This peer review discussion has been closed. Feedback came via the talkpage, instead. Now with a GA nom, so I'll close this one.
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is part of a workgroup effort to improve articles related to the Volcanism in Hawaii (still a proposal). Loihi is currently B-Class, and nowhere near a GAC. I have opened a peer review to tackle the issues, and to in general raise it to GA quality. Reviews, please put down specific issues and I will tackle them; or be BOLD and do it yourself!
Thanks, ResMar 19:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- The biggest problem is obviously COPYVIO issues. Can you please point out specific trouble spots? ResMar 19:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also, do you think that the article covers the topic comepletely, enough for a GA.?
- Initial comments (coming back later):
- The article doesn't look terrible, though it could use some thorough copy editing and expansion.
- I've hit about a dozen resources, do you really think so? What part needs expansion? ResMar
- Truth to be told I've exausted myself expanding it. See this diff. It made DYK, of course.
ResMar 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Done More and more put in. Now 24,576 bytes, up from 21,000. I've basically spent all the non-subscription refs I can find. ResMar 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- First off, when using measurements you need to use the {{convert}} template. Ie. 30 miles
- Except of the "Squared" mesurements (I Keep messing up there for some reason), that's all in order. ResMar
- Images should not be directly under headers per MOS - you should check that out too.
- Please clarify- do you mean that I should seperate the images from the headers with a few lines of text? ResMar
- Done Shifted all images into meatspace on right.
I'll be back with specific comments later! Ceranthor 22:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes please! ResMar 22:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, can you use this table here to tell me what areas still need improvement:
{{check mark}} 
{{N}} 
.
| Assess | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 1. well written | |
| (a) clear prose, correct spelling and grammar | |
| (b) complies with Manual of Style: | |
| lead | |
| layout | |
| jargon | |
| words to avoid | |
| fiction | |
| list incorporation | |
| 2. factually accurate and verifiable | |
| (a) references for all sources; dedicated attribution section according to guideline | |
| (b) in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotes, statistics, public opinion, challengeable statements | |
| (c) no original research | |
| 3. broad in coverage | |
| (a) addresses main aspects of topic | |
| (b) stays focused without unnecessary detail | |
| 4. neutral | |
| 5. stable (no edit wars) | |
| 6. images | |
| (a) tagged with copyright status, valid fair use rationale for non-free content | |
| (b) relevant to topic with suitable captions |