Talk:Mount Washington (Oregon)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AhmadLX (talk · contribs) 20:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this. AhmadLX (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   1....., and the city of Sisters is about 12 miles (19 km) from the Mount Washington Wilderness area. This is unsatisfactory for several reasons: this is 1st instance of wilderness area without description (which comes later); We should be specific about location of Mt. Washington w.r.t other reference markers, not other way around: i.e. Mt. Washington is located x km from city of Sisters. I will change this.

   Think you fixed it. ceranthor 14:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

   2. Opening sentence of 2nd para in section "Geography" is too long. It can be split.

   Why is it too long? I'm not sure how to connect those info without making the prose less readable and more clunky, to be honest. ceranthor 14:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

   Okay. AhmadLX (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

   3. Geography section is generally full of unnecessary jargon, rendering it difficult to read. I will try to improve it, but it would be better if some native speaker does it. --AhmadLX (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

   Working on this now. Let me know what you think of my changes. ceranthor 14:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

   4. There was an ice sheet between Mount Washington and Three Fingered Jack. When was it (e.g. during Pleistocene etc)?AhmadLX (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

   Source appears to state late Pleistocene. Added. ceranthor 19:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   * Ref 55 was not found with DOI.--AhmadLX (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

   Ref 55 doesn't appear to have a DOI; did you mean that there's an issue with the ISBN? ceranthor 14:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

   No it was an article, but has already been removed now. So, fine. AhmadLX (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

   Article mixes the subject with Mount Washington Wilderness, despite having separate sub-section on the same. At places the article seems to be about the latter. Sections Mineral and geothermal potential and Recreation are relevant to Mount Washington Wilderness only and not to Mountain Peak itself. Since we have separate article on Wilderness thing, these sections in this article should be shortened and merged into sub-section Wilderness.AhmadLX (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

   @Ceranthor: plz have a look at changes I have made. Also, I suggest all sections relevant to wilderness area ( i.e. Ecology, Mineral Potential, and Recreation) be merged (as sub-sections) into one section Wilderness area, that comes at the end of the article after Eruption history. You can have a look at that in my sandbox.--AhmadLX (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

   @AhmadLX: Sorry for the delayed response; I took the weekend off from editing. I disagree about shortening the wilderness section; I've included similar sections in other volcano FA and GAs I've written and don't see why it's so unrelated that it warrants being shortened or combined into another section. I'll get to the rest of your points ASAP. ceranthor 22:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

   In my view, Mt. Washington Wilderness is a different topic, that is why we have a separate article for it. Unless we are up to duplicating the material, the article on Mt. Washington should detail stuff directly related to mountain itself, while material on Wilderness, since it is not main topic of the article, should be summarized into one section, any further details should be transferred to its own existing article. That is what Summary style means in my opinion. AhmadLX (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

   @AhmadLX: Fair enough. I agree on the potential section, but the wilderness section is standard for all mountain articles, so I would prefer to keep that as its own section. I moved the geothermal/mineral potential to a section on the wilderness itself. ceranthor 18:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

   Looks good now. I wasn't arguing that wilderness section should be removed. I meant that other sections relevant to wilderness should be made subsections of Wilderness, so that everything is in one place, and that it should be moved down the article so that sections are in logical order. But I get the point of keeping Ecology as separate section. AhmadLX (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

   I see. ceranthor 19:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   This one could not be verified if it is actually from USGS.

   This should be fixed. The USGS has archived a number of their old pages, but I replaced the link with the archived URL link. ceranthor 19:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   1. Caption to this reads: "Mount Washington from Big Lake." I don't know where this Big Lake is. Perhaps something like "... as seen from the west "? or whichever direction this lake is in.

   I think I fixed this. It appears to be to the east. ceranthor 19:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

   On google maps it appears to be in north west.AhmadLX (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

   @AhmadLX: Welp, that's what I get for relying on a newspaper article. I'll change it to that, then. ceranthor 19:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

   Tweaked to "as seen from the northwest." Let me know if that matches what you said - and send a link my way so I can double check too? ceranthor 19:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

   2. A local topography map would be a good addition (optional though).

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Looks cool overall now. Nice work. Although I still believe that Wilderness section should come at the end, and Geography section should be simplified in terms of vocab ;) But I won't hold pass on it. AhmadLX (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

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.