GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 03:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


Welcome to GA! This is my first time reviewing an article in this topic area, so I may have questions about the topic.
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    See the copy changes below.
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Consider beefing up the lead section a bit to be more representative of the article content. MOS:LEAD
    @Sammi Brie: Lead section was expanded. Reego41 13:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    Given the track record of the lead author (Chadwick), I am OK with the Frontiers in Marine Science paper as expert self-published even though the journal publisher is possibly predatory.
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Earwig mostly flagged titles of other cited works.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Encouragement: Add alt text.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    Mostly copy changes. I'd like to be walked through ref 5 since it is very hard to verify for a non-expert editor. Ping me when you're done and if you have any questions.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Copy changes

[edit]
Fixed. Reego41 11:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Reego41 11:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, you're not wrong. Reego41 11:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Reego41 11:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think both of them work. If NE isn't understandable and prose enough, I can replace it with northeast/northeastern. I'm going to let NE stay. Reego41 11:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The "in" in the first section of the sentence messed everything up, even I had trouble understanding it. I split it into 2 sentences, and reworded them. It should be more clear now. Reego41 11:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Reego41 11:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At first I couldn't understand what the age was referencing in the paper but now I think the age refers to the age of convergence. So the cool slab thermal parameters are caused by the convergence speed and the convergence age. That's what I understand. Reego41 12:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Reego41 11:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Reego41 11:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Replaced it with your recommendation, works perfectly. Reego41 11:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Reego41 11:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Merged the sentences. Reego41 11:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Removed the paper in the parentheses as well. Reego41 11:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

[edit]
No idea why, but I seem to have cited the list to active hydrothermal vents. I replaced it with a page on the website dedicated to West Mata ([1]). Reego41 11:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there @Reego41... Can you tell me how the West Mata page supports the sentence Compared to these volcanoes, West Mata is the most hydrothermally active one, and its activity is not disputed? Cuz I'm having some trouble. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 17:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie Oh, now I get why I put the link to the list. I put the list because the pages dedicated to the volcanoes nearby don't all say it's hydrothermally active, but ehh...
I guess I'd be better off without that sentence. Reego41 15:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any updates? @Sammi Brie: Reego41 08:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just blanked on passing this. Let me do that now. My bad. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 18:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.