This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofvolcanoes,volcanology,igneous petrology, andrelated subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theU.S. state ofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is part ofWikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically presentinformation on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (seeContributing FAQ for more information), or visit theproject page where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain
The article seems to follow the manual of style, but the prose needs work, and is choppy at parts. There's a lot of odd tense issues (e.g. "At its peak, it would have reached approximately 3,350 meters (11,000 ft) high" -- why "would have"? It did or it didn't.) In the history section, it starts out with "would have" and the next sentences uses "was". This sentences isn't written properly: "Including Raker Peak, Red Mountain (California), Prospect Peak, and Mount Harkness, they were shield volcanoes." These are just a few examples, but there's more -- the article needs an extensive copyedit with attention to prose and grammar.
Inline citations are present and the citations appear to be reliable.
It isbroad in its coverage.
a(major aspects): b(focused):
Not really sure if I'd call this article complete? The recreation and vegetation sections are very short, just two sentences each. There's also no discussion of animal wildlife in the area -- I'd recommend changing 'vegetation' to 'flora and fauna', and adding some description of animal life.
The 'threats' section also seems like it could be covered better. For a section entitled such, I would expect more of a description of endangered species or manmade threats to the natural area. But as it's written, it's talking more about the danger to hikers from volcanic activity. I'd eliminate the section and move the information to the 'recreation' section, since it pertains more to that. Change the word "threat" to "danger".
The article has three, free images that are tagged and captioned appropriately.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The article is on its way to becoming a GA, but still needs a bit of work to meet allsix GA criteria. I'll put thison hold until 6/27/2010 so that the issues can be addressed.WTF? (talk)17:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks reasonably good now. One minor issue remains. In the lead, the sentence, "The few hikers that summit this mountain each year are treated to amazing views of Lassen Peak, the Central Valley of California, and many of the park's other features." seems to not followWP:NPOV guidelines, as it's mostly an opinion. Though, I would think that most people would probably agree with the assertion, it's still an opinion. Also, it mentions, "the relatively few hikers", but the recreation section goes on to state that hiking is a very popular activity in the summer, implying that more than a few reach the summit. So, if this statement could be fixed somehow, I think the article could be promoted. Cheers!WTF? (talk)17:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I would've fixed it that way, but it is in the book. The article overall looks good, and I think it can be promoted. I've added a few links to the book citations used, since most of them are in Google Books (some are just previews, but a lot of interesting and useful information is still accessible). I didn't add the link to Stephen Harris' book, since Google has an earlier edition and not the one that you're citing, so I didn't want it to mislead people. Anyway, nice work overall!WTF? (talk)21:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
b(MoS):
