Talk:Tropic Seamount/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 12:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, this looks like a wonderful article. Kindly feel free to revert any changes/mistakes I make as I review this article! 
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- 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:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Cape Verde, Mauritania, Atlantic Ocean, Antarctica,Atlantic Ocean, and Northwestern Africa are well known geographic areas which should not be wikilinked according to WP:Overlinking
Duplicate links should be removed: seamount, Canary Islands, mantle, limestone, carbonate, quartz, Lanzarote, and coral according to WP:Duplink
Is there any reason why we are talking about the Limalok Seamount (which should be linked)?
Could you explain a bit what Me. del Carmen Piernavieja y Oramas is for clarity?
- @Adityavagarwal: Thanks. For your points, I don't think that a single mention of these geographical terms is a problem, but I've removed the Northwest Africa link. Deduplinking. Limalok was a simple copypaste error and the source is extremely vague about what "Me. del Carmen Piernavieja y Oramas" is supposed to be so I can't explain what it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
"Phosphate alteration of carbonates " could this be explained a bit in the article? For example, what sort of alteration is indicative of the activity?
- The source does not specify that much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Yet another very well written article by you. This meets all the standards of being rated as a Good Article. Keep up the wonderful work! 
Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)