Talk:Hoodoo Butte/GA1
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Jo-Jo Eumerus in topic GA Review
GA Review
editThe 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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 13:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- "it sits unevenly on the rock beneath it, giving it an uneven, open appearance" sounds like an odd formulation for a summit crater. What is a "stand replacement fire"? "Many of these volcanic vents are either highly eroded and ancient or fairly young" is a bit meaningless - volcanoes may be old or young, but not "middle". Is "support" the right word in "The top of Hoodoo Butte supports electronic communication relay sites"?
- I explain the summit crater later in the article with this: "The crater is open to the east as a result of its irregular topography, which led to uneven distribution of ejected material such that most of the volcanic rock that forms the edifice was deposited elsewhere.", so I tweaked the lead description a bit. Clarified stand replacement fire. Cut out the erosion/age bit. Changed supports to has. ceranthor 23:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- "Many of these volcanic vents have undergone eruptions that have ranged in composition from basaltic andesite to andesite and basalt lavas" is an odd formulation - eruptions don't have a composition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- How is "Many of these volcanic vents have undergone eruptions, ranging from basaltic andesite to andesite and basalt lavas.[9]"? ceranthor 15:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Better might be "Eruptions at these vents have produced rocks with compositions ranging from basalt over basaltic andesite to andesite". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus, changed. ceranthor 22:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Better might be "Eruptions at these vents have produced rocks with compositions ranging from basalt over basaltic andesite to andesite". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- How is "Many of these volcanic vents have undergone eruptions, ranging from basaltic andesite to andesite and basalt lavas.[9]"? ceranthor 15:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- "Many of these volcanic vents have undergone eruptions that have ranged in composition from basaltic andesite to andesite and basalt lavas" is an odd formulation - eruptions don't have a composition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- I explain the summit crater later in the article with this: "The crater is open to the east as a result of its irregular topography, which led to uneven distribution of ejected material such that most of the volcanic rock that forms the edifice was deposited elsewhere.", so I tweaked the lead description a bit. Clarified stand replacement fire. Cut out the erosion/age bit. Changed supports to has. ceranthor 23:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- "it sits unevenly on the rock beneath it, giving it an uneven, open appearance" sounds like an odd formulation for a summit crater. What is a "stand replacement fire"? "Many of these volcanic vents are either highly eroded and ancient or fairly young" is a bit meaningless - volcanoes may be old or young, but not "middle". Is "support" the right word in "The top of Hoodoo Butte supports electronic communication relay sites"?
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Is "loose soil" really lead-worthy?
- Removed. ceranthor 23:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Is "loose soil" really lead-worthy?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- Won't check every single statement as I don't have access to every source, but for the others I am not sure if " and the vents of the Mount Bachelor chain." is supported by the source. "Story of the confused mapmaker" does not necessarily equal "local traditions". According to the sources Ed Thurston was from Eugene not Bend. I don't think sources #19 and #20 fully support the text cited to them.
- First comment - the source includes "and the shields of the Bachelor chain." Changed local tradition to local story. Good catch for Ed Thurston; fixed. 19 and 20 should support everything now. ceranthor 23:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Won't check every single statement as I don't have access to every source, but for the others I am not sure if " and the vents of the Mount Bachelor chain." is supported by the source. "Story of the confused mapmaker" does not necessarily equal "local traditions". According to the sources Ed Thurston was from Eugene not Bend. I don't think sources #19 and #20 fully support the text cited to them.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Didn't notice any.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- According to which criteria is one height estimate prioritized over the other?
- There is no criteria, to my knowledge. ceranthor 23:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps I wasn't clear - putting one height in a footnote implies that it is the less reliable one, but it's not clear why that would be so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I see now. Well, I trusted the official GNIS source more than I trusted the ski area's measurements. Does that make sense? ceranthor 15:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps I wasn't clear - putting one height in a footnote implies that it is the less reliable one, but it's not clear why that would be so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- There is no criteria, to my knowledge. ceranthor 23:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- According to which criteria is one height estimate prioritized over the other?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think I've gotten to all of your suggestions. Thanks! ceranthor 23:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Implemented your additional suggestions. ceranthor 15:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think I've gotten to all of your suggestions. Thanks! ceranthor 23:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- Seems like this is ready to go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
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.