Talk:Pacaya

Good Article review needed

This article received its Good Article rating on 23 October 2005 from an editor who hearkened back to a kinder, gentler era when it was not outside of norms to just simply plonk down a Good Article tag for no other reason than WP:ILIKEIT. Alas, the standards for retaining this pretty green trinket have tightened over time; in the present regime, someone unassociated with writing this article (a reviewer) should examine the article with respect to the good article criteria and, on the various standards cited, expresses up, down, or neutral sentiments, plus an aggregate sentiment, upon which retaining the pretty little trinket relies.

By posting this remark here, I'm not suggesting that the article has gone bad or presently fails the criteria, but I am noting the absence of a review that is a hallmark of the present process, and, in the fullness of time, a review should be performed on this article. With the absence of a review, this article is a delisting candidate. Note that, for an editor to delist this article, the due-diligence of a good article review is required. Otherwise, how might a delisting editor justify his or her delisting, or offer cogent reasons why the Good Article mark should remain? In either case, anything short of a fair review is unfair to editors who contribute to this article regularly and in good faith. Drop any questions about this on my talk page. Take care — Gosgood 22:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I feel it is B class at best at present. It is missing most inline citations and probably other references have not be listed. RedWolf 00:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Recent eruptions" section

The "Recent eruptions" section currently contains very little about recent eruptions. For a while it contained simply "It is currently erupting" with no punctuation and no explanation. It should perhaps be changed to "Tourism" and any eruption facts added to the "Geological history" section. Some sources for eruption history:

• Monthly report of Pacaya
• Pacaya activity updates

CristoperB (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pacaya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of September 8, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

• This article is completely lacking in citations.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

inline citations

I added inline citations for this article. When I found the article, it had zero inline citations. There are no inline citations for a source by the American Geophysical Union. How does it fit into the references list using the {{reflist}} template? TravelAuthor (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pacaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64S1A620100529

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)