Talk:Crary Mountains

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crary Mountains/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 16:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I will complete the review in a day or two. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• "and last erupted about 30,000-40,000 years ago" — This part should be covered in the prose.

  It is The youngest dates have been obtained by argon-argon dating on Mount Frakes, and imply an eruption 35,000±10,000–32,000±10,000 years ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Geography and geomorphology

• "It was first visited in 1959–1960, and on this occasion several accessible outcrops were sampled." — "on this occasion" feels repetitive in the same sentence. Perhaps this would be more concise → "It was first visited in 1959–1960, and several accessible outcrops were sampled."

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The name refers to Albert P. Crary, who was then Deputy Chief Scientist for the US-IGY Antarctic Program." — Did this program had anything to do with these mountains directly? If yes, please elaborate on that. If not, it would be worthwhile to explain what that program accomplished since it does not have a Wikipedia article of its own.

  Not as far as I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Lava" (thrice), "West Antarctic Ice Sheet" (twice) and "cirques" (twice) should only be linked once.

  Delinked excessive mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would suggest linking "subaerial formations" or just "subaerial" as that is not a very common term. "Subglacial eruptions" could be linked per the same.

  Linked the latter. To be honest, I was wondering if someone could come up with a translation for "subaerial". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• "faulting" — needs a specific target.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• "The mountains are associated with a strong magnetic anomaly." — Can it be elaborated more specifically what the anomaly does? Or rather suggested causes for it?

  Expanded on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Geology

• "The basement crops out along the coast and consists of granitoids and metamorphic sediments left by a Devonian-Cretaceous volcanic arc." — Since it is just a one line paragraph, it should generally be merged with the preceding paragraph.

  Merged it with a paragraph farther up, as it was closer to the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Phonolite", "trachyte" and "rhyolite" should only be linked once.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Geologic history

• Unlink — "glaciation", "Miocene", "crust", and "West Antarctic Ice Sheet" which are linked previously.
• "where a perhaps local ice cap or snow deposit existed at Mount Petras." — Perhaps the "perhaps" could be dropped? → "where a local ice cap or snow deposit existed at Mount Petras."

  No, because the nature of the ice isn't yet known with certainty. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• Reference 5, 14, 17, and 8 — "Wilch" and "Chakraborty" should not be in all caps per MOS:ALLCAPS.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Use one consistent format for dates.
• "Chakraborty" and the citation's "title" should not be in all caps per above.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

External links

• Same per above.

That should be all for now. It is a good read and should pass. Thank you for writing this interesting article. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@The Most Comfortable Chair: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Final

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article is detailed, informative and written nicely. It meets the criteria. Thank you for your research and efforts in writing this! — The Most Comfortable Chair 04:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)