Talk:Sangay/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Will review this article shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * review
 * mention in two different places in lede the danger from ejecta.
 * You said you worked on the lead; this still an issue or have you fixed it yourself? Res Mar 02:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * geology
 * the first paragraph under this section is very dense reading. Is there any way it could be made easier to understand for the general reader?
 * Hah, it does need some simplification. You want something like Mount Cleveland (Alaska)?  Res  Mar 02:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "The older southern rock is more stable than the northern crust, thus attributing for the long break in volcanic activity in the Andes;" - confusing
 * the repeated use of "edifice" - are there other words that could be used?
 * Sandwiching text between two large images makes reading the text difficult.
 * I don't know how to fix this one easily. Res Mar 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Basic needs disambig.


 * Will get to this on the weekend. Res Mar 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * comment
 * Nominator has not returned to the article to address problems noted. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * As an example, the first section of Geology is particularly dense and difficult for the general reader to read.
 * repetition of word "edifice" as noted above
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Text is sandwiched in between two large images.
 * Would be helpful to have subsections under Geology to help the reader deal with the dense material, since the section is so long.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * None of the points originally pointed out have been addressed; page has not been edited since March 28 by nominator.
 * Article failed; points have not been addressed. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * None of the points originally pointed out have been addressed; page has not been edited since March 28 by nominator.
 * Article failed; points have not been addressed. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the points originally pointed out have been addressed; page has not been edited since March 28 by nominator.
 * Article failed; points have not been addressed. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Article failed; points have not been addressed. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)