Talk:Sangay

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sangay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Will review this article shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

review

• mention in two different places in lede the danger from ejecta.

You said you worked on the lead; this still an issue or have you fixed it yourself? ResMar 02:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

geology

• the first paragraph under this section is very dense reading. Is there any way it could be made easier to understand for the general reader?

Hah, it does need some simplification. You want something like Mount Cleveland (Alaska)#Geological setting? ResMar 02:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• "The older southern rock is more stable than the northern crust, thus attributing for the long break in volcanic activity in the Andes;" - confusing
• the repeated use of "edifice" - are there other words that could be used?
• Sandwiching text between two large images makes reading the text difficult.

I don't know how to fix this one easily. ResMar 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Basic needs disambig.

Will get to this on the weekend. ResMar 23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

comment

• Nominator has not returned to the article to address problems noted. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   As an example, the first section of Geology is particularly dense and difficult for the general reader to read.

   repetition of word "edifice" as noted above

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Text is sandwiched in between two large images.

   Would be helpful to have subsections under Geology to help the reader deal with the dense material, since the section is so long.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   None of the points originally pointed out have been addressed; page has not been edited since March 28 by nominator.

• Article failed; points have not been addressed. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sangay/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll start this review soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments (beginning)

• Why do you have two similarly titles sections, "Geological setting" and "Geology"?

In your previous comments you said that the two needed spinning apart, so I've done so. It's not "Geography" like in Mount Cleveland (Alaska) because unlike Cleveland it's the volcano's geological history that is best understood, not its structure. ResMar 16:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is there some way you could place the images so that the text is not all pinched between?

I've done my best as it is, the two pictures are in the wrong sections to avoid compression. ResMar 16:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've done a little copy editing and hope you don't object. Some things just seemed out of sequence. And some sentences were very run on.
• Cone and crust appear to need disambiguation.

Done. ResMar 16:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please forgive me for taking so long; I'm just burned out over Wikipedia. Will try to recoup! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Take your time, with the amount of exams I have going on I ain't going anywhere anytime soon =) ResMar 01:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I made a few copyedits which you are free to change.[1]

• Nice job! Congratulations! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sangay. 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.gseis.rice.edu/Reprints/047_MillerEL09JGR.pdf

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} 16:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)