This peer review discussion has been closed. Feedback came via the talkpage, instead. Now with a GA nom, so I'll close this one.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is
part of a workgroup effort to improve articles related to the Volcanism in Hawaii (still a proposal).
Loihi is currently B-Class, and nowhere near a GAC.
I have opened a peer review to tackle the issues, and to in general raise it to GA quality. Reviews, please put down specific issues and I will tackle them; or
be BOLD and do it yourself!
Thanks, Res Mar 19:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Res Mar 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll be back with specific comments later! Ceran thor 22:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, can you use this table here to tell me what areas still need improvement: {{ check mark}} {{ N}} .
Assess | Criteria |
---|---|
1. well written | |
(a) clear prose, correct spelling and grammar | |
(b) complies with Manual of Style: | |
lead | |
layout | |
jargon | |
words to avoid | |
fiction | |
list incorporation | |
2. factually accurate and verifiable | |
(a) references for all sources; dedicated attribution section according to guideline | |
(b) in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotes, statistics, public opinion, challengeable statements | |
(c) no original research | |
3. broad in coverage | |
(a) addresses main aspects of topic | |
(b) stays focused without unnecessary detail | |
4. neutral | |
5. stable ( no edit wars) | |
6. images | |
(a) tagged with copyright status, valid fair use rationale for non-free content | |
(b) relevant to topic with suitable captions |
This peer review discussion has been closed. Feedback came via the talkpage, instead. Now with a GA nom, so I'll close this one.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is
part of a workgroup effort to improve articles related to the Volcanism in Hawaii (still a proposal).
Loihi is currently B-Class, and nowhere near a GAC.
I have opened a peer review to tackle the issues, and to in general raise it to GA quality. Reviews, please put down specific issues and I will tackle them; or
be BOLD and do it yourself!
Thanks, Res Mar 19:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Res Mar 22:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll be back with specific comments later! Ceran thor 22:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, can you use this table here to tell me what areas still need improvement: {{ check mark}} {{ N}} .
Assess | Criteria |
---|---|
1. well written | |
(a) clear prose, correct spelling and grammar | |
(b) complies with Manual of Style: | |
lead | |
layout | |
jargon | |
words to avoid | |
fiction | |
list incorporation | |
2. factually accurate and verifiable | |
(a) references for all sources; dedicated attribution section according to guideline | |
(b) in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotes, statistics, public opinion, challengeable statements | |
(c) no original research | |
3. broad in coverage | |
(a) addresses main aspects of topic | |
(b) stays focused without unnecessary detail | |
4. neutral | |
5. stable ( no edit wars) | |
6. images | |
(a) tagged with copyright status, valid fair use rationale for non-free content | |
(b) relevant to topic with suitable captions |