Talk:Big Cave

Big Cave 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: June 10, 2018. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geology Low‑importance Talk:Big Cave is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Volcanoes Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in California may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This review is transcluded from Talk:Big Cave/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 09:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I see that Tisquesusa has written some improvement but FAR away from a good article... Imma ask what that means.

1. Is it well written?

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

   "in the southeastern direction", should that not be "in southeastern direction"?

   Fixed. ceranthor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   There seems to be disagreement about the height of the volcano between sources; why is one height measure preferred? Source #1 probably needs explicit page links associated.

   I fixed the url for source 1. Which source differs on the height; they all seem the same to me? ceranthor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   GVP gives a height of 4130ft. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   Jo-Jo Eumerus - I didn't even catch the difference! Is it more clear now? ceranthor 15:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There is nothing on vegetation, human history etc.?

   Nothing specific that I've been able to find. I suppose I could do something for the general area; would you prefer that? ceranthor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

   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:

   See first part of 2c

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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   There is no image whatsoever of the volcano?

   None that I've been able to find. ceranthor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've replied to a few and fixed a few comments. Thanks for the review. ceranthor 14:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ceranthor: I archived a source here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]