Talk:Licancabur/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I am trying a good article review. Adityavagarwal 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.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * In the subheading, General setting, "farther south" should it be "further south" instead?
 * Both are correct, "farther" would be preferable if a distinction were to be made. See -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but since there was yet another further used instead of farther, so I thought it would be cohesive and similar to use further instead. However, as you pointed about distinction, I do not think I thought about that point as well. Also do feel free to amend my mistakes, as this might eliminate my mistakes. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In the subheading, Local setting, "Among the region's active volcanoes are Putana (erupted at the end of the 19th century), Llullaillaco (1868) and Lascar (1993)[a][14] Other stratovolcanoes are Tacora, Nevados de Payachata, Isluga, Tata Sabaya, Ollague, Tocorpuri, Sairecabur and Socompa.[15] " Seems like there is a fullstop missing.
 * " Nineteen kilometres (12 miles) southeast, " Instead, to maintain similarity with other occurences of length, which was seemingly in numbers instead of words, I think even this one should be in numerical instead of in words.
 * Numerals are written out when at the beginning of a sentence, so this is correct as is. See WP:NUMNOTES -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 January 2017 (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:
 * The introductory paragraph has only any reference. Even though the information might be present in the successive references, but the paragraph and/or the lines within the paragraph as well can be referenced to those references.
 * Lede can be entirely free of references if none of the material is likely to be challenged, and non-controversial material referenced later is best left unreferenced when summarized in the lede. See WP:LEADCITE.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, did not know that. I could figure out that the information in the introduction was anyways reference to later references, yet I thought if readers had to know which reference the information was from, they might have to search and all. Appreciations for making it clear. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, did not know that. I could figure out that the information in the introduction was anyways reference to later references, yet I thought if readers had to know which reference the information was from, they might have to search and all. Appreciations for making it clear. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 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:
 * Removed a duplicate header. Thanks for looking at this, ; I'll look at the issues soon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, also was that a quick response, which is appreciated. :) I as well fixed the redirect.Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Took care of some of the issues pointed out; I did also change "farther" to "further" before seeing Elmidae's comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Removed a duplicate header. Thanks for looking at this, ; I'll look at the issues soon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, also was that a quick response, which is appreciated. :) I as well fixed the redirect.Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Took care of some of the issues pointed out; I did also change "farther" to "further" before seeing Elmidae's comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed a duplicate header. Thanks for looking at this, ; I'll look at the issues soon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, also was that a quick response, which is appreciated. :) I as well fixed the redirect.Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Took care of some of the issues pointed out; I did also change "farther" to "further" before seeing Elmidae's comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This article seems fine for becoming a Good Article. Nice work. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, if you did pass this review, it seems like you missed some steps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was sort of thinking as to why the plus sign did not appear on the article, so I as well asked to some people. You perhaps noticed it, also let me know if I missed an steps.Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)