Talk:Types of volcanic eruptions/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xover (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

A well written and informative article on an interesting topic. Full review to follow. --Xover (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A well written and informative article on an interesting topic.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   The only issue is that there's a list facing a left-aligned image in the Subglacial section.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

   Excellent use of pictures to illustrate the topic, including several Featured Pictures. One issue is File:VEIfigure en.svg in the Eruption mechanisms section, which needs to be larger so that the text is legible.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Excellent treatment and a great article. My recommendation would be to get thee to WP:FAC post-haste.

Excellent article, that certainly qualifies on the Good Article criteria. My only reservation is that, despite the high-school paper on Surtsey I once wrote, I'm not a subject matter expert, so I can't vouch for specific issues of balance or controversy; but I see no reason to believe such exist. Passing the article (as soon as I figure out the various administrativa ;D).

Kudos on great work in this article! --Xover (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)