Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Cayley volcanic field/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:18, 18 August 2010 [1].
Mount Cayley volcanic field edit
Mount Cayley volcanic field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Volcanoguy (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's about time I nominate this for FAC. I have done as much as I could. It is comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable, appropiately structured, referenced with inline citations, images, and contains an appropiate length. I did several copyedits throughout the article yesterday and tonight and cleaned up a few sentences that were a bit awkward. Volcanoguy 04:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Support Comments: I plan to review this article, hopefully tonight after work. However, I did notice the use of two PNG files (File:Cascadia subduction zone USGS.png and File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png); the latter was the hardest to read, even at its highest resolution. I would suggest getting these graphics remade as SVG graphics so that they can scale better. If you don't know how to do it yourself, you can make a couple of requests at the Graphics Lab, here here on English Wiki or on Wiki Commons. I'm not sure which of the two labs gets better traffic, though, so look and see which is more active and try there. An example of an excellent SVG graphic is the one used at the bottom of your Infobox, File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg, which, incidentally, was created by a "Wikigraphist" from at the Graphics Lab on Commons. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More general comment (pre-review):
The wording of the lead is a bit too advanced for general readers. Generally, I cut a lot of slack in the body, as long as advanced words are introduced and linked. However, the lead should be as accessible as possible to the general public. I'll give more examples when I do the full review later, but there are quite a few geology terms that need explanation, possibly in parentheses.
- I heavily dissagree with this comment; the wording is not advanced at all, and such basic terms such as lava dome and caldera cannot be avoided. Linking takes care of it. ResMar 13:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problems with lava dome and caldera. I've tutored high school students, and those are words that their basic science courses teach them. I do have issues with statements like "north-south trending polygenetic volcanic zone" and words like "hyaloclastites". To quote WP:LEAD, "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. ... Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it." – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we're good now. Sorry for the hell over this. Like I said... I've been there before myself. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problems with lava dome and caldera. I've tutored high school students, and those are words that their basic science courses teach them. I do have issues with statements like "north-south trending polygenetic volcanic zone" and words like "hyaloclastites". To quote WP:LEAD, "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction. ... Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word; they should be eased into it." – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I heavily dissagree with this comment; the wording is not advanced at all, and such basic terms such as lava dome and caldera cannot be avoided. Linking takes care of it. ResMar 13:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that the material with citations in the lead is not covered in the body. Generally speaking, the lead should summarize the body, so no citations should be needed.
- Sometimes they still are. ResMar 13:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From my understanding of WP:LEAD, citations are only needed in the lead for controversial statements. To quote WP:LEAD, "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material... Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- References removed. Volcanoguy 05:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry... I think something is getting lost in translation. I didn't simply want the references removed from that chunk of text. In fact, if the material exists no where else in the article, it must be cited. My point was that the lead should be a summary of the article (thus not requiring citations), and not introduce new material. I'm at work at the moment and don't have time to check it, but if that's the case, then we're fine. I guess I'm not getting my head around why there is any new material would be in the lead when there's a section dedicated to the general topic. If that's not the case, let me know. I will try to re-read both the lead and the section late tonight when I crawl home from my 2nd job. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. I found what I was looking for in the body. We're good. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry... I think something is getting lost in translation. I didn't simply want the references removed from that chunk of text. In fact, if the material exists no where else in the article, it must be cited. My point was that the lead should be a summary of the article (thus not requiring citations), and not introduce new material. I'm at work at the moment and don't have time to check it, but if that's the case, then we're fine. I guess I'm not getting my head around why there is any new material would be in the lead when there's a section dedicated to the general topic. If that's not the case, let me know. I will try to re-read both the lead and the section late tonight when I crawl home from my 2nd job. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- References removed. Volcanoguy 05:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From my understanding of WP:LEAD, citations are only needed in the lead for controversial statements. To quote WP:LEAD, "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material... Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes they still are. ResMar 13:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a lot of over-citing in the body. You don't need to cite every sentence. If a series of 3 or 4 sentences cite the same source, just put the ref at the end of that series of sentences. If a paragraph uses only one citation, just put ref at the end. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More specifics:
In the lead sentence "remote north-south trending polygenetic volcanic chain" is a bit intense for someone not familiar with geology. On this topic, I consider my reading level to be moderate to above average, and I had to think about that one for a minute.
- I replaced "chain" with "zone" to make it a bit more obvious. As for polygenetic, I have no idea how to make that clearer. Polygenetic is a basic term in volcanology for volcanoes that had more than one eruptive event throughout their history. Volcanoes that had only one eruptive period and are not likely to erupt again are said to be monogenetic. Volcanoguy 23:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, how important is "polygenetic" to the lead sentence? You seem to cover its meaning (and the volcano's history) in the second paragraph, making it redundant. Alternatively, how about something like this: "The Mount Cayley volcanic field is a volcanic zone that has been the site of at least 13 eruptions in the past and is located on the remote British Columbia Coast, stretching 31 km (19 mi) from the Pemberton Icefield in the north to the Squamish River in the south." Honestly, though, I think just the removal of the word will suffice, especially because it is redundant. Otherwise, I have noticed that the lead does read more easily now. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It forms the central segment of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, the Canadian portion of the Cascade Volcanic Arc." – I would have liked to have seen the sentence conclude with a little more information, such as: "...the Canadian portion of the Cascade Volcanic Arc, which extends from ... to ...". Given my lack of knowledge of the region, I don't know how big of an area we're talking about.
"Because the Mount Cayley volcanic field has a high elevation and is coupled with its cluster of mostly high altitude, non-overlapping vents, subglacial activity is likely to have occurred under less than 800 m (2,600 ft) of glacial ice. This glaciation during subglacial eruptions is likely to have been permeable, promoting meltwater escape. The steep profile of the basal topography and vent-ice geometries support this hypothesis. As a result, ..." This bit sounds too technical for the lead. And given the citations, I don't think this material was covered in the body. If that is correct, please find a home for it in the article body and summary in general terms in the lead.
- See my comment below about this. To make it sound a bit less complicated, I did some rewording in this part of the introduction. But I disagree it is too technical for the lead. Volcanoguy 23:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It definitely reads much better now, but I am still concerned about having material in the lead that is not covered in the body. Is there are reason this information about subglacial activity cannot be integrated into the "Subglacial volcanoes" section? Again, per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." Others and myself have interpreted this to mean that the lead is only a summary, not a dumping ground for miscellaneous details. It just seems to me like you're taking a big chunk of the 2nd paragraph in the lead and losing an excellent chance to hit upon the highlights, and instead providing an interesting detail that could be described more thoroughly (and technically) in the body. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What it introduces does in fact "stand alone as a concise overview of the article." It is there because the Mount Cayley volcanic field is largely a product of subglacial volcanism. As far as I am aware of, Mount Cayley and Mount Fee are the only volcanic features in the field that do not show evidence for subglacial eruptions, the main body of the article makes it clear that most of the volcanoes have high elevations, they are not overlapped with each other but remain clustered, and mountain ridges are steep so the volcanic field would therefore have a steep profile. Same for "As a result, the subglacial landforms in the Mount Cayley volcanic field lack evidence of abundant water during eruption, such as hyaloclastites and pillow lava." The only features mentioned that contain pillow lava and hyaloclastite are the Cheakamus Valley basalts, Ember Ridge Southwest and Tricounti Southeast. Those are only 3 of more than 10 volcanic features in the Mount Cayley volcanic field. Thus, "As a result, the subglacial landforms in the Mount Cayley volcanic field lack evidence of abundant water during eruption, such as hyaloclastites and pillow lava." introduces this unique feature of subglacial volcanism because they are barely mentioned in the article. So I do not see how it dosen't belong in the introduction. Volcanoguy 05:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is related to my remaining question above... unless I'm just confused. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. We're good. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is related to my remaining question above... unless I'm just confused. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What it introduces does in fact "stand alone as a concise overview of the article." It is there because the Mount Cayley volcanic field is largely a product of subglacial volcanism. As far as I am aware of, Mount Cayley and Mount Fee are the only volcanic features in the field that do not show evidence for subglacial eruptions, the main body of the article makes it clear that most of the volcanoes have high elevations, they are not overlapped with each other but remain clustered, and mountain ridges are steep so the volcanic field would therefore have a steep profile. Same for "As a result, the subglacial landforms in the Mount Cayley volcanic field lack evidence of abundant water during eruption, such as hyaloclastites and pillow lava." The only features mentioned that contain pillow lava and hyaloclastite are the Cheakamus Valley basalts, Ember Ridge Southwest and Tricounti Southeast. Those are only 3 of more than 10 volcanic features in the Mount Cayley volcanic field. Thus, "As a result, the subglacial landforms in the Mount Cayley volcanic field lack evidence of abundant water during eruption, such as hyaloclastites and pillow lava." introduces this unique feature of subglacial volcanism because they are barely mentioned in the article. So I do not see how it dosen't belong in the introduction. Volcanoguy 05:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It definitely reads much better now, but I am still concerned about having material in the lead that is not covered in the body. Is there are reason this information about subglacial activity cannot be integrated into the "Subglacial volcanoes" section? Again, per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." Others and myself have interpreted this to mean that the lead is only a summary, not a dumping ground for miscellaneous details. It just seems to me like you're taking a big chunk of the 2nd paragraph in the lead and losing an excellent chance to hit upon the highlights, and instead providing an interesting detail that could be described more thoroughly (and technically) in the body. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The central portion contains more than three vents situated at the Powder Mountain Icefield." – Given the small number, saying "more than three" sounds a little funny. Is the number to known precisely? Usually I save statements like "more than X" for numbers greater than 10 or for data that is changing regularly.
- Words in the lead that could use a brief explanation: "tuyas", "effusive", "rhyolitic" (and possibly "basaltic"), "hyaloclastite"
- I piped "tuya" with "a steep, flat-topped volcano", but most of the other terms seem to be quite basic (e.g. effusive) and can not be avoided. Rhyolitic, basaltic, and hyaloclastite are terms for rock types. Discribing rhyolite as an light-coloured volcanic rock and basalt as a dark-coloured volcanic rock is confusing because there is more than one light-coloured volcanic rock and more than one dark-coloured volcanic rock. Volcanoguy 00:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you could say "a type of light/dark-coloured volcanic rock", but maybe you're right. Like I said, I have noticed that the lead reads more easily now, so I don't have much room to complain. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"As a result, the domes display the shaps and columnar joints typical of subglacial volcanoes." – What is a "shap"?
Again, that's all for now. That should give you some stuff to work on for a bit. I'll keep checking back. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of your points are pointless. It is a geology article so it uses geological terminology. Most of the technical terms are linked to their articles for clarification. "Shap" was just a typo of "shape". I do not have a hard time reading File:Cascadia subduction zone USGS.png or File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png. I have changed "The central portion contains more than three vents situated at the Powder Mountain Icefield." to "The central portion contains at least three vents situated at the Powder Mountain Icefield." because I am sure the exact number of vents there is not known precisely. The central portion of the volcanic field is largely covered with ice. Thus, vents are most likely buried. As for the referencing, the more referenced the article is the more reliable the text is. I also get a bit worried when there are portions of the text not supported by inline sources. In some cases, someone may add the citation needed template. So its better off just to cite every sentence so something like that won't happen. Volcanoguy 21:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see my points as pointless because these are the same types of comments that I regularly have had to fix on my biology articles. Per the terminology, WP:NOT states, "Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text." I have recently brought up the discussion of reading levels for advanced topics here at FAC because I face the same dilemma.
- As for the graphics, it was just a suggestion... although File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png seems very questionable in terms of quality. FAs are the best that we have to offer, and both images would benefit from being converted to SVG, particularly the latter. Really, the only reason I included File:Cascadia subduction zone USGS.png was because it would be relatively easy to convert and is a perfect example of the type of graphic that should be in SVG format. But that image can stay as is since I wouldn't hold the nomination up on for that... although making a request at the Graphics Lab wouldn't hurt anyone and might get a nice result.
- As for the inline referencing, I was just repeating what I had always been told on numerous FACs. WP:CITE states, "An inline citation should appear next to the material it supports. If the material is particularly contentious, the citation may be added within a sentence, but adding it to the end of the sentence or paragraph is usually sufficient." On all of my articles, the reference gets inserted when material from that source stops. Sometimes that is at the end of a sentence, other times its at the end of two or more sentences, and sometimes at the end of a paragraph. See my latest FAC as an example. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, I do not care what Wikipedia says. The reason I did not include "which extends from ... to ..." at the end of "It forms the central segment of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, the Canadian portion of the Cascade Volcanic Arc." is because the exact boundaries of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt are not necessarily known. In some sources the Garibaldi Belt is said to extend from the Garibaldi area in the south to Mount Meager in the north. But in some texts it is said to extend from the Garibaldi area to the Silverthrone complex further north of Meager. Also, I remain a bit surprised that Wikipedia would have something like "Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic." because everybody has their own way of understanding things. I have read several FA articles that I did not understand what several words ment.
- As for the introduction itself, everything mentioned there is within the main body of the article. Just because it contains inline sources dosen't mean that sentence or whatever is not mentioned further in the article. It is there to support a meaningful fact. Since I do not seem to be a general reader in your terms, I am not the one to do the rewording. Everything in the introduction is quite clear to me. I have no idea how "Because the Mount Cayley volcanic field has a high elevation and is coupled with its cluster of mostly high altitude, non-overlapping vents, subglacial activity is likely to have occurred under less than 800 m (2,600 ft) of glacial ice. This glaciation during subglacial eruptions is likely to have been permeable, promoting meltwater escape. The steep profile of the basal topography and vent-ice geometries support this hypothesis. As a result, ..." is technical. There is no other place in the article I am aware of this would be able to fit. Also, explaining terms in the article such as tuya, basalt, rhyolite, andesite, etc would just make the article go off topic and it makes it harder to read. Volcanoguy 03:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this hostility coming from? Do I need to remind you of WP:CIVIL?I'm doing this review as a favor. Trust me, I have many things I could be doing with my time, such as developing the hundreds of articles I'm trying to write. If you do not care what the Wikipedia policies are, then I will step away from this review, let my comments stand, and leave you to the mercy of the other reviewers that will come along. I'm trying to offer constructive criticism is line with Wiki policies, and I am judging your material in the same manner in which my scientific articles are judged. If you want to summarize some words in the lead, you can say things like "tuya (a steep, flat-topped volocano)". You only have to say it once. That's the same as what others (including myself) have had to do in the biological articles, despite our protests. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- After stepping back and cooling off, I'm striking the comments about civility. I've re-read your comments, and I'm assuming that you did not intend to be rude. But like I said, if you do not want to address my concerns, that is your choice. I suggest reviewing WP:LEAD, which is part of WP:MOS... one of the basic requirements for FAC. Otherwise, I've given my reasons and you've given yours. Just let me know on this page whether or not you wish to continue working together on this. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that is all what you had to say. As of WP:CIVIL, I suggest you read my userpage about that. I wasn't trying to be uncivil. If I was being uncivil with you there would have been a reason. Volcanoguy
- Water under the bridge. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that is all what you had to say. As of WP:CIVIL, I suggest you read my userpage about that. I wasn't trying to be uncivil. If I was being uncivil with you there would have been a reason. Volcanoguy
- After stepping back and cooling off, I'm striking the comments about civility. I've re-read your comments, and I'm assuming that you did not intend to be rude. But like I said, if you do not want to address my concerns, that is your choice. I suggest reviewing WP:LEAD, which is part of WP:MOS... one of the basic requirements for FAC. Otherwise, I've given my reasons and you've given yours. Just let me know on this page whether or not you wish to continue working together on this. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the introduction itself, everything mentioned there is within the main body of the article. Just because it contains inline sources dosen't mean that sentence or whatever is not mentioned further in the article. It is there to support a meaningful fact. Since I do not seem to be a general reader in your terms, I am not the one to do the rewording. Everything in the introduction is quite clear to me. I have no idea how "Because the Mount Cayley volcanic field has a high elevation and is coupled with its cluster of mostly high altitude, non-overlapping vents, subglacial activity is likely to have occurred under less than 800 m (2,600 ft) of glacial ice. This glaciation during subglacial eruptions is likely to have been permeable, promoting meltwater escape. The steep profile of the basal topography and vent-ice geometries support this hypothesis. As a result, ..." is technical. There is no other place in the article I am aware of this would be able to fit. Also, explaining terms in the article such as tuya, basalt, rhyolite, andesite, etc would just make the article go off topic and it makes it harder to read. Volcanoguy 03:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're good. It's a great article, so good job with it. I have lingering concerns about some wording in the lead, such as "The steep profile of the basal topography and vent-ice geometries support this hypothesis." If no one else comments on it, then it must be a non-issue. I still do recommend putting in a request at the Graphic lab for your PNG files. I would love to see an expert turn them into high-end vector graphics. But that's not an FAC issue, just something for the future. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I reworded the lead bit to "The steep profile of the volcanic field and its subglacial landforms support this hypothesis." Volcanoguy 05:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments: sources look OK, subject to a couple of nitpicks:-
There are multiple citations to half a dozen books. The article would benefit from a bibliography"pp." is missing from ref 27.Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea why the "pp." is not showing up. The template uses the "papers=" field. What exactally do you mean by "The article would benefit from a bibliography"? Volcanoguy
- I have fixed the "pp".
In doing so, I noticed unnecessarily repetitive citation. For example, there are five successive citations to [27] in the second "Lava flow" paragraph; since there are no other citations in the paragraph, a single [27] at the end would do. There are lots of similar instances of the same thing.A bibliography—or rather, a list of books—would in my view be a useful addendum to the references, and would enable you to use short citations e.g. "Smellie & Chapman, p. 201". This is not a requirement; please feel at liberty to ignore my suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed the "pp".
- Sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LeaningSupport - The article appears to be well-written, complimented by wonderful illustrations. I think it's comprehensive. I just have some comments... ceranthor 22:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The field gets its name from Mount Cayley, the largest and most persistent volcano, located at the southern end of the Powder Mountain Icefield. - I'm not sure what persistent refers to here; is it meant to convey that Cayley has erupted the most?
- Pretty much. I could replace "persistent" with "long-lived", but I am not sure if that is better or not. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This covers much of the central portion of the volcanic field and is one of the several glacial fields in the Pacific Ranges of the Coast Mountains. - Obviously this refers to the Icefield, but it's unclear from the wording of the previous sentence.
- Eruptions along the length of the chain began between 1.6 and 5.3 million years ago. Since its very formation, more than 13 eruptions have occurred.[1] - Something seems amiss here in the wording. You don't give an exact date when these eruptions begin, only a timeframe, so I'd assume all these eruptions are after 1.6 million years ago? Please clarify.
- Simply because the exact date when volcanic activity began is unknown. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the Mount Cayley volcanic field has a high elevation and is coupled with its cluster of mostly high altitude, non-overlapping vents... - Aren't the vents part of the volcanic field? So why are they coupled?
- I think what the meaning of that is the vents are clustered. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- During these periods, stress builds up on the interface between the plates and causes uplift of the North American margin. - Link uplift?
- Isn't uplift a clear enough term for not needing a link? Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When the plate finally slips, the 500 years of stored energy are released in a mega-earthquake.[3] - A mega-earthquake? Does that refer to an earthquake over 7.0? I'm confused as I've never heard of this term before...
- (in Eroded edifices) These volcanics were likely placed when a sequence of lava flows and broken lava fragments erupted from a volcanic vent and moved down the flanks during the construction of a large volcano.[22] - "Placed" seems to be odd wording here, it gives me the picture of someone "placing" the volcanics there.
- (Lava flows) Several fine-scale columnar joints and the overall structure of the lava flow suggests that its western portion, along the length of the channel, ponded against glacial ice.[25] - Verb tense agreement; suggest.
- (Petrography) However, the rock fragments cannot be easily related to the erupted lavas.[1] - Why is this? Are they eroded at all?
- The presence of vesicular textures are up to 5%, suggesting that the lava erupted subaerially.[1] - Verb tense agreement.
- I don't know what you mean here. Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The dacite volcanics composing Mount Fee contain brown volcanic glass as much as 70% and vesicular textures as much as 15%.[1] - Should probably be reworded to say contain as much as 70% brown volcanic glass etc. or are comprised by 70% brown... What's there probably works, though. (I see it's in the following sections too - your call.)
- At least four seismic events have occurred at Mount Cayley since 1985 and is the only volcano that has recorded seismic activity.[28] - Of the field? Certainly it's not the only volcano that recorded seismic activity ;).
- This suggests that the volcano still contains an active magma system, indicating possible future eruptive activity.[29] - I think it would read better as "indicating the possibility of future eruptive activity"; three adjectives in a row may be to much.
- (human history)The hot springs adjacent to Mount Cayley has made the volcanic field a target for geothermal exploration - Verb tense agreement, "have".
- Image caption in Eruptions - Summit spires of the rotten Vulcan's Thumb. Its craggy structure results from prolonged erosion. Rotten?
NuetralSupportI haven't gotten a good thorough look at it yet, but looks positive, with one major issue (over-referencing). Review following. As I go along I'll copyedit light stuff, grammer, etc. ResMar 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)/// Edit: Good job. ResMar 03:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Collapsed section moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has there been an image review? If not, please arrange for one. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
- I would think the image info Visionholder gave would count as an image review wouldn't it? Apart from that, all images are properly licenced, have sources/references, captions and alts. Volcanoguy 23:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- VH's comments refer to quality, not Wiki image policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I made this change because I don't understand what is meant by the glacier being permeable, but I can't help but think that there must be a better way to write what VolcanoGuy was trying to than my vague replacement. Awickert (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review The photographs in the article all check out. Two of the graphics may be problematic:
File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png is arguably derivative of its source (see page 16), which is under Canadian Crown copyright.File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg may use data that is under Canadian Crown copyright. The information (exactly what was used is not identified in detail) from NRCan needs to be shown to not fall under the site's standard claim, which implies the information presented is under Crown copyright and is not available for commercial use without written permission. (As far as I can tell, all of the other sources used for this image check out.)
- I'd appreciate a second opinion on the above from a more experienced image reviewer. Magic♪piano 03:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two images were created by WP users. File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png was created entirely myself then I used the your given link as a source. Images created entirely by someone are not derivatives. If the images are really that problematic they could just be taken out of the article. Though I believe your statement about Crown copyright is for the use of work created by NRC. Volcanoguy 00:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of who created the files. The question on the first is whether the differences between the image and the source it is based on are sufficient to free it from being a derivative, and hence subject to the copyright of the source. The question on the second revolves around the use of a potentially non-free data set (the data set would be the "work created by NRC") in the creation of the map. My understanding of this second point in particular is imperfect, hence my request for a second opinion. Magic♪piano 03:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to get away with this problem I removed them from the article. Perhaps File:Mount Cayley volcanic field NASA.png is better to use in the article than the other two mentioned. Volcanoguy 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of who created the files. The question on the first is whether the differences between the image and the source it is based on are sufficient to free it from being a derivative, and hence subject to the copyright of the source. The question on the second revolves around the use of a potentially non-free data set (the data set would be the "work created by NRC") in the creation of the map. My understanding of this second point in particular is imperfect, hence my request for a second opinion. Magic♪piano 03:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two images were created by WP users. File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png was created entirely myself then I used the your given link as a source. Images created entirely by someone are not derivatives. If the images are really that problematic they could just be taken out of the article. Though I believe your statement about Crown copyright is for the use of work created by NRC. Volcanoguy 00:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking image issues, as they've been removed. Magic♪piano 22:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked User:Elcobbola to look at these images. In his opinion, File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png is insufficiently different from the source and is thus derivative, while File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg is sufficiently different from the expression of its sources to not be encumbered. File:Mount Cayley volcanic field.png too closely resembles its source in things like line thickness and label positions. Magic♪piano 16:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd appreciate a second opinion on the above from a more experienced image reviewer. Magic♪piano 03:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
