Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sabancaya/1

Sabancaya[edit]

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No violations of the criteria apparent. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just notably expanded/rewrote the article, so it might need a re-assessment. I am especially unsatisfied with the prose, which is overly wordy. I'd like to present it to FAC in the future, so this needs to be tip-top. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, keeping in mind that GAR isn't PR and is really meant to assess if egregious violations of the GA criteria can be fixed, I think you're fine. About the most wordy sentence in the article is The flanks of Sabancaya themselves include roads and a major power line that comes from the Mantaro Power Plant [es] and delivers electricity to southern Peru; all of these could be threatened in an eruption.; it's still perfectly understandable, if a little verbose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2023 (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.