GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Will be happy to review this. I'll definitely finish this in the morning at the latest. JAGUAR  15:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

No, it's referring to shield. Linked it to that article. Volcanoguy 01:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was a typo; supposed to be radial. Volcanoguy 01:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Volcanoguy 01:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was thinking about it too much, I thought "What is known for certain" felt like an extract from a journal, but it's fine JAGUAR  16:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 01:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary to link it twice? It's already linked in the introduction. Volcanoguy 01:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, I sometimes use two links - one in the lead and one in the body, but this doesn't matter. JAGUAR  16:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Volcanoguy 01:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Volcanoguy 01:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Volcanoguy 01:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

I spent a long time reading through and checking this article. Simply put, it is close to meeting the FA criteria and should pass this GAN easily once all of the minor prose issues are addressed. This is an excellent article as it is both comprehensive and well written. JAGUAR  15:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Thanks for reviewing it. Any ideas for FA? Volcanoguy 01:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing them! This meets the GA criteria now, so I'll be promoting. From a reader's point of view, it looks like this is close to meeting the FA criteria because it is comprehensive and well written (the main factors for an FA). Admittedly I'm no expert on volcanoes, so perhaps some people who are knowledgeable in the matter would spotcheck some technical things. I would advise to go over the sources before nominating, as I've had well-written articles fail at FAC because some prose didn't comply with the sources. I'll be happy to look at this again if you decide to nominate in the future. JAGUAR  16:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]