Talk:Types of volcanic eruptions/GA1

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

Reviewer: Xover (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

A well written and informative article on an interesting topic. Full review to follow. --Xover (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Excellent article, that certainly qualifies on the Good Article criteria. My only reservation is that, despite the high-school paper on Surtsey I once wrote, I'm not a subject matter expert, so I can't vouch for specific issues of balance or controversy; but I see no reason to believe such exist. Passing the article (as soon as I figure out the various administrativa ;D).

Kudos on great work in this article! --Xover (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)