Belknap Crater has been listed as one of the
Geography and places good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 5, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is almost a (or is exactly) word for word copy from Wood (p182) and I presume needs to be replaced with something else? -- Burntnickel 02:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting this, Burntnickel. But I disagree with your course of action. The {{ copyvio}} template is only appropriate when all of the article is a copyvio. In this case, the photo, infobox, ext links, navbox, etc. are not copyvio, so they should be retained and only the actual copyvio text deleted. I think it is best to avoid blanking pages and using the (very ugly) copyvio template if at all possible, while still actively removing blatant copyvio text. Thanks. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, it appears that the initial copyvio (article created: 18:50, 13 February 2004 David Newton (Talk | contribs | block) (CVO site text.) ) was accidental and in good faith, thinking that the text was public domain because it was on the USGS CVO website here. But it is clearly marked (at least now) as coming from that copyrighted book. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Belknap Crater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ganesha811 ( talk · contribs) 17:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks!
Ganesha811 (
talk)
17:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. 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). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
As far as I can tell, this passes GA review without the need for revisions. This is the first time this has happened in my limited experience, so it would be great to get a second opinion, say from @ Barkeep49: or @ Lee Vilenski:. I'll hold off on formally passing it until that's happened. Overall, great article though! Ganesha811 ( talk) 17:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay - Lots coming up at the moment. Article is pretty good, here's what I saw from a brief scan:
Completely up to you how you wish to address these issues and how you want to place the review, these are just some things I saw. Particularly the massive paragraphs and few typos are definately worth perusing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
|
Belknap Crater has been listed as one of the
Geography and places good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 5, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is almost a (or is exactly) word for word copy from Wood (p182) and I presume needs to be replaced with something else? -- Burntnickel 02:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting this, Burntnickel. But I disagree with your course of action. The {{ copyvio}} template is only appropriate when all of the article is a copyvio. In this case, the photo, infobox, ext links, navbox, etc. are not copyvio, so they should be retained and only the actual copyvio text deleted. I think it is best to avoid blanking pages and using the (very ugly) copyvio template if at all possible, while still actively removing blatant copyvio text. Thanks. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, it appears that the initial copyvio (article created: 18:50, 13 February 2004 David Newton (Talk | contribs | block) (CVO site text.) ) was accidental and in good faith, thinking that the text was public domain because it was on the USGS CVO website here. But it is clearly marked (at least now) as coming from that copyrighted book. -- Seattle Skier (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Belknap Crater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ganesha811 ( talk · contribs) 17:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks!
Ganesha811 (
talk)
17:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. 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). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
As far as I can tell, this passes GA review without the need for revisions. This is the first time this has happened in my limited experience, so it would be great to get a second opinion, say from @ Barkeep49: or @ Lee Vilenski:. I'll hold off on formally passing it until that's happened. Overall, great article though! Ganesha811 ( talk) 17:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay - Lots coming up at the moment. Article is pretty good, here's what I saw from a brief scan:
Completely up to you how you wish to address these issues and how you want to place the review, these are just some things I saw. Particularly the massive paragraphs and few typos are definately worth perusing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
|