Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Meager/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted by GrahamColm 22:19, 26 February 2012 [1].

Mount Meager edit

Mount Meager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 07:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be ready for FAC now. I have spent months of research on Mount Meager to recreate the article then I did some copyediting for clarification. I am aware there are terms in the article that make it a little technical to read like rock types (e.g. dacite, rhyodacite, andesite, rhyolite, breccia) and other volcanological terminology, but as far as I am aware of they are appropiate for FA volcano articles. Nevertheless, they are supported by helpful links. Volcanoguy 07:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, PD attribution tag present. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Fixed. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether publisher locations are provided for books
Done. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 37: last name?
Fixed. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 20: given that Trafford is a print-on-demand service, what are the qualifications of this author?
Just to get away from this I have replaced the book source with a better one. Volcanoguy 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 22: typo in title
The source that had the typo in title has been replaced with another source. Volcanoguy 04:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to {{cite news}}. Volcanoguy 05:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support: Spot check looks good, but I'll made a full review sometime later. Nice to see you around Tusk ;) ResMar 03:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments by ResMar
General
  • Overreferencing, although I'm a bit more ambivalent about this after working with Piotrus a bit.
It is probably alright. There are no redundant sources or repeated sourcing in the article. Volcanoguy 06:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • This includes mounds of viscous lava, columns of volcanic rock and overlapping piles of lava flows. This seems to take laymen's terms too far; I think people can extrapolate what a lava plug and a lava dome is.
I agree. Volcanoguy 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well change it to the tech terms, then =) ResMar 14:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • creating a geological formation in the Lillooet River valley. What geological formation?
I have removed this from the introduction because I noticed it is not mentioned in the article. It's nothing important anyway. Volcanoguy 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geography and geology
  • The interface between... I don't think interface is the right word.
  • similar to a giant spring Not a fan of the analogy.
These two phrases have already made it through other FA volcano articles. Volcanoguy 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for your spring analogy statement, see WP:IJDLI. The spring analogy is used in the given source, as well as the term interface. From doing a Wikipedia search for subduction interface there are lots of articles that use the term. Although subduction interface is not used in the article that is what is being discussed in the Regional setting section. Volcanoguy 09:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh...fine, I'll let it slide. ResMar 14:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...is a long-lived feature...relatively old... Repetition.
I really don't find that redundant. Long-lived is the same as persistent and relatively old is comparatively old. Volcanoguy 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it a bit to avoid awkwardness. ResMar 14:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comparisons of ages of other volcanoes should be rephrased, I'm not sure what's going on there...
I have added old at the end of the volcano ages to make it more obvious what it is being discussed. Volcanoguy 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mount Meager itself... A Mount Meager that is part of Mount Meager? You should be clearer with the differenciation, in my opinion.
Changed to Mount Meager proper. There is the Mount Meager massif (what the article is about) and a subsidiary peak named Mount Meager. Volcanoguy 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just replaced "complex volcano" with "volcanic massif" in the introduction and "Mount Meager volcanic complex" to "Mount Meager massif" in the infobox caption for more clarification. The Mount Meager subsidiary peak is now completely described as Mount Meager proper to distinguish it from the Mount Meager massif. Also worthy to note the two Meagers are mentioned together in the infobox caption so that should show the difference between the two of them. Volcanoguy 07:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • by forcing moisture-laden air off the ocean... "Forcing" isn't a very descriptive term for what's going on; you should explain the process in more detail.
So what would be a more proper term to discribe this? I am not an expert in how the process takes place. Volcanoguy 06:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this the same thing as above. Volcanoguy 09:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wet air evaporates off the sea, but squeezing over the mountains forces it to lose the precipitation to get over, which comes down as rain. I've fixed it. ResMar 14:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Human history
  • as labelled on the 1923 British Columbia map 2D What is this map, exactly?
No idea. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revised. Volcanoguy 08:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • a letter From who to who?
No idea. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From BC Geographical Names. Volcanoguy 08:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deposit was first hired... Never seen "hired" used this way before :s
Changed to "held". Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • who died in the late 1970s When he died isn't terribly relevant; you'd be better of saying that he worked the area in the early 1970s.
Deleted. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Volcanic history
  • normally layered Normally?
Deleted. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • a massive lava dome or volcanic plug By "or" do you mean that it's both a dome and a plug, or that it's uncertain which it is?
It means an uncertainty. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, fine. ResMar 02:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Threats and preparedness
  • it is, overall, a dangerous volcano I imagine so! Perhaps "makes it a dangerous threat in case of an eruption".
Reworded to "it is a major volcanic hazard". Volcanoguy 09:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lot of repetition of "threatened."
"Threatened" is only mentioned three times in the entire article: twice in the "Threats and preparedness" section and once in the introduction. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that in that specific section it was said two times in as many sentences. ResMar 21:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Twice is not lots. Volcanoguy 08:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But still too much =-) ResMar 02:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the second "threatened" with "is also at risk by the volcano". Volcanoguy 14:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • is geologically an area of intense volcanic activity Perhaps "Canada is nonetheless an area..." would be better
Done. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • relief efforts could be orchestrated... "Could"?
Changed to "relief efforts would probably be orchestrated". Volcanoguy 13:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • as of 2003... Can we have an update.
No updates avaliable. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really none? ResMar 02:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm not surprised though given the lack of monitoring at Canadian volcanoes. Volcanoguy 03:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chalk one up for "boring piles of rock" I suppose. ResMar 05:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massive overcitation in the table; you use citation 16 in all of them, why not just note it once in the table header?
I did not see anything in WP:CS that says you can't use several citations in a table. It just mentions in texts because it can bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. This isn't the case here because the table citations are separately arranged in the edit window text. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about technical yabber-jabber, I'm saying that there's no point in have 20 of the same reference repeated over and over and over again. If you use the same citation again and again, just place it in the references !box, and so leave it. ResMar 21:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but I kept the 2010 landslide source in the table. Volcanoguy 07:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Syn-eruptive?
Means the landslide and eruption occurred at the same time. Volcanoguy 18:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remember it for the future, but perhaps it would be better to change it to something simpler? ResMar 02:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is quite obvious what it means if you read the information before the table. It is mentioned in the "Volcanic history" section that an eruption occurred about 2,400 years ago and the "Syn-" bit is between the eruption precursor landslide (about 2,600 years ago) and the post-eruption landslide (about 2,400 years ago). If it's between a pre-eruption landslide and a post-eruption landslide then everything between those two landslides was during the eruption. Volcanoguy 14:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support comments - on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. reading through - queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a 1,094 km (680 mi) long fault zone running 80 km (50 mi) off the Pacific Northwest from Northern California to southwestern British Columbia. - should that be " Pacific Northwest coast"?
No. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Para 2 of Regional setting - the word "trench" is repeated in 3 successive sentences. Any way this could be reworded to lose one (without sacrificing meaning) would improve prose.
I have changed the second "trench" to "this large depression". Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, earthquakes along the Cascadia subduction zone are fewer than expected --> " However, earthquakes along the Cascadia subduction zone are less common/rarer than expected"? (sounds funny as is)
Done. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though very few eruptions in Canada have been witnessed by people, Canada is nonetheless an area of intense volcanic activity. - 2 canadas in the one sentence. could the second be "the region"?
Changed. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These signs generally occur well in advance of a potential eruption, - how far in advance? weeks/months/years/days......
That depends. According to the Geological Survey of Canada, warnings can be weeks, months or years long, so I have added that to the sentence. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, its' the sort of thing laypeople are keen on knowing....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else people do there? popular summer hiking or winter skiiing?
No. Volcanoguy 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise prose and comprehensiveness look pretty good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
I have always had problems with this. Which captions should not have periods? To me a sentence is a statement with a period, so I have no idea what captions are you referring to. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've got these either changed to sentences with periods, or frags w/o. The Interior (Talk) 01:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hot spring caption needs editing for prose
Revised. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graph is illegible at this size - can it be made larger?
Increased graph size. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Garibaldi_Volcanic_Belt-en.svg: second source link returns 404 error
Fixed. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Eruptive_history_of_the_Mount_Meager_Volcanic_Complex.png: page? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page number added. Volcanoguy 00:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: 1b. Anything useful to add from these sources? Sasata (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Volcanology of the 2350 BP eruption of Mount Meager volcanic complex, British Columbia, Canada: implications for hazards from eruptions in topographically complex terrain
Author(s): Hickson CJ; Russell JK; Stasiuk MV
Source: Bulletin of Volcanology Volume: 60 Issue: 7 Pages: 489-507 DOI: 10.1007/s004450050247 Published: APR 1999
Title: Welded block and ash flow deposits from Mount Meager, British Columbia, Canada
Author(s): Michol K. A.; Russell J. K.; Andrews G. D. M.
Source: Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research Volume: 169 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 121-144 DOI: 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2007.08.010 Published: FEB 10 2008
Title: Impact of a Quaternary volcano on Holocene sedimentation in Lillooet River Valley, British Columbia
Author(s): Friele PA; Clague JJ; Simpson K; et al.
Source: SEDIMENTARY GEOLOGY Volume: 176 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 305-322 DOI: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2005.01.011 Published: MAY 16 2005
Title: Large Holocene landslides from Pylon Peak, southwestern British Columbia
Author(s): Friele PA; Clague JJ
Source: CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCES Volume: 41 Issue: 2 Pages: 165-182 DOI: 10.1139/E03-089 Published: FEB 2004
PS:Volcanoguy, if you can't access them, a few of us have access at different universities and can probably help. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware of, the Volcanology of the 2350 BP eruption of Mount Meager volcanic complex, British Columbia, Canada journal dosen't have lots of important information about the actual event. It's mostly just about the deposition of the eruptive products and stratigraphy. Nevertheless, all of the events the eruption produced (e.g. pyroclastic flows, pyroclastic fall, collapsing of lava flows, outburst flood) is within the article. Same thing for the second source, but it discusses the deposition of block and ash flows that occurred during the same eruption. Nothing really important to note in the Impact of a Quaternary volcano on Holocene sedimentation in Lillooet River Valley, British Columbia journal other than the fact that Meager has been the source several large landslides in the past 10,000 years and are potential hazards to inhabited areas in the Lillooet River valley (which is already discussed in the article). As for the Pylon Peak source, landslides are a major hazard at Meager (and are discussed in the Threats and preparedness section), but the largest events are not unique and don't need a separate section about them. They are, however, in the landslide table. I have seen and read all of these sources before I nominated and rewrote/expanded this article. Volcanoguy 03:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • Lead: "... it could again produce a major eruption; if this were to happen, relief efforts would probably be quickly organized. " - Can be improved ... "probably" just seems out of place. What do the source say? I presume they positively say "Would be quickly " or "could be quickly ..".
Done. Volcanoguy 16:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "The Garibaldi Volcanic Belt has a long history of eruptions and poses a threat to the surrounding region. .." That sentence follows a few sentences on eruptions. It seems like that sentence should start the 2nd paragraph of the lead, leading into more detailed discussion of eruptions.
I switched the second the third paragraphs to make it more obvious. Volcanoguy 17:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo quality: the two photos in the "Historic" section are rather poor quality, especially the bottom one ... it looks like red lava, but the caption indicates it is a landslide. I'd recommend removing that bottom photo ... or, better, going to the source and asking for a better image.
I do not see anything in the FA criteria that mentions all images should be high quality. And lava just dosen't look like that. In my view it is brown. Have you ever thought the rock might be that colour? Volcanoguy 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also: Should be alphabetized
Done. Volcanoguy 16:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also: Some editors believe that a FA quality article should have no articles listed in See Also, because the ideal article would include, somewhere in its body, a mention of (and link to) any article that would/could be in the See Also section. Personally, I'm not one of those editors; but, maybe you could ask yourself if any of those six links could be sensibly fit into the article body somehow.
  • External links: should be alphabetized.
Done. Volcanoguy 16:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table column headings: "Age": reader should not have to jump down to footnote to understand the column. Recommend change "Age" to "Years before present" (top table); and "Year" (bottom table).
Done. Volcanoguy 17:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Mount Meager is a potentially active volcano, ...". Is there a better, official word for "potentially active"? Volcanos are either dormant or ....? What? Just because it is not erupting today, there must be some term that means something other than dormant, true?
It is mentioned in the article that the regional hot springs are most likely related to volcanic activity. If so, it is not not a true dormant volcano and thats why it is probably more appropiate to use potentally active. Furthermore, terms like dormant and extinct are pretty vague in science and are not normally used by scientists. Volcanoguy 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no section on "Recreation" or "Climbing". Is there boating/fishing/camping on the mountain? How about hiking or backpacking trails? Certainly the mountain climbers have routes. E.g. when was the first ascent? What is most popular route? What is the route graded? Etc.
I couldn't find anything for most of those things. Why would this article have information about boating and fishing? It has no lakes. Bivouac.com has information about ascent of Meager but as far as I am aware of bivouac is not considered a reliable source. Volcanoguy 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)—[reply]
  • Surveying history: If possible, add info about surveying history. When was it first surveyed? By which party? Original height estimate (vs modern)? Ah, that is covered okay in the "Naming" section ... I overlooked that in my first read. --Noleander (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Climate and vegetation" section: broaden title to include wildlife. Maybe "Natural history"? Or similar.
Changed to "Regional geography". Volcanoguy 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you add any more details about fauna? The article seems heavily tilted towards geology, giving short shrift to recreation, flowers, animals. I'm not suggesting each be equally represented, but there is only one sentence on animals.
There is not lots of information available for fauna and flora. Volcanoguy 16:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better photo: Just a thought: it looks like a gorgeous mountain ... but the photos are not doing it justice. Even the InfoBox photo is dark and shady; and the other pics have white snow fields against a white sky. Can you put out a request to Canadian mountaineering groups soliciting a photo someone would be willing to donate to WM commons? Not a show stopper for FA, but the article is poorly served by its photos.
Changed image in infobox. What is wrong with having a cloudy sky with a glaciated mountain? Can still tell the difference between the two things. Furthermore, clouds are common in mountainous regions. Volcanoguy 16:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End Noleander comments --Noleander (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come now people, this is starting to look like one of my FACs! ResMar 15:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment - Sadly, after one month and 16 days, there is still no clear consensus to promote this article—despite the two encouraging supports from respected reviewers—so I have decided to archive this nomination. Please do not give up on this, and to quote one of the reviewers "come now people". Graham Colm (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mount_Meager/archive1&oldid=1086353320"