Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex 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 19, 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 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) 21:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Picking this up! Will ping you when I have a full review.
grungaloo (
talk) 21:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey Volcanoguy, another great article! I only have one comment below, but it's just a suggestion and not something to hold up GA promotion for. The prose is clear and consistent, the references check out (thanks for using page numbers!), it has good coverage of the details, good images, and no evidence of any edit warring. Congrats on another GA! grungaloo ( talk) 20:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Volcanoguy - sorry I'm just now getting to this - life got busy.
Ready for the second magmatic cycle, will continue soon. Hog Farm Talk 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I think this will be good to go for FAC once the above are addressed. Let me know when you nominate it and I'll likely support; apologies for this taking so long. Hog Farm Talk 02:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex 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 19, 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 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) 21:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Picking this up! Will ping you when I have a full review.
grungaloo (
talk) 21:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey Volcanoguy, another great article! I only have one comment below, but it's just a suggestion and not something to hold up GA promotion for. The prose is clear and consistent, the references check out (thanks for using page numbers!), it has good coverage of the details, good images, and no evidence of any edit warring. Congrats on another GA! grungaloo ( talk) 20:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Volcanoguy - sorry I'm just now getting to this - life got busy.
Ready for the second magmatic cycle, will continue soon. Hog Farm Talk 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I think this will be good to go for FAC once the above are addressed. Let me know when you nominate it and I'll likely support; apologies for this taking so long. Hog Farm Talk 02:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)