Talk:Deriba (caldera)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 14:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks an interesting article about a subject that takes me back to research I was involved in a long time ago on geological features. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Review

The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, 95% of authorship is one user, Jo-Jo Eumerus. It was ranked a 'Start article in 5 June 2010‎ but saw substantial development since a page move in 2018.

All images are either licensed under Creative Commons or are within the Public Domain in the United States.

The text is clear uses language appropriate for the audience.

The References are inconsistent. Please make all the citations follow the same format as per MOS:CITE. I suggest using the convention already used for Vail 1972 and Wickens 1975. This means changing Issawi & Sallam 2017, Fott & Karim 1973, Maley 2000, Soulié-Märsche et al 2010, Francis et al 1973, Davidson & Wilson 1989, Newhall & Dzurisin 1983 etc to meet the same format, with a separate short footnote and citation.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Congratulations on your work on this article. Please ping me when you have had a chance to review these minor amendments and I will complete the assessment. simongraham (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See, to my understanding this is an acceptable way to format references when for some you use only one page and for others multiple pages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree but I am not going to push the point as I think the GA criterion is open to interpretation. simongraham (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
It is factually accurate and verifiable
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

all inline citations are from reliable sources;

it contains no original research;

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
It has a neutral point of view
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
It is stable
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2021 (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.