Talk:Lastarria/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 16:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I am trying a good article review. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria 

There are a few errors based on the good article criteria. Addressed some issues. Not sure what ""display evidence" missing an." is, however. Plenty sure the first item does not need a comma. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * "Several volcanoes are located in this chain of volcanoes, which is formed " it should be plural right? If you are referring to the chain which is formed then no comma should be there. Comment The chain is formed, and a comma is needed because the clause is a non-restrictive (non-essential, non-identifying) adjective clause.
 * I mean "Several volcanoes are located in this chain of volcanoes which is formed " as, if the which refers to the chain then it is fine. However, if the which referred to the volcanoes, then it had to be "are" instead of "is".
 * "altitude,[19] and no comma is required. Comment not required, but all right. – Corinne (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "display evidence" missing an. Comment I re-worded the sentence.
 * "longest reaches a length" reaching. Comment Grammatically, the participial phrase "the longest reaching..." works, but it creates some ambiguity as it follows "pulses", so it could refer to "pulses". To avoid this, all that needed to be done was to change the comma to a semi-colon. After that, a new clause begins: "....; the longest reaches..." Then it is a little clearer that "the longest" refers to one of the massive flows.
 * "lake,[14] which may be" no comma required. Comment A comma is needed here; it is a non-restrictive (non-essential, non-identifying) adjective clause.
 * " long and well preserved" missing is. Comment "Is" is all right but not necessary. You don't have to repeat the verb be.
 * Would it not make it consistent?
 * " material like" material should be plural. Comment "Material" can be used in an uncountable sense: "loose material". See "pyroclastic material" in the "Edifice proper" section.
 * Material is fine if it is one substance. However, I think there were more than one materials being said "ash, lapilli, pumice, with only a few lithic blocks".
 * " the 1970 Ancash earthquake triggered on " missing had. Comment No. Past perfect is not necessary here. Past tense is fine.
 * "is evidence of" is an evidence if it is only one evidence or are evidences. Comment 1. The noun "evidence" is always uncountable. There is no plural form. 2. "Is evidence of" is a common construction. However, I re-worded the sentence to make it more concise.
 * " sulfur has formed flows" which formed? Comment I re-worded the sentence to avoid repeating the word "sulfur".
 * "with subduction of the" missing the. Comment No, I don't think it is. "Subduction", without "the", is general (and on-going).
 * It was there before I think.
 * " bordeer between" seems like the spelling might be wrong. Comment Yes, but I don't see this anywhere.
 * It was there before I think. Maybe somebody corrected that.
 * "aridity, as it" no comma might be required. Comment Technically, and traditionally, a comma is not used before an adverbial clause that follows the independent clause, but more and more writers are using the comma when it makes sense, and to make the sentence clearer. Here, I think because the sentence is so long, the comma makes sense here and adds to clarity. (But I don't see an edit removing a comma, so I am puzzled by this. There is no comma there.)
 * It was there before I think.
 * "and that the main" a comma might be required. Comment There is a comma there, so I don't understand this comment. Technically, no comma is required here, but it helps with the flow and understanding of the sentence.
 * "and, that the main" I mean the comma after "and". Since there was already a comma before "and", either you could put one comma after "and" or remove the comma after "and" (as you said).
 * "Lastarria and other volcanoes" missing the. Comment The word "the" currently appears before "other volcanoes", so I don't know to what you are referring. Jo-Jo Eumerus, "the other volcanoes" must refer to a specific group of volcanoes. It may not be clear to your readers what these other volcanoes are. Do you think it is clear? If not, you can make it clearer. Without "the", just "other volcanoes", it means several other volcanoes, but without specifying which ones. – Corinne (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Lastarria and the other volcanoes" this I mean. The "the" which was not there before is there now. It seems fine after the word "the" was put, but earlier it was not. It was, in fact, corrected by you, Jo-Jo Eumerus. However, maybe you forgot after correcting it.
 * 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:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I didn't understand that concern, either, but I re-worded the sentence. I also replied to all the comments above. – Corinne (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I meant that there was an "an" missing. However, as Corinne said, there was no need of an "an" as it was considered uncountable. There are few issues for which I wrote about following the mentions of Corinne, and also if there were any inconsistencies or improvements to be done for the GA, you can always point out. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Corrected the "volcanoes" item; it's about a group of volcanoes that is not named in the text (and mostly not even in the source...). Anything else? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As I am not the reviewer of this volcano, I've made a couple of edits, mostly avoiding - and x in running text in convert templates, added portals and categories, fill of the infobox that lacks still the prominence and access (routes) to the mountain top, included the area and volcanic belt, some edits of text and corrections of links and Spanish spelling with accents. Also "Bibliography" instead of "Sources". Tisquesusa (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems fine. Nice work. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)