# Talk:Big Cave

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

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)
GVP gives a height of 4130ft. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus - I didn't even catch the difference! Is it more clear now? ceranthor 15:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

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)
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
See first part of 2c
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

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

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)
Seems like this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ceranthor: I archived a source here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)