Talk:Seamount/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xover (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Generally well written and interesting treatment on an important topic.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
I'm a little concerned by the number of citations to the Encyclopedia of Earth, which, as an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia itself, is a ternary source and as such it would be preferable to find reliable secondary sources to replace it. Note that ternary sources are acceptable on Wikipedia for some uses, and that for broad summary or overviews it can be difficult to find secondary sources to cite the specific point.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Very nice article. Another good FA candidate I'd say. Kudos! I'll jump through the administrative hoops to get it passed as GA, but note that my Internet connection is acting up so there may be some delay. --Xover (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Encyclopedia of Earth: It's written by professionals (literally) and in association with CenSeam and a few other research-oriented organizations, so I think it's fine. ResMar 16:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]