Talk:Lake Vostok/GA1

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 10:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise interesting and well-written article. Placing on hold. Arsenikk (talk)  10:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Cyrillic text should not be in italics, even when corresponding Latin text should. (fixed)
 * I am a bit concerned with "the size of Lake Ontario" as it requires the reader to know not only what Lake Ontario is, but also its approximate size. While that is all good and well for most North Americans, I doubt the average Briton has even heard of Lake Ontario let alone have a "feeling" of its size.
 * Could you link "cavities" to the corresponding article.
 * Under geological history, use "further information" rather than "main articles".
 * Atmospheres is a rather archaic unit; I would have preferred to see bars and psi.
 * I see you convert to psi at the next mention, however it has more significant digits than the first unit.
 * There are some very short sections under traits.
 * I've undertaken a copyedit, including correcting significant digits and adding a non-converted unit.
 * Don't repeat links in the article or in navboxes in the see also section. Similarly, terms not obvious need context; if they are not explained in the article they are probably not relevant for the see also section. Similarly don't disguise categories as articles.
 * I did a random check of journals and several unlinked journals in the refs have articles. Linking to the journal can be a major benefit to some readers.
 * There are several claims in the article without references
 * Some refs lack access date
 * Some of the refs which lack dates have dates in the sources
 * Although permitted on other articles, our fair use policy does not permit File:Andrey Kapitsa.jpg to be used in this article. (removed)

Hello. Here I attempting to address the issues indicated above: Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Cavities" now links to Glacier cave.
 * Under geological history, now it displays "further information" rather than "main articles".
 * Units of pressure set to psi.
 * You have completely misunderstood me. Bars should be the primary unit and psi should be the unit converted to. Arsenikk (talk)  17:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it better now?
 * Instead of short subsections, traits are now listed.
 * Deleted some unrelated intralinks and did some cleanup on interviews/statements and their source.
 * Sourced a statement without reference.
 * Pending: Linking references to their original scientific research publications, and dating all references.


 * I believe tha I am done with the references, excepting those few ones in Russian. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work. I will do the Russian sources. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks both of you. Please do not break up the comment into new subgroups as it makes it very difficult for me to see what has been done and not. Arsenikk (talk)  17:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have done a slight copyedit, partially in the lead and partially in the traits section. I have removed the subsections under trains because they were creating far too short sections. Please use third-level headers and not simply boldface text for such headers in similar circumstances. Works should only be used for journals, newspapers and series of books; organizations, universities etc. should be listed as publisher (the difference is if the listing is in italics or not). This is beyond the scope of the GA criteria, but I would encourage this be seen into, and will be a must if FA status is desired.

I have to concerns before I pass the article: please reintroduce bars as the primary unit of measurement for pressure, and there is one [citation needed] tag which either needs a reference or should be removed if it cannot be verified. Arsenikk (talk)  17:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the paragraph as it was a copyvio of anyway. Thanks for your additional comments. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk (talk)  17:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)