Wikipedia:Peer review/Hekla/archive1

Hekla

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. Hi guys, I'd like to request a peer review of Hekla. I've already run the script and fixed many of the issues (apart from prose quality). I assume I won't be able to get it to FA without more sources as some of the sections can't really claim to be comprehensive yet, so maybe a review before going for GA might be appropriate. Issues I'd particularly like some advice on (although anything is welcome): Thanks a lot, and feel free to request a peer review from me in exchange. JMiall ₰  22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What to do with the many small paragraphs on particular eruptions etc - is there a logical way to divide them up?
 * The article is quite long and so could be split up, the obvious candidates would be the longer eruption sections. Is this necessary?
 * The article is quite dense with numbers in parts. This is partly because I've tried to summarise but could affect readability. Any thoughts?
 * A general read through for clarity.

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
 * What if there was a List of Hekla eruptions then summary style could be used (1980s), especially for the minor eruptions?
 * So would you suggest essentially copying the entire eruptions section to the new main List of Hekla eruptions article, refering to it with a template and having say one paragraph per major eruption or group of minor eruptions in this article?
 * Well, the list could be sortable and have columns for start and end date, volume produced, comments, etc. Just an idea, then use WP:Summary style in this article. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also would think about combining some of the short paragraphs (one or two sentences) and sections, or perhaps expanding them. For example, could Name be added to Reputation?
 * I've done some of this but will wait now if much of this is going to end up in a list article


 * Units need to be consistently in both metric and English units for all measurements / numbers given. convert may be useful here
 * This is going to take some work! I'm tempted to claim the 1st exception in MOS:CONVERSIONS as this is a scientific article to some extent and I would have thought that converting the 1st instance of each unit should be sufficient. I'll think about this and probably ask on the talk page.


 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Well spotted.


 * Per WP:MOS, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "vertical" can be used to make the image narrower.
 * Done


 * Per WP:HEAD don't use & in a header
 * Done


 * Pop culture is a bullet list, should be converted to text
 * Done

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mount Pinatubo is a srtatovolcano FA and may be a useful model for ideas and examples, there are probably other models.
 * Yes, thankyou. I will do. JMiall  ₰  16:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)