Wikipedia:Peer review/Hekla/archive1

Hekla[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi guys, I'd like to request a peer review of Hekla. I've already run the script and fixed many of the issues (apart from prose quality). I assume I won't be able to get it to FA without more sources as some of the sections can't really claim to be comprehensive yet, so maybe a review before going for GA might be appropriate. Issues I'd particularly like some advice on (although anything is welcome):

What to do with the many small paragraphs on particular eruptions etc - is there a logical way to divide them up?
The article is quite long and so could be split up, the obvious candidates would be the longer eruption sections. Is this necessary?
The article is quite dense with numbers in parts. This is partly because I've tried to summarise but could affect readability. Any thoughts?
A general read through for clarity.

Thanks a lot, and feel free to request a peer review from me in exchange. JMiall ₰ 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

What if there was a List of Hekla eruptions then summary style could be used (1980s), especially for the minor eruptions?

So would you suggest essentially copying the entire eruptions section to the new main List of Hekla eruptions article, refering to it with a {{main}} template and having say one paragraph per major eruption or group of minor eruptions in this article?

Well, the list could be sortable and have columns for start and end date, volume produced, comments, etc. Just an idea, then use WP:Summary style in this article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also would think about combining some of the short paragraphs (one or two sentences) and sections, or perhaps expanding them. For example, could Name be added to Reputation?

I've done some of this but will wait now if much of this is going to end up in a list article

Units need to be consistently in both metric and English units for all measurements / numbers given. {{convert}} may be useful here

This is going to take some work! I'm tempted to claim the 1st exception in MOS:CONVERSIONS as this is a scientific article to some extent and I would have thought that converting the 1st instance of each unit should be sufficient. I'll think about this and probably ask on the talk page.

Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Well spotted.

Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "vertical" can be used to make the image narrower.

Done

Per WP:HEAD don't use & in a header

Done

Pop culture is a bullet list, should be converted to text

Done

Mount Pinatubo is a srtatovolcano FA and may be a useful model for ideas and examples, there are probably other models.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thankyou. I will do. JMiall ₰ 16:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]