Talk:Nevadaplano

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next week. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2022 (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.	Following my usual procedure of making any minor prose tweaks myself to save us both the trouble - if any are problematic, let me know. Pass - well-written, made a few tweaks and moved the 'Geological history' section up.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	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).	Pass, no issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Checking as I do prose check. Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds one issue but it is a site copying from Wikipedia, not vice versa.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Did not find anything else major on Google Scholar or mentioned in existing sources.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Somewhat jargony, but not inordinately detailed. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Substantially done in September, no edit wars. Pass.
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.	The images I mention below that we could add should all be ok - will check again after images decided upon.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images at all. I may have specific suggestions after my prose review, but are there really no images at all we can use to illustrate this topic? GAs are encouraged to be well-illustrated. I understand that as a past landscape feature there are no actual images of the Nevadaplano, but modern analogues? Maps? Geologic images or fossils? The vast majority of diagrams I could see are copyrighted, so no. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC) I think we can still provide some illustrations for the article. File:Shallow subduction Laramide orogeny.png can be used when discussing the two orogenys in the Geologic history section. File:Altiplano.jpg could be used in the lead, with a caption that mentions that the Nevadaplano was a high-altitude plain similar in nature to the contemporary Altiplano. File:Caras de Piedra.jpg could be used in a similar fashion if you prefer it. File:Romanceor Altiplano 4.jpg is a good third option. File:Ignimbrite.jpg or similar could be used to accompany the mention of ignimbrites. An image of the Sierra Nevada may also be good where they are mentioned in the body as constituting a boundary for the Nevadaplano. I don't think most of these are particularly illustrative, certainly not the first that is unaware of the Nevadaplano's very existence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC) @Jo-Jo Eumerus: are there any that you would be willing to add to the article? We don't have to use these specific images necessarily, but I think a few illustrations are possible in the places I've pointed out - illustrating orogeny, illustrating an analogous high altitude plateau, illustrating ignimbrites, illustrating the Sierra Nevada. I am reluctant to pass this article for GA if there are possible illustrations and it remains totally bereft of any images. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC) I think File:SierraEscarpmentCA.jpg might be the best on offer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Go ahead and add it. The more (reasonable) images, the better - ping me when you're satisfied and I'll take another look. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC) @Ganesha811:Added it, but the formatting is wonky. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

@Ganesha811:Is this review complete? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: no it is not yet, but I expect it to be tomorrow. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: the review is now complete, with one outstanding issue - illustration. I've made some suggestions for potential images. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: This article now passes GA. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)