Talk:Olallie Butte/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 05:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

GA criteria
: With the issues below having been addressed, the article's composition also complies with MOS policies. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

: The article uses numerous reputable sources, and makes plenty of citations to them. No signs of original research. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)
 * (c)

: The article seems to cover all relevant aspects of its topic to a decent level of detail. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

. There is no evidence of any sort of bias in the article's tone. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC) . Since its creation, the article has not been subjected to any disruptive editing behaviours. We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC) :
 * (a)
 * (b)

Comments

 * "Intro" In the second paragraph of the intro, it states that the volcano has not erupted in the past 10,000 years, but in the infobox it further details that it has not erupted in the past 25,000 years. Shouldn't the 10,000 statement be rewritten to correlate with this, or is there a specific reason why 10,000 is mentioned; i.e., a significance pertaining to a minimum of 10,000 years of inactivity? We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops - good catch. Fixed.  ceran  thor 15:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Having finished reading the article now, however, it seems this was done again in the section "Eruptive history". We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wilhelmina Will - in eruptive history it's just clarifying that it's no younger than 11,000 years old. I realize now that this is redundant after saying it's at least 25,000 years old, so I just cut that part out entirely.  ceran  thor 18:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "Human history" In the intro, it states that the Forest Service fire lookout tower was the building that was abandoned and had its roof collapse in, but in this section, it seems to imply that it was another building that this happened to, instead. Unless, of course, the cupola cabin was an extension to the lookout tower? We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that error. I think it was a remnant of the original version of this article when I started revamping it. Changed to "A Forest Service fire lookout tower was built on the summit in 1915 but abandoned in 1967; the summit also had a cupola cabin from 1920 until its roof collapsed in 1982." What do you think of that version?  ceran  thor 18:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Any update, Wilhelmina Will?  ceran  thor 22:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. Been called away by things offline. I need to handle another thing first, then I'll get this done. :) We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And yup! Looks great, now! We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It took a while on my part, but I believe this article satisfies the GA criteria. Congratulations! We Wikipedians only take NO for an answer! (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)