# Talk:Monte Burney

## GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Monte Burney/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 15:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I am trying a good article review. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

There are a few errors based on the good article criteria. 

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
"volcanoes with activity during" should the activity not be plural?
"The Andes feature about four areas of volcanic activity from north to south" also, since it is featuring more than one areas, feature should be plural. So does the activity.
"due to the long distance between these volcanoes and critical infrastructure they are considered a low hazard" a comma before they seems missing.
"lasted for millennia after" millenia should be preceeded by an "a".
"In 1910 a" seems like a comma is missing.
"from Burney, it occurred" instead, "from Burney which occurred" seems fine.
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: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

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: 

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: 

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

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

@Adityavagarwal: I don't think "activity" should be plural here. "Feature" is a plural. I don't think a further comma before "they are considered" is necessary either. "Millennia" is plural, it should not be preceded by an "a". I don't see the need for a comma after "in 1910". Fixed the last issue however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh so is feature plural? Maybe that is why the sentence made less sense when it seemed not plural. :) Also, the comma might be required as the sentence due.. they.. so there seems a gap between the thing being referred. And yeah the millenia seems fine as it did not seem plural either. :) And a comma might be required after "in 1910" as that is being used not where it actually should be used. In a sentence which used that information later instead of earlier then you might not have had to have a comma. So, only those comma things seem to be the issue. Let me see some articles to provide an example. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Here 2000KoreanLeagueCupAdityavagarwal (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems fine. Nice work.Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I had uploaded a copy of this image  to Commons before I noticed it here. Regarding copyright, the artist was F.C.P. (Foley Charles Prendergast) Vereker who died in 1900, so it is clearly PD in the UK, where it was published, as well as in the USA. Robert Oliver Cunningham the book auther, died in 1914. The file I've uploaded is higher resolution than this one so I guess the easiest way to handle this is just to replace this file with the one I uploaded to Commons. I'll check for comments before I do this. Kognos (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've added a redirect to the Commons file and tagged the enwiki one for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The old file has been deleted, but the one on Commons isn't there. Should I just add it now? Thanks. Kognos (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Looks like Liz commented the file link out for some reason. I think we can use the old link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
All looks good now! Kognos (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)