better with page numbers since I can't find 140,000. Source #7 does not give the alternative name. "that reach thicknesses of up to 1,950 feet (590 m), though they were likely larger prior to erosion." does sound fairly different from the source.
 * East Butte and West Butte are mentioned earlier in the article with a citation, though. Removed source 2 in the lead. Removed the Hildreth ref altogether. Fixed the thickness bit.  ceran  thor 22:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * I see that source #1 in the "Colfax Peak" subparagraph does not mention "East Butte" which instead is supported by source #8 elsewhere in the article text. I am not sure what source #2 supports in the lead, and the source apparently does not say anything about glaciers. I take that 500,000 to 300,000 was rounded; generally that source would work better with page numbers since I can't find 140,000. Source #7 does not give the alternative name. "that reach thicknesses of up to 1,950 feet (590 m), though they were likely larger prior to erosion." does sound fairly different from the source.
 * East Butte and West Butte are mentioned earlier in the article with a citation, though. Removed source 2 in the lead. Removed the Hildreth ref altogether. Fixed the thickness bit.  ceran  thor 22:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Didn't notice any, with the caveat that I can't check any of the book sources.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Unless we want to say something about the (absence of) flora and fauna.
 * I struggled to find anything about them particularly concerning Black Buttes.  ceran  thor 22:40, 15 March 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * But maybe a crop focused on the Black Buttes would be even better.
 * I'm no image wizard, but if you could recommend someone who does that sort of thing, I'd be happy to reach out.  ceran  thor 22:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I do use Microsoft Paint for such a simple crop. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * But maybe a crop focused on the Black Buttes would be even better.
 * I'm no image wizard, but if you could recommend someone who does that sort of thing, I'd be happy to reach out.  ceran  thor 22:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I do use Microsoft Paint for such a simple crop. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Posted some replies. Sorry for the delay.  ceran  thor 22:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Added a cropped image. Let me know what you think.  ceran  thor 15:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good image, bad license since such a crop has the same copyright status as the origin image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus, Oops. My mistake - should be fixed.  ceran  thor 22:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This one is ready too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)