Talk:Mount Hood/GA1

GA Review

Hi. I will be reviewing this article. As you say, it looks very good. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Bolding should not be used throughout the article according to MoS, but only in the introductory sentence. The other words you have bolded in the article should be in italics or quotes.

• This has been addressed. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• What is the point of this unsourced sentence in the lead: "The mountain is sometimes informally described as "dormant" ("asleep")." What does it add to the article? It does not appear in the Eruptive history.

• Fixed — --Lord₪Sunday 21:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• You do have Dacite linked twice in the same paragraph which is usually not O.K. although perhaps you can justify it.

• I have removed the second link. --Burntnickel (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Why do you not have glacier wikilinked. (I realize it has a tag on it, but still...)

• Glaciers is linked in the second paragraph, or is this not what you are referring to? --Burntnickel (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I missed that and got distracted by snowfield. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• The heading Landmarks: would not a heading like Facilities fit better? The listings under that heading do not seem to fit the definition of landmark.

• Fixed — --Lord₪Sunday 21:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The prominent Crater Rock just below the summit is believed to be the remnants of a dacite dome from then." Sentences like this ("is believed") are better avoided. Can you say who believed it rather than "is believed".

• Fixed — --Lord₪Sunday 21:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• The section under Eruptive history is hard to follow. For example: "and a more recent episode ending shortly before the arrival of Lewis and Clark in 1805. The most recent minor eruptive event occurred in August 1907". The use of "recent" referring to separate incidents is so close together in the text. That whole section is difficult to follow. I wonder if it could perhaps be explained more with the text less dense with technical words. Perhaps breaking into a few paragraphs would help. Some of the words is quite close to the wording in the source.

• Fixed — --Lord₪Sunday 21:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• The automatic formatting of dates is now deprecated according to MoS. I can remove them with a script if you like.

• Yes, please. --Lord₪Sunday 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• The paragraph containing "Reportedly, the Hogsback has shifted west." is uncited. Especially with the questionable "reportedly", one of those vague wordings that MoS hates, this needs to be clarified and cited.
• All references need publishers. For example, I notice the second one does not.

• Both done. --Lord₪Sunday 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Article passes GA.