Talk:Nevado del Ruiz/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

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

1. Is it well written?

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

   Well done.

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

   Dates need to be un-linked, per here.

   done. —§unday {Q} 23:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

2. 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:

   It would be best if the references use the {{cite web}} format. Reference 1, 4, 6, 11, 13, and 15 are missing an accessdate. Reference 3 needs to be fixed.

   done. —§unday {Q} 00:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

   Half-check, there's something wrong with Reference 3. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

   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):

   Does Reference 1 cover all this ---> "In 1595, a lahar flowed down the valleys of the River Guali and the River Lagunillas, killing 636 people. In 1845, a massive lahar flooded the upper valley of the River Lagunillas, killing over 1000 people. It continued for 70 kilometers downstream before spreading across a plain in the lower valley floor"? In the Geology section, the link to "Ring of Fire" needs to be fixed.

   done. —§unday {Q} 23:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:47, 18 September 2008 (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):

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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Lord Sunday for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)