Talk:Nanook Dome

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Volcanoguy (talk · contribs) 01:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: GGOTCC (talk · contribs) 23:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The article is in a very good shape! I added a few nick-picks to improve readability. If you object to my comments, I will be willing to give GA status either way.

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.	"Appropriately broad audience" may be up to interpetation with the amount of jargon used in the article, however, I am willing to pass it as Nanook Dome is a fairly neiche topic and the jargon greatly improves the article. However, I do have a few questions. What is the Kakiddi Formation? Since it is not wikilinked, it may be benificial to mention that it is an adjacent feature when first mentioned. Also, some more wikilinks would be benificial. I added a few, so please review them. Assuming my understanding is correct, can you link 'flow' to Debris flow along with the correct page for 'convex'?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, list incorporation, and table accessibility.	Solid structure
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).	I randomly sampled various citations, and all information is supported. While I do not own the books cited, I will assume good faith as the texts are clearly on-topic and written by experts.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See above
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio reports 4.8%, no close paraphrasing detected. Well done!
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, have suitable captions, and have alt text.
	7. Overall assessment.

GGOTCC (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@GGOTCC: I'm not sure if the Kakiddi Formation has to be explained since the Edziza Formation mentioned beforehand is described as "one of many stratigraphic units comprising the Mount Edziza volcanic complex" (so is the Kakiddi Formation). I plan on creating an article for the Kakiddi Formation at some point in the future so this won't be a problem once it's linked. I've made it clearer that "flow" refers to lava. As for convex, I've given it a link. Volcanoguy 21:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but it would make sense to establish what the Kakiddi Formation is, like all proper nouns. Would you object to the wording, "Nanook Dome may have been a major source of the valley-filling trachyte lava flows in the adjacent Kakiddi Formation due to their lithological similarity and close spatial association" or something similar? GGOTCC (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that wording so I've changed it accordingly. Volcanoguy 22:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation, and for the great article! That's all of my points addressed. Congrats on another GA article! GGOTCC (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)