Talk:Decade Volcanoes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A WikiReader on Decade Volcanoes can be found at Wikipedia:WikiReader/Decade Volcanoes.
 |
Decade Volcanoes has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
 |
Decade Volcanoes is part of the Decade Volcanoes series, a former featured topic candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the topic for featured topic status. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page. |
Contents |
[edit] Delisted GA
There are no references. slambo 17:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Decade?
Stupid question: Why Decade Volcanoes? Is it expected that one of them will go erupt within a decade?
- No, it's because the Decade Volcano program was started during the UN's International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. The IDNDR is mentioned in the intro but I'll make it clearer where the name comes from. Worldtraveller 11:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA nomination - issue
The problem section isnt three paragraphs it's three large contiguous sentences. Request they get edited into sentences. The last para-sentence isn't fluid it reads a thought process. I leave the nomination open for a couple of days if this fix occurs I'll promote Gnangarra 01:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the review - I've adjusted the relevant paragraphs and hope you think that's an improvement. Worldtraveller 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thankyou for addressing this, congratulations to all editors on its successful promotion to GA Gnangarra 10:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- It still seems as though second paragraph in the article is a gigantic run on sentence. Instead of using semi-colons for clarity, that paragraph should also be broken up into more clear and concise sentences. I'd do it myself but i'm lazy and its your article, hehe. --Rohn Adams 21:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Good Article evaluation of Decade Volcanoes
This evaluation was done on this version of Decade Volcanoes at 7:00 PST on May 21, 2006. The evaluation was done by the book.
Criteria:
- Well-written
- Hmm. It's definitely prose of a different kind than most of the encyclopedia. It's hard for me to read on some levels, and I would guess that it's not written primarily by Americans, although I'm not sure. Anyway, while not "brilliant," it's good writing and I could not find any grammatical errors. The layout is well-done. My one complaint would be that the writing is too succinct — would it be possible to expand the article section by section? Anyway, article length does not matter for Good Article status. Nice job.
- Factually accurate
- Looks okay. None of it seems controversial enough to require sourcing, although the topic itself is a bit obscure. The sources look like they come from experts in the field, which is always a good thing.
- Broad
- I don't know how much broader this article can get. However, it certainly seems broad enough. Talking about problems experienced during the lifetime of the project is a good idea. Is there any criticism of the project, or any countries that do not support it? What do ecologists think about the project? I would encourage the authors to brainstorm ways to make this article "comprehensive," in the sense of the Featured Article criterion. Achieving comprehensiveness will also fill out the article and lengthen it. Against my better judgement (who, naturally, went out to party), I am passing on this criterion.
- Neutrally written
- Dry as a bone. There are some cool descriptive phrases in there, like "come to fruition," but as a whole the article is very dry and to the point, and does not leave room for alternate interpretations.
- Stable
- In the last 15 edits, the following changes were noted: references were added, the second introductory paragraph was converted from list to prose, and the list of volcanoes was tabled. These changes together constitute a minor rearrangement of the article. No edit warring or major repeated vandalism was noted. The article does not seem unstable.
- Well-referenced
- References are appropriate and numerous, considering the size and scope of the article.
- Images
- There are four images on the page. Two are USGS, one is NASA, and one is released into public domain. All are properly tagged.
Summary:
- Well-written: Pass
- Factually accurate: Pass
- Broad: Pass
- Neutrally written: Pass
- Stable: Pass
- Well-referenced: Pass
- Images: Pass
Congratulations. - Corbin Be excellent 02:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling Corrections
I've corrected a few spelling errors in this article. I'm wondering if some of these corrections I've made such as "programme(s) to program(s)" has something to do with a difference between British English and American English (my language)? If this is so, which English dialect is the one that we're supposed to be writing in? I'm not sure of the policy pertaining to that. Also, I decided to leave all spellings of "defence" as they were instead of changing them to "defense" because I am aware those differences in spelling (between British and American English) and both are considered correct by Webster's Dictionary.
- Please see: MoS: National varieties of English. Vsmith 23:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your edits, Rohnadams. British English uses programme - it's not a spelling error. The convention here is that for specifically British or specifically US topics, the appropriate variant of English should be used, but for any other topic, it's only necessary to be consistent within the article, and whichever was used first should be stuck with. This article started off British and so it should stay that way. Worldtraveller 08:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article includes only some in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 02:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Order of explanations
Shouldn't the article start talkin about 'what is a decade volcano'? The reader has to read a whole paragraph before knowing what the article is about...
(I'm new here, so if this is not the place to talk about it, or if my writing is somehow unfitting the expected protocols, please, tell me) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evbneto (talk • contribs) 23:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
