Talk:Mount Tehama/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The article seems to follow the manual of style, but the prose needs work, and is choppy at parts. There's a lot of odd tense issues (e.g. "At its peak, it would have reached approximately 3,350 meters (11,000 ft) high" -- why "would have"? It did or it didn't.) In the history section, it starts out with "would have" and the next sentences uses "was". This sentences isn't written properly: "Including Raker Peak, Red Mountain (California), Prospect Peak, and Mount Harkness, they were shield volcanoes." These are just a few examples, but there's more -- the article needs an extensive copyedit with attention to prose and grammar.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Inline citations are present and the citations appear to be reliable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Not really sure if I'd call this article complete? The recreation and vegetation sections are very short, just two sentences each. There's also no discussion of animal wildlife in the area -- I'd recommend changing 'vegetation' to 'flora and fauna', and adding some description of animal life.

The 'threats' section also seems like it could be covered better. For a section entitled such, I would expect more of a description of endangered species or manmade threats to the natural area. But as it's written, it's talking more about the danger to hikers from volcanic activity. I'd eliminate the section and move the information to the 'recreation' section, since it pertains more to that. Change the word "threat" to "danger".

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article is written in a neutral tone.

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Most of the recent edits are by one user, so there is no evidence of edit-warring or stability issues.

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

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

   The article has three, free images that are tagged and captioned appropriately.

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article is on its way to becoming a GA, but still needs a bit of work to meet all six GA criteria. I'll put this on hold until 6/27/2010 so that the issues can be addressed. WTF? (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Prose - I believe I have successfully copyedited most of the prose. ceranthor 22:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• 'Comprehensiveness - Expanded the Flora and fauna section. Added threats to recreation. ceranthor 22:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Article looks reasonably good now. One minor issue remains. In the lead, the sentence, "The few hikers that summit this mountain each year are treated to amazing views of Lassen Peak, the Central Valley of California, and many of the park's other features." seems to not follow WP:NPOV guidelines, as it's mostly an opinion. Though, I would think that most people would probably agree with the assertion, it's still an opinion. Also, it mentions, "the relatively few hikers", but the recreation section goes on to state that hiking is a very popular activity in the summer, implying that more than a few reach the summit. So, if this statement could be fixed somehow, I think the article could be promoted. Cheers! WTF? (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've changed amazing to the quote "exceptional" and fixed the other concerns. ceranthor 17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if I would've fixed it that way, but it is in the book. The article overall looks good, and I think it can be promoted. I've added a few links to the book citations used, since most of them are in Google Books (some are just previews, but a lot of interesting and useful information is still accessible). I didn't add the link to Stephen Harris' book, since Google has an earlier edition and not the one that you're citing, so I didn't want it to mislead people. Anyway, nice work overall! WTF? (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)