Talk:Diamond Peak (Oregon)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria All of my comments are open for discussion. Once complete, I will claim points for this review in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Lead
 * no concern
 * Geography
 * no concern
 * Ecology
 * no concern
 * I just want to make a suggestion for this and other geography articles – they tend to say in the ecology or flora and fauna sections that the area/forest/wilderness supports a great diversity of species, when often, especially in the Oregon Cascades, this isn't really true. For this article, the source cited (Wuerthner) doesn't support that statement, so I'm removing it. I understand that it's difficult to phrase a sentence about an area's species without saying variety or diversity or abundance, but we need to be more careful. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edits all look good to me. Thanks for the assistance. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Geology
 * "Constructed towards the end of the Pleistocene" - Is constructed a common verb for mountain/volcano formation? I think formed is more natural, but I'll defer to you.
 * "Though its lava flows show residual magnetism, the volcano does not display evidence of activity" - After reading the Remanence article, I'm not sure how the two ideas in this sentence work together. How does residual magnetism relate to volcanic activity? Depending on how complex the explanation is, it may be worth including in a note.
 * My understanding is that they show residual magnetism which suggests that they're within a certain age-range, but that they're still not younger than 10,000 years. Is your concern that this statement is comparing apples and oranges?  ceran  thor 15:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is my concern, yes. At first read, it felt like two separate facts pushed together instead of a chain of reasoning ("I have Cheeto dust on my fingers, but there's no evidence I currently exercise"). When I followed the link provided, I expected it to provide some explanation (maybe related to Paleomagnetism), but that article only explains what remanence is and I can't find a connection to volcanic activity. Although this may be a deficiency in the Remanence article, I think it would be helpful to include a note explaining the connection. I believe this source says that remanence usually fades in a predictable manner and can be used like carbon dating to date rocks. If you don't want to use a note, linking to Archaeomagnetic dating might be a workable alternative. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed to linking to archaeomagnetic dating.  ceran  thor 18:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Human history
 * "little future demand is anticipated" by whom?
 * Reworded to little future potential.  ceran  thor 18:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What I meant was, who is doing the anticipating? I assume it was the surveyors who did the 1983 survey, but I think this should be specified in-line. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now.  ceran  thor 15:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it awkward as a reader that this section has a sub-section entitled "Mining and geothermal energy" that goes on to say that there is no mining or geothermal energy development around Diamond Peak. I think the title makes readers expect that there is such development. What do you two think of removing that title? Jsayre64 (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I'll leave that up to Ceranthor. I'm fine either way. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed the subheader, as I agree with Jsayre.  ceran  thor 15:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Recreation
 * no concern
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no concern
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * no concern
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * no concern, AGF for the print sources
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Were there any notable Indians who lived in the area prior to the Road Viewers' ascent? I assume they're not mentioned in any reliable sources, but I'd like to make sure it is not an accidental omission before I give this item the green tick.
 * I didn't see anything specifically about Diamond Peak, no.  ceran  thor 18:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no concern
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * File:DiamondpeakOR.JPG and File:Diamond Peak and Mt. Yoran, Oregon.jpg appear to be the same view in different seasons. I think this is interesting enough to be noted in the captions, since it might otherwise go unnoticed.
 * I agree that it seems like one was taken during the winter and one during the summer, but since they aren't mentioned in the original captions I fear this would be considered original research. I think the seasonal difference can be inferred from the different colors, but that's just me. What do you think?  ceran  thor 15:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Summer-looking one was taken 10/25/05 according to the uploader. I'm less certain about the winter-looking one because the upload date matches the date given for it being taken., do you happen to remember if this was actually taken in January, or just added then? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I definitely took that one in January 2016, and the other one in February 2012. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Added the summer description.  ceran  thor 18:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I think I've fixed everything except the two comments I replied to above. Thanks for the review!  ceran  thor 15:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've finished adding notes. I'll put it on hold while we talk about the remaining points, but this will be an easy one to pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I think I have addressed everything except the image point.  ceran  thor 18:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And now they should all be addressed.  ceran  thor 15:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick responses. Happy to promote this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)