This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
volcanoes,
volcanology,
igneous petrology, and
related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Turkey and
related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present
information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see
Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the
project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
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.
In "Tectonic setting", "which is a result of complex deformation as a result of the collision" should read "a complex deformation caused by the collision".
Done The use of the terms sinistral and dextral needs to be glossed in the text as far as their meaning with respect to strike-slip faults is concerned (no issue with their basic left-handed, right-handed meanings which is clear enough, i.e. the reader needs to know briefly how faults can be left- or right-handed).
No, doesn't help. The links show any reader who doesn't know that dextral=right, but the question is different, as I already explained: what does right or left mean for a slip-strike fault?
OK. What's really needed is a diagram as it's surprising that there can be handedness here, which is the same as saying that the fault has a definite front side and rear side, how do we know which is which. A diagram would instantly make this clear.
I feel like adding a whole diagram in the article would stray away from the topic. Maybe a note could be added with a diagram? That's the most I can do. I've already put a small definition of the words and the words are already wikilinked. If one reader doesn't understand they can click on it. Reego4115:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The "Sociology" section is oddly-titled and positioned. Since this is a geography article, the section should go at the end (just before References). A more typical heading for the section might be "In culture".
In "Religion", "is considered by some to be Noah's Ark, however this is disputed due to an absence of evidence." should read "is considered by some, without evidence, to be Noah's Ark."
* In "Flora and fauna", "is home to multiple endemic plants. Some endemic plants in the region" should read (less repetitively) "is home to multiple endemic plants, including".
In "Flora and fauna", the phrase "known to" is redundant, so please remove it (twice), and copy-edit to repair both sentences, e.g. "Birds of the region ...", "The steppe eagle resides ...".
File:LakeVanVolcanism.svg states that the base relief map was "retrieved from GEBCO". Where was that exactly (URL)? We need evidence that the GEBCO map is CC-BY-SA.
Ok that's fine. It'd be wise to add this info on the file's Commons page also.
File:GACOSTendurekDeformationVelocity.png is from MDPI. Could you point me to where MDPI says the article containing this image is CC-BY-SA please? Not all MDPI articles are CC-BY-SA, and this article does not appear to contain any such statement. Instead
the MDPI open access policy says "For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, ..." which means that each article has to state explicitly if it is CC-BY-SA.
OK. Again it'd be wise to add this on the file's Commons page.
Sources
In "Religion", sources [5] (Snelling) and [6] ("Mt Cudi") do not appear to be
reliable sources. I think we can simply drop both of them, as sources [3] and [4] seem to be sufficient to cover the entire sentence, i.e. move [3] and [4] to the end of the statement and remove [5] and [6] altogether.
The discussion above 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.