Talk:Hogg Rock/GA1

GA Review

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: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 13:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
"a feature produced from the interaction of volcanic eruptive materials with glaciers" should that say "another"? "as well as a number of tree rings suggestive of heart rot disease." is an odd formulation, as we were discussing plants in the preceding sentence. "After other businesspeople tried to pick up the railroad, and it was absorbed by the Southern Pacific Transportation Company." is ungrammatical. "most historic features" what does that mean?
Think these have been fixed. ceranthor 17:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The tree ring sentence still looks out of place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions for remedying that? ceranthor 19:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say something like "Wildflowers and ferns occur along roadways. The area has been affected by fires." Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Think this is fixed now. ceranthor 19:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I was thinking more of removing the tree rings and heart rot sentence altogether. It sounds a bit too generic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Got it. Removed. ceranthor 13:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Is a thesis a good source for this?
I think I've only used the thesis for geographic info. It was written by Hughes, who later became a professor, and was advised by Ed Taylor, an established Cascades geology expert. Also, since it's a PhD thesis, I would think it's reliable. ceranthor 17:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
I can't access all the sources, but of these which I can: #7 and #20 do not mention Hogg Rock; regarding the first are we sure that the Collier Cone discussed there is the same as the one of this article? Regarding #29, perhaps mentioning the scam-like (?) aspect might make sense. I am not sure if the "on hold" part in the article is supported by the source though.
Not absolutely certain about Collier Cone - but I think it makes sense that it's the same. How do you suggest mentioning the scam-like aspect while maintaining a neutral POV? Definitely would like to include that but struggled to find an objective way to go about that. ceranthor 17:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~Well, I'd spell out that he claimed that this crossing was a "railway". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think I've fixed this. I added " He then claimed the isolated tracks around the tuya were a train railway." Let me know what you think. ceranthor 19:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Didn't notice anything.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Thanks for the comments. I'll get to these ASAP. ceranthor 13:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for your comments. I think I've acted on them or replied to them with questions/comments above. ceranthor 17:50, 10 December 2018 (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.