Talk:Mount Tendürek/GA1

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * I've fixed a couple of small formatting errors.


 * I've marked one paragraph in "Geography" as needing a citation.
 * ✅ Removed the paragraph because I forgot where I sourced it from and now I can't find it. ' Reego 41 ' 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * A statement in "Topography" was tagged back in August as needing clarification.
 * ✅ Clarified. ' Reego 41 ' 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * In "Topography", "the western peak, which is larger than the eastern peak, has a height" should read simply "the larger western peak has a height".
 * ✅ ' Reego 41 ' 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * In "Tectonic setting", "which is a result of complex deformation as a result of the collision" should read "a complex deformation caused by the collision".
 * ✅ ' Reego 41 ' 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ The use of the terms sinistral and dextral needs to be glossed in the text as far as their meaning with respect to strike-slip faults is concerned (no issue with their basic left-handed, right-handed meanings which is clear enough, i.e. the reader needs to know briefly how faults can be left- or right-handed).
 * Added right-lateral and left-lateral next to the terms. Should be okay.? ' Reego 41 ' 20:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, doesn't help. The links show any reader who doesn't know that dextral=right, but the question is different, as I already explained: what does right or left mean for a slip-strike fault?
 * What about now? Think it's a bit more clear. ' Reego 41 ' 20:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. What's really needed is a diagram as it's surprising that there can be handedness here, which is the same as saying that the fault has a definite front side and rear side, how do we know which is which. A diagram would instantly make this clear.
 * I feel like adding a whole diagram in the article would stray away from the topic. Maybe a note could be added with a diagram? That's the most I can do. I've already put a small definition of the words and the words are already wikilinked. If one reader doesn't understand they can click on it. ' Reego 41 ' 15:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, OK.
 * That's good then :) ' Reego 41 ' 16:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The "Sociology" section is oddly-titled and positioned. Since this is a geography article, the section should go at the end (just before References). A more typical heading for the section might be "In culture".
 * ✅ Good point. ' Reego 41 ' 20:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Further, "Sociology"'s two very short subsections (Religion, History) should be merged, i.e. the two subsection headings should be deleted.
 * ✅ ' Reego 41 ' 20:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * In "Religion", "is considered by some to be Noah's Ark, however this is disputed due to an absence of evidence." should read "is considered by some, without evidence, to be Noah's Ark."
 * ✅ ' Reego 41 ' 20:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * * In "Flora and fauna", "is home to multiple endemic plants. Some endemic plants in the region" should read (less repetitively) "is home to multiple endemic plants, including".
 * ✅ ' Reego 41 ' 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * In "Flora and fauna", the phrase "known to" is redundant, so please remove it (twice), and copy-edit to repair both sentences, e.g. "Birds of the region ...", "The steppe eagle resides ...".
 * ✅ ' Reego 41 ' 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Images

 * File:LakeVanVolcanism.svg states that the base relief map was "retrieved from GEBCO". Where was that exactly (URL)? We need evidence that the GEBCO map is CC-BY-SA.
 * The map was borrowed from this link and also per their terms of use the GEBCO grid is public domain. ' Reego 41 ' 19:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok that's fine. It'd be wise to add this info on the file's Commons page also.


 * File:GACOSTendurekDeformationVelocity.png is from MDPI. Could you point me to where MDPI says the article containing this image is CC-BY-SA please? Not all MDPI articles are CC-BY-SA, and this article does not appear to contain any such statement. Instead the MDPI open access policy says "For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, ..." which means that each article has to state explicitly if it is CC-BY-SA.
 * The PDF file on this link states in the first page in the bottom left corner that the article is open access by CC-BY 4.0. ' Reego 41 ' 19:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Again it'd be wise to add this on the file's Commons page.

Summary
With those changes, this interesting and informative article will make a worthy GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for reviewing. I'll get on implementing your comments. ' Reego 41 ' 19:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)