Talk:Monte Burney/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 15:36, 21 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.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * "volcanoes with activity during" should the activity not be plural?
 * "The Andes feature about four areas of volcanic activity from north to south" also, since it is featuring more than one areas, feature should be plural. So does the activity.
 * "due to the long distance between these volcanoes and critical infrastructure they are considered a low hazard" a comma before they seems missing.
 * "lasted for millennia after" millenia should be preceeded by an "a".
 * "In 1910 a" seems like a comma is missing.
 * "from Burney, it occurred" instead, "from Burney which occurred" seems fine.
 * 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:
 * I don't think "activity" should be plural here. "Feature" is a plural. I don't think a further comma before "they are considered" is necessary either. "Millennia" is plural, it should not be preceded by an "a". I don't see the need for a comma after "in 1910". Fixed the last issue however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh so is feature plural? Maybe that is why the sentence made less sense when it seemed not plural. :) Also, the comma might be required as the sentence due.. they.. so there seems a gap between the thing being referred. And yeah the millenia seems fine as it did not seem plural either. :) And a comma might be required after "in 1910" as that is being used not where it actually should be used. In a sentence which used that information later instead of earlier then you might not have had to have a comma. So, only those comma things seem to be the issue. Let me see some articles to provide an example. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here 2000KoreanLeagueCupAdityavagarwal (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems fine. Nice work.Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * I don't think "activity" should be plural here. "Feature" is a plural. I don't think a further comma before "they are considered" is necessary either. "Millennia" is plural, it should not be preceded by an "a". I don't see the need for a comma after "in 1910". Fixed the last issue however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh so is feature plural? Maybe that is why the sentence made less sense when it seemed not plural. :) Also, the comma might be required as the sentence due.. they.. so there seems a gap between the thing being referred. And yeah the millenia seems fine as it did not seem plural either. :) And a comma might be required after "in 1910" as that is being used not where it actually should be used. In a sentence which used that information later instead of earlier then you might not have had to have a comma. So, only those comma things seem to be the issue. Let me see some articles to provide an example. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here 2000KoreanLeagueCupAdityavagarwal (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems fine. Nice work.Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh so is feature plural? Maybe that is why the sentence made less sense when it seemed not plural. :) Also, the comma might be required as the sentence due.. they.. so there seems a gap between the thing being referred. And yeah the millenia seems fine as it did not seem plural either. :) And a comma might be required after "in 1910" as that is being used not where it actually should be used. In a sentence which used that information later instead of earlier then you might not have had to have a comma. So, only those comma things seem to be the issue. Let me see some articles to provide an example. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here 2000KoreanLeagueCupAdityavagarwal (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems fine. Nice work.Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)