Talk:Laguna del Maule (volcano)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tisquesusa (talk · contribs) 03:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Excellent complete article, definitely GA
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Well written, perfect prose, grammar good
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * All very good
 * 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:
 * Sources are linked and accessible, also sources where no subscription is needed are available and kept up-to-date
 * 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:
 * Perfect
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * No OR, just a good compilation of information that was already available but never this well summarised
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Nope
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Enough overview of the various themes
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * And also enough detail in the chosen chapters
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No issues
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Nope
 * 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:
 * All ok
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Added some relevant ones, could be more added, but that's a personal taste
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * No doubt; another excellent article by Jo-Jo Eumereus, well written, complete, detailed, heavily referenced, interesting and just good
 * Hum. seems like the passing has not been registered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)