# Talk:Lake San Agustín

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lake San Agustín/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 02:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this soon. AryKun (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
"in New Mexico which developed in the Plains of San Agustín during the Pleistocene, as a pluvial lake during glacial periods."→ "in New Mexico which developed as a pluvial lake in the Plains of San Agustín during glacial periods during the Pleistocene"
Applied a variation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
"while during its drying it split into several separate lakes" → " and split into several separate lakes while drying out"
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't see a need to give the acronym for Last Glacial Maximum as it isn't mentioned again in the lead.
It is mentioned elsewhere in the article however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
"At highstand" → "During its highstand" Also, highstand should be linked here
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
"300 metres (980 ft) long drill core" → Should be metre, not metres.
Sorry, but I don't know how to change this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
" made into the" → "of the"
Applied a variation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
"Lakes may have existed" → Should the may be removed?
No; it's not settled into stone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
"By 11,300-10,200 years ago, it" → Clarify what the "it" is.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
"when it was dropping" → "when it was shrinking"
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Pine, spruce, Pleistocene are dublinked.
Will do so soon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The list of mammals is just a sea of blue at the moment, perhaps you could add the scientific names to stagger it out?
I don't think that would really help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I feel like the lead could be bulked up, as it doesn't quite cover the whole article.
Remind me, what other things could be mentioned? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'll be passing. AryKun (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Pretty comprehensive article, but I have some issues with the prose. I've made some minor edits, and the rest of my suggestions are above.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: