Talk:Peinado/GA1

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

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 09:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

At a cursory glance, it doesn't have any reason to quick-fail. Looks like an interesting article.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * Prose is broadly understandable to a broad audience.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Article comlies with MoS in lead section, layout, WtW, lists, and fiction
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * All citations are verifiable
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * Inline citations back up their corresponding claims
 * c. (OR):
 * Article does not contain any original research
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Article does not contain any copyright violations
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * The article addresses the main aspects of the geological formation
 * b. (focused):
 * Article stays focused on the topic in an appropriate level of detail
 * [OLD]: The article sometimes strays into unnecessary detail, such as in the geology where is lists other volcanoes in the region for some reason
 * My thinking is that listing some neighbouring volcanoes is pertinent information, as context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No undue weight is given to any particular opinions
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit warring as far as I can see
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * Article image is tagged with its copyright status
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No undue weight is given to any particular opinions
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit warring as far as I can see
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * Article image is tagged with its copyright status
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * Article image is tagged with its copyright status
 * Article image is tagged with its copyright status

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * There is only 1 photo (a sattelite) in the whole article
 * Unfortunately, there aren't that many photos of this remote area.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Media used has relevance to the topic
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * While the article mostly meets the criteria, some areas require improvement before it metts good article critera
 * While the article mostly meets the criteria, some areas require improvement before it metts good article critera
 * While the article mostly meets the criteria, some areas require improvement before it metts good article critera

Status query
DimensionalFusion, Jo-Jo Eumerus, where does this review stand? I see that both the start of the review and a response were posted on the same day over two months ago, and since then, nothing. Is there a way to get this moving, and hopefully on its way to completion? Thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I honestly completely forgot about the review as I was otherwise occupied. I’ll get back to reviewing this tomorrow  DimensionalFusion   (talk)  02:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)