Jump to content

Talk:Licancabur Lake/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 20:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next few days... -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't forgotten... just been busy. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no big deal. I haven't been very active lately, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • Lead:
    • "Licancabur Lake is a crater lake in Chile located in the volcano Licancabur in the Antofagasta region, of the Región de Antofagasta, Province of El Loa." Okay, so... this is just one very long and dull recitition of where this is. Can we break it up somehow? And do we really need the various subdivisions in the lead? Perhaps "Licancabur Lake is a crater lake in Chile located in the volcano Licancabur near the Bolivian border."?
      Did a rewrite; is this better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It is close to San Pedro de Atacama and also very close to the border of Chile with Bolivia." ... and what is San Pedro de Atacama and why do we care?
      Specified "city"; it's to make it clearer how to access the place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The lake is one among several volcanic lakes in the region at high altitude." Awkward. Suggest "The lake is among several high altitude volcanic lakes in the region."
      That's better; swapped it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second paragraph - First three sentences start "The lake... The lake... While the lake..." which is repetitious.
      Rewrote this a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It covered a surface area of 7,000 square metres (75,000 sq ft) in 2002; lake levels vary otherwise." why 2002? Wouldn't we be better off giving something like "Its surface area has varied over time - from <greatest extent> to <least extent>." The lead is supposed to be a quick summary ...
      2002 is the year where someone investigated the lake and determined its surface area that year. Did a rewrite to make this clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The lake has clear waters and is slightly saline;" perhaps "The lake's waters are clear and slightly saline;"? Just changing the tense a bit (even if not making it totally active voice) will help with reader engagement.
      Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "temperatures ranging between 1.4–4.3 °C (34.5–39.7 °F) and 6 °C (43 °F) as recorded at the lake bottom in 2006 suggest it is subject to geothermal heating." Do we really need the range of temps and the date here? It's just cluttering up the lead and losing readers. Suggest "temperature readings suggest it is subject to geothermal heating."?
      Cut the first part and rewrote the second. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "features a biota including" link/explantaion of what a biota is?
      Rewrote this to cut the "biota". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context:
  • Physical properties:
  • Biology:
  • Scuba diving ... this tells us nothing, honestly. I'd cut the whole section.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources:
  • I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool no copyright concerns.
I did do some copyediting, please make sure I didn't change any sourced text beyond what the sources will support or that I haven't broken anything.
Checked it and nothing seems problematic to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good, passing now. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]