Talk:Blue Lake Crater

Elevation

"According to the Geographic Names Information System it has an elevation of 3,461 feet (1,055 m), while the Global Volcanism Program and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) list its elevation as 4,035 feet (1,230 m)." It appears the elevation of Blue Lake itself is 3,461 feet (1,055 m) while the crater has an elevation of 4,035 feet (1,230 m). The change in elevation is due to the fact that the crater has a rim that rises over the lake. Volcanoguy 21:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed —hike395 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Volcanoguy, for that catch (I should have realized that), and thanks hike395 for fixing it. ceranthor 13:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blue Lake Crater/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 18:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status using the template below. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In lead: Remove comma between "three" and "overlapping" for readability Last sentence of first paragraph should be split in two, probably around '2009' Is there a link available for 'spatter cones'? 'Esoteric' is odd word choice here - maybe 'little-known' or 'little-used'? In 'Human history and recreation', typo - 'widlife' should be 'wildlife' Generally good prose, no major issues Fixed issues myself (WP:BOLD) - should be all set now. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass - no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass. No issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass. No issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass - no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass - no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass. Covers all important aspects of topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. Well-written.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass - no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass - no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass. No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass. No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.

Fixed the minor existing issues myself (WP:BOLD) and passed. Good article, nomination was smooth. Congrats to ceranthor and others who worked on this article! Ganesha811 (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Kulongoski

Is there a reason then-Gov. Ted Kulongoski is mentioned so prominently? If he ''signed'' the bill, that means the bill was passed first, which doesn't make him seem like the central player. I mean, maybe he was, but nothing in the article suggests he was. Still, he's mentioned twice, and (until I removed it) his portrait was included in the article. Seems odd, but it's not a bit of history I know well. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)