Tseax Cone has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences 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: January 18, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Quoted elsewhere in Wikipedia:
"CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals."
CO2 is a poison as much as water is a poison. It is not and reference to it as a poison should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.206.130 ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok. In the Future Present section the writer states "Gases currently being emitted by the volcano are evidence that the volcano IS STILL active and potentially dangerous." But later on in the same Sub-heading they state "... limited knowledge of the dangers of the Tseax Cone IF IT becomes active or erupts ..." Well, which is it? Jellis 1975 ( talk) 22:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the writer is trying to say here, but, it almost seems as though they are just stringing sentences together and we are left confused so if someone can explain.... ". The relative lack of knowledge on the previous eruptions would need modern monitoring and include studies of the gases emitted by the volcano" So what this is saying is that the "lack of knowledge needs monitoring and we need study volcanic emissions this is nonsensensical. Jellis 1975 ( talk) 22:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Grungaloo ( talk · contribs) 19:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi
Volcanoguy, I'm picking this review up. I'll ping you in a few days when I'm done!
grungaloo (
talk)
19:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Tseax Cone has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences 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: January 18, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Quoted elsewhere in Wikipedia:
"CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals."
CO2 is a poison as much as water is a poison. It is not and reference to it as a poison should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.206.130 ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok. In the Future Present section the writer states "Gases currently being emitted by the volcano are evidence that the volcano IS STILL active and potentially dangerous." But later on in the same Sub-heading they state "... limited knowledge of the dangers of the Tseax Cone IF IT becomes active or erupts ..." Well, which is it? Jellis 1975 ( talk) 22:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the writer is trying to say here, but, it almost seems as though they are just stringing sentences together and we are left confused so if someone can explain.... ". The relative lack of knowledge on the previous eruptions would need modern monitoring and include studies of the gases emitted by the volcano" So what this is saying is that the "lack of knowledge needs monitoring and we need study volcanic emissions this is nonsensensical. Jellis 1975 ( talk) 22:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Grungaloo ( talk · contribs) 19:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi
Volcanoguy, I'm picking this review up. I'll ping you in a few days when I'm done!
grungaloo (
talk)
19:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |