Talk:Eldgjá/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Looking forward to reading it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've completed the first run-through of the GA review, the only thing that really needs fixing is some image issues. You could also double-check for awkward phrasing and grammar issues in case I missed anything. We're close! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This article now meets the GA standard! Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual practice, I'll make any small tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any major issues I'll mention them here, and if you object to any of my changes, just let me know and we can discuss. There were some grammatical issues, a few problems of jargon, duplicate links, and some awkward phrasing, but I think I've fixed the bulk of the issues, which were overall not too severe. It's not 100% perfect now but it meets the GA standard. Pass. Most of your reversions are fine, but I think you should rework the paragraph about Dating. I don't understand what the phrase "ulterior confusion" means in context. The phrase "which may have produced little sulfate aerosols far less than Eldgja" is grammatically incorrect - perhaps splitting up the sentence would help. Yeah, writing that sentence was hard. There are two problems with the dating of the Eldgja eruption: a) the date is uncertain, period, b) the coincidence with the Paektusan eruption means that you sometimes need to separate the two. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC) In addition to your changes, I've made some further tweaks and I think it's now in a pretty good state. Pass on prose. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC) Also, CE and AD are used interchangeably - switch them so we stick to one or the other for this article per WP:MoS. Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC) What is the difference between "alternating" and "an alternation of"? "An alternation of" is an awkward phrase and not common in English. Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass. Almost exclusively well-regarded academic sources from credible authors. The only one I might have a qualm about is White & Skilling (newsletter), but given the information it is used to support and the specifics of the newsletter, no actual problem.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR detected, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot-check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass, nothing else major found.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no major areas of overdetail. A few superfluous things can be trimmed out in prose review.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues of neutrality found.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no edit wars or unresolved major issues from talk. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The caption on the last image (File:Eruption of Eyjafjallajökull Volcano, Iceland 2010-04-04 lrg.jpg) is *definitely* too long and needs better integration with the material of the article. The caption should refer to Eldgja in some way, not focus on Eyjafjallajökull exclusively. Frankly, that entire image isn't well-suited - you can barely see the eruption to begin with. I've pulled it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC) File:Eldgjá Volcanic Canyon Iceland (176657459).jpeg is perhaps a little more interesting than File:Eldgja.jpg. I suggest switching their location so that the aerial/drone image is in the lead/infobox. However, being taken from above it gives less of a 3D perspective. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC) That's fine - pass on images.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.