Talk:Mount Adams (Washington)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the History section, "When La-wa-la-clough chose Pahto, Wyeast struck his brother so hard that Pahto's head was flattened and Wyeast took La-wa-la-clough from him (thus attempting to explain Adams' squat appearance)", "so" necessarily isn't needed, since it makes the sentence a little strange with it.
Done --Meldshal [discuss] {contribs} 17:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the History section, it would be best to add (USGS) after "United States Geological Survey", I mean I know what it is, but how 'bout the person that reads this article. In the Geology section, it would be best if "Glacier" is linked once, per here.
Already done. This was already done. --Meldshal [discuss] {contribs} 17:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
References 17, 18, 19, and 20 are missing Publisher info. Also, Reference 13 needs to use the {{cite book}} template. One more thing, I would suggest adding "Fire Mountains of the West: The Cascade and Mono Lake Volcanoes" in a "Further reading" section, since it doesn't look well in the References section.
Done. Thanks Burntnickel. --Meldshal [discuss] {contribs} 17:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Are there any sources available for the Glaciers and Summit area sections? In the Geology section, is there a source for this ---> "Adams is made of several overlapping cones that together form an 18 mile (29 km) diameter base which is elongated in a north-south direction and covers an area of 250 mile² (650 km²). The volcano has a volume of 85 mile³ (350 km³) placing it second only to Mount Shasta in that category among the Cascade stratovolcanoes. Mount Adams was created by the subduction of the Juan de Fuca plate, which is located just off the coastline in the Pacific Northwest"?
Hmmm, it seems the article has a few citation tags in the article. I think that's a problem. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Half-check. There's still tags in the article. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
In the History section, this ---> "He even wrote a book on the subject of exploring the volcanoes of the West Coast", sounds like POV.
This should be re-written, a little. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong? --Meldshal [discuss] {contribs} 17:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"He even", sounds odd. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was removed from the article. Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the following statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to Meldshal who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]