Talk:Lake Tauca

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tisquesusa (talk · contribs) 18:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Tisquesusa

Positive feedback

1. Neat article, fully referenced
2. Small improvements made with the refs, navbox and bibliography
3. Intro is complete and of good length
4. Text about a former lake is good; indicating uncertainties about the lake, using "probably", "has been estimated", "may have been", etc.

Constructive feedback

1. Images may be bigger and much more, especially in the biology section and the mountains surrounding the former lake
2. No infobox is a minus
3. as well as a lack of See also section
4. Change the capitals of the last external link to non-capitalised
5. "Paleolakes cannot form during maximum glaciation or warm interglacial periods", I cannot imagine the source, of which only the abstract is freely accessible, says this, in any case it is worded in the wrong way. Lakes may form under various circumstances. Maybe better to say "the maximum glaciation and interglacial [that are always 'warm' compared to glacials] periods usually force the retreat of paleolakes and hinder their formation" or something along those lines

Conclusion

The positive points outweigh the negative ones; passed the GA review, imho, Tisquesusa (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tisquesusa: Thanks. I'll address these issues later; justa out of curiosity, I presume you did check the sources, prose and everything? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright, @Tisquesusa:, here's what I came up with:

• Added a few more images; unfortunately free images on this topic are really difficult to find.
• I don't think either is mandatory, and I kind of thought that the navboxes do sort of double as a See also.
• Done.
• Specified the meaning of the text.

Also, still curious in the source&prose question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jo Jo, looks better. Still I prefer many images. I am going on a fieldtrip to the Altiplano myself now, although a different one (Cundiboyacense), when I get back I will look at the sources, but they look good already. Good weekend, Tisquesusa (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, I've done some slight edits in the text, mainly including words like "around" and "approximately" where needed, reworded some words and included some links. What would be interesting to add, is the presence of the early humans around the lake. The latest dates in the Holocene must have human populations and the first civilisations in Bolivia. The article for me already passed the GA review and is close to FA status imho, so w.r.t. my review the discussion is "closed" for that. Congrats on the article!! Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tisquesusa: Well, if it does meet the GA criteria you could simply pass it, I think. Although if you have edited it extensively, you may want to ask for a second opinion instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It's the first time I review a GA candidate, I don't know if 1 reviewer is enough to let it pass. The backlog suggests there's much more involvement needed of people and it's unfair to let the articles wait for months to pass review, so if it can pass with just 1 review, then I will check that page. The edits were small and did not alter the general flow or information of the article, so shouldn't be any problem and re-review or second opinion needed. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)