Talk:Mount Cayley massif

Active discussions
Mount Cayley massif has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
August 30, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 21, 2018Good article nomineeListed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 12, 2018.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Mount Cayley massif (pictured) in British Columbia has been investigated as a potential geothermal energy resource?
Current status: Good article

Age of last eruptionEdit

Does anybody know the correct age of Mount Cayley's last eruption? near the bottom of this page they say Mount Cayley last erupted about 5000 years ago [1] and here they say it's 310,000 years ago [2]. Black Tusk 03:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The first recorded ascent?Edit

I just want to point out that oral history does count as a method of record keeping for history. Skwxwu7mesh have been in and up around that mountain for thousands of years. OldManRivers (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The First ascent, as linked in the infobox, is defined as "modern" though. --Qyd (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
And Europeans "discovered" America. What about changing it to, The first recorded European ascent or The first recored non-indigenous ascent. I didn't know it was a "climbing" term which I imagine most don't know that either. OldManRivers (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "first recorded" means exactly that, including oral history. Other than the Thunderbird, are there any name-specific or even "some guy specific" oral histories about an scent of this peak? Claiming that people had been up and around there isn't the same thing as climbing the peak; no doubt there are peaks/summits which have FN stories that can be cited as first ascents; I'd say Nes'kato, the peak in In-SHUCK-ch where Ntanenkin's canoe beached after the Great Flood qualifies, although that's the notch below the peaks, not hte peaks. Orally recorded history is fine if it's there, but it can't be assumed to exist in a vague way; teh statement is "first recorded", simply. If there is a Skxwxu7mesh record, please cite it.Skookum1 (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I agree, and good idea. I guess archaeological records would also be good. I'll see what I can find. OldManRivers (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't there a canoe/flood myth/oral history to do with Mount Garibaldi? Mind you, again, that doesn't mean anyone set foot on the peak. I know there's a peak or two up around the Ring Glacier/Compton Neve (head of Lillooet River) that was named in St'at'imc by a youths' climbing group/program from Mt Currie; can't remember the name right now; they were the first recorded ascent of it and so named it, I do know that, in the modern era.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's true about my people surviving the flood by latching onto Mount Garibaldi. OldManRivers (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the Cayley and Garibaldi articles are in need for much more expansion. How about more on history, climbing, first discovery, etc? The Mount Garibaldi and Mount Cayley articles could easily be built into a B, GA and eventually an FA. Thanks. Black Tusk 06:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
As with any article, many many many deserving expansion. Mountaineering history's neither my thing nor OMR's (we know each other through aboriginal articles); suggest you go to WikiProject Mountains (look on Cayley's or Garibaldi's talkpages for a link/box) for help.Skookum1 (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Just an idea, because if you look at other Cascade volcano articles (e.x. Mount Shasta, Mount Hood, Mount St. Helens) you will see that lots of Wikipedia users have expanded them, but not the Canadian Cascade volcanoes. Why is this? I have no idea. I have put lots of effort into the Canadian Cascade volcanoes since I first joined Wikipedia. Based on article history, it appears I'm mostly the one who expands them. Are these unknown volcanoes of the Cascade Volcanic Arc, or are they just useless and pointless? If that's what most people think, it's not actually true, as they are closely related. Black Tusk 02:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Look, it's a given that American wiki editors focus their energy on American articles; Americans, for all Canadian mythology likes to make dumb of them, do make a much more concerted effort on the national iconography/landscape, including hte passion of the Cascade Volcano pages and, if you look around, a lot of pages to do with Oregon and California hsitory and geography. For one thing, there just aren't as many Canadians and, within Canadians, enough British Columbians, who are interested; some areas within BC are very well-covered, Vancouver-related articles particularly; but some are very "blank" and surprisingly so given the richness of some regions' and towns' histories (e.g. the Slocan); same with mountains, mountain ranges, parks, and more; if you go to the BC project page and shop around the various members and look at their talkpages you'll get an idea how busy everybody already is with their own interests, and how much t ime already put in; a BIG reason I took a wikibreak, and am hesitant to get involved fulltime again, is the amount of work out there to be done; what I'm basically saying/asking is that complaining nobody's helped won't get you any help. I suggest you bring the Cayley or Garibaldi pages up for recommended feature article nomination at the BC Project page, and also on the Mountains project page; input from both groups would help; I'm not the one to do it, nor is OMR, although in his case there's Skwxwu7mesh content to be added and sensitivities to be observed.Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, it's just something I have noticed for quite a while. I know lots of people might think Canadian volcanoes are no threat because of how quiet they are, but if you have lots of knowledge about them, you will understand how much of a treat they can be. For example, Mount Meager is responceable for Canada's most recent major explosive eruption 2350 years ago, sending ash as far as Alberta. The Tseax River Cone at the Tseax River is responsible for killing 2000 Nisga'a people and destroying two villages during the 18th century. None of these arn't old in geological terms. Black Tusk 23:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Landing Place of the ThunderbirdEdit

Can someone find a reference for this? I did a google search and can't seem to find anything about it. Also, where does the name "Black Tusk" come from for Mount Cayley? What's its naming history? Black Tusk 22:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's from OldManRivers' Skwxwu7mesh resources; maybe there's a specific publication he can cite. Important to note he's not saying this is the Black Tusk, but what Cayley was called in the Skwxwu7mesh language translates that way; whether there's a connection to the name of today's Black Tusk I wouldn't know. I do know that something up in the Cayley-Powder area is called the Red Tusk around Whistler....Skookum1 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I found a reference for the Thunderbird here, but there's nothing about when Cayley was called Black Tusk. Could Red Tusk be Mount Fee? Black Tusk 22:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I have sources. I'll see if I can find any others. Let me be as clear as possible: Black Tusk and Mount Cayley are both called t'ak't'ak mu'yin tl'a in7in'a'xe7en. t'ak't'ak mu'yin tl'a in7in'a'xe7en translates into "Landing Place of the Thunderbird". To English speakers, the mountains are called Mount Cayley and Black Tusk. I had a list names for other mountains in the area also. OldManRivers (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The reference I found above says Cayley and Black Tusk are landing places of the Thunderbird. What I'm confused about is the name Black Tusk. On 4 February 2008 you added: Black Tusk Mountain, or t'ak't'ak mu'yin tl'a in7in'a'xe7en is a mountain considered "very sacred" by the local Indigenous Sḵwxwú7mesh. It is known to them as the "Landing Place of the Thunderbird", home of the legendary Thunderbird. to the Cayley article. Is Cayley called Black Tusk as well? Or is it just a mistake? If it has the same name as Black Tusk it should be reworded to make it sound less confusing. Black Tusk 17:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Mistake. I wanted to copy the t'ak't'ak mu'yin tl'a in7in'a'xe7en part of the other article but added too much. I think this is where the confusion came from. Sorry about that. OldManRivers (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Disaster management template inclusionEdit

I've added this particular page to the Disaster management WikiProject because the volcano has an eruption scenario and has the potential to effect southern British Columbia and Alberta. There have been shallow earthquakes near Mount Cayley since 1985, and seismic studies revealed a strong mid-crustal reflector beaneath it consistent with a large, solidifed, mafic, sill-like intrusion. The eruptive scenario used is approximately equivalent, in terms of magnitude and sequence of events, to its neighbour Mount Meager 2350 years ago. Black Tusk 21:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For an FA...Edit

This article is of good quality, but could use some touching up:

  • References
  • Images
  • Expanded information

I am going to promote this article to B-class, but it still needs some work before GAC. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

GA ReviewEdit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mount Cayley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This looks like a great article. I am noticing one main problem, however. Per WP:CITE, books should have page numbers. The fact that the Etkin book is referenced 38 times reinforces this fact. The book should really be separated out and Author, page # citations should be provided instead. I will look over the rest of the article soon, but just wanted to mention this so that the editors could take care of this problem. Best, epicAdam (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), traveled (A) (British: travelled), program (A) (British: programme).
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “it is thought”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. Go through and make sure that these are replaces with actually facts and statistics.
  • Do not hard size the pictures in the article. Instead, just leave them as general thumbs; this way, readers can set the size of the photographs in their user preferences, and not have them predetermined.
  • Be careful when whipping out very specific terms like these that are meaningless to 99.9% of readers. Instead of "erupting plagioclase-hypersthene-hornblende-phyric dacite flows, tephra, and pyroclastic breccia," It would be better to say "erupting rocks and ash such as, ..." so that users aren't left wondering what all those terms mean. It would be helpful to go back through and either reduce or explain the scientific jargon.


  • Try to avoid citations in the lead per WP:LEAD. Any information presented there should also be presented, with a citation in the main article text.


  • "Many residents of Whistler and other nearby communities are therefore not aware that there is a volcano closer to the communities than the more well-known Mount Baker in Washington State." Unless there was a poll or study that tells us this, it is very much speculation.
  • "Like all of the Cascade volcanoes," The Cascade isn't mentioned before this, except in the infobox
  • "such as the Silverthrone Caldera, which is a circular 20 km (12 mi) wide," what is "a circular"?
  • "most long-lived volcanic complex" awkward. how about oldest?
  • "Mount Cayley was born in" too poetic for an encyclopedia. Just say "developed" or "formed"
  • Why are "Growth" and "Origin" two separate subheadings??

Area around Cayley

  • This section diverges too far off topic. This is information that should be present in the article about the range itself, not this particular volcano.

Volcanic hazards

  • I believe this section violates WP:CRYSTAL. The information that could be present here is A) when the next eruption could occur, B) how likely it is for an eruption to occur, and C) how far of an area could be affected. Anything more than that, about what roads would be hit, if the volcano would swell and burst, landslides possibly damming the river, etc. is all largely speculative and not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Needs and gaps

  • This section reads like policy paper. Wikipedia is about providing facts, not recommendations such as "These do not exist for volcanoes in British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada in the detail required." From what I can tell, this information is all the opinion of authors from a single book, and that has to be stated as such.

Etkin book

  • I am dubious as to the claims supposedly sourced to the Etkin book. First, for the number of claims sourced to this book, the page numbers should be more specific, (i.e. cite the page numbers directly, not a range). Further, 14 pages seems rather short for the amount of data cited. I would highly recommend that the editors go back through the source and find the appropriate page numbers for each citation provided. Also, I would make sure that the appropriate edition/revision is cited of the book because the ISBN provided in the reference appears to have only [ 392 pages].

The article is generally written in a style better suited for an academic paper than an encyclopedia. Remember who the audience is for a Wikipedia entry: lay users who are often unfamiliar with the topic. The Wikipedia article should therefore avoid scientific jargon wherever possible, or at the very least explain it in a way that is easily understood by readers. I would recommend a peer review first to try make the article more accessible to readers, and second to condense redundant text. The article will fail for now. Best, epicAdam (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Epicadam, I am a general reader. When I saw your Fail classification, I took a look at the article just in order to see what a reviewer required. I think your review is very good. However, I believe it is too harsh, and I would prefer to see a Hold rather, thus giving the editors some time to make corrections for your suggestions. Hag2 (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Reopened, placed on hold. -epicAdam (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I find it seems fine. I agree some of the wording is awkward etc but some of the other topics are related to the volcano (i.e. Area around Cayley). I find explaining the area is a good thing because the volcanic field is called the Mount Cayley volcanic field and all of the other volcanic formations are related to the mountain. This mountain is not just a standard mountain, it contains several peaks and ridges. As for the volcanic hazards and needs and gaps sections they are indeed a fact. No volcanoes in Canada are studied or monitored like other countries with active volcanoes because they are mostly in remote locations. Black Tusk (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Right. So the facts are that the mountains in Canada are not monitored like other active volcanoes elsewhere in the world. However, everything about what a supposed eruption would do and what would happen afterward is the view of the authors of a single book, but it is presented as a universal truth despite the fact that the event hasn't happened. An encyclopedia cannot provide readers with future information on what might happen unless that material is correctly labeled as conjecture by a certain group of people, namely the authors of that book.
As for the area around Cayley, it's peaks and ridges can certainly be discussed but the article makes it sound as if those other mountains in the range are simply other mountains. For example, in the Rocky Mountains, each mount or peak has its own article. This article is about Mount Cayley, not the "Mount Cayley volcanic field"; if you would like to make that into a separate article, then you are certainly welcome to do so. -epicAdam (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not the authors suggestion. If you look through the book you will see it's material from scientists that have done work in these areas (e.g. Souther, Sparks, Stasiuk, Stewart). The eruption scenario etc was made by those scientists, not the author. I also know about this because I have access to some of those scientists that studied these areas and they based the scenario on past volcanic activity in the area (i.e. Garibaldi Volcanic Belt). If it's peaks and ridges makes it sound like they are separate mountains then I guess it can be reworded to make it sound less confusing. This article is about a mountain massif. The term Mount Cayley volcanic field is a volcanological term for the same thing. See here which is further proof; Catherine Hickson is the volcanologist I have access to which she is mentioned on that page as one of the authors. Black Tusk (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. How about we put these particular issues on the back burner until the other issues with the actual prose and sourcing are worked out? I think I'll be able to get a better idea of what really should be included on this page after the rest is reworked. Best, epicAdam (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully no one minds, but I have used a strike-though of the above text to indicate what I have fixed. I decreased the photo sizes but I left the map size because it would be too small to see whatever the map says. I kept and retitled the growth section because its eruptive history is not necessarily part of its origins, given the fact the volcano already existed during its first phase of activity. Black Tusk (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How is the infomation in the lead supposed to be presented in the article? There's not a lot of history about this mountain other than what is presented. Black Tusk (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

An toponymy section would probably take care of most of that. -epicAdam (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The history was originally a separate section but I merged it because I found the introduction was too small. BTW do any of the general issues above seem better? Black Tusk (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
There's only four pages being used in the Etkin book: 569, 579, 582, 583. The reason why there's lots of citations to the book is because almost every sentence is sourced in the article. Black Tusk (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
As for the Needs and gaps and Volcanic hazards sections I still don't see a problem with them. It's good to have this infomation about the volcano because there's several problems with Canadian volcano research and monitoring. Articles should publish the opinions of reliable authors and many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers, which is what the Etkin book infomation is from since the book mentions scientists. It also appears to be a referenced book. See WP:RS. Black Tusk (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Remaining issues:

  • Pictures: All the pictures should have their hard-sizing removed, even the map. Whether or not it is too difficult to see as a thumbnail on your computer is irrelevant. Each user has different settings and resolutions that are overridden if the images are hard-sized.
  • Vagueness: There are still vague terms that are used instead of actual facts. When terms such as "most", "some", "several", "few", are used, they make it sound like the author isn't really sure or is just making information up.
    • "are considered by some geologists to be the northernmost member of the arc" who? which ones?
    • "these observations are further indications that some of Canada's volcanoes are potentially active" and "some of Canada's most youthful volcanoes" Like which ones? or how many? What percentage?
    • "forming the largest of a number of small pinnacles" Again, about how many?
    • "The majority of information has been collected" How is it possible to know if there's a majority of information?
    • "the Vancouver section of the Alpine Club for several years." Any approximation?
    • "Several volcanoes in the arc are potentially active." Number?
    • "It contains several spines reaching heights of 100 m (328 ft) to 150 m (492 ft)"
    • "each individual volcano erupts for a few million years"
    • "A few isolated volcanic centers northwest of Mount Meager"
    • "Many towns and cities near Mount Cayley"
    • "Unlike many of the other volcanoes further south,"
    • Every instance of "small" and "large", which is completely relative. Saying that an eruption would be "large" means nothing to casual readers.
  • The article is still written with too much technical detail for the average reader. A number of "readability" tools that measure the average education level necessary to understand the text indicate that this article is written at a collegiate to post-graduate level; Wikipedia aims for articles written so that the average person with a high school education can understand them. That isn't to say they should read as if they were written 'by' kids in high school, however.
  • As for the Volcanic Hazards and Needs and gaps sections, I would want another editor to take a look at those to see if they're appropriate for this article. Really, this has nothing to do with the validity, verifiability, or reliability of the sources or their authors, but rather the appropriateness of including much of this information in this article. To me, the lack of monitoring by the Canadian government is not specific to Mount Cayley, and I therefore question whether or not it should be included here or just be a separate section about the Geological Survey of Canada. I'd like to get another editor's opinion on this. However, there are still plenty of other things to work on in the meantime. Best, epicAdam (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The vague terms are partly because there's still not much known about Canadian volcanoes, especially if volcano monitoring and research is limited. In addition, not much is known about the frequency of eruptions to predict which volcanoes are most likely to erupt next, and what their likely impact will be. If the text is still written with too much techical detail then that reader should click on the link to see what it means; that's one of the reasons why articles have links. Black Tusk (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If information is unknown, then the article should say that the information is not known, or not mentioned at all, not presented in vague terms.
  • Telling users to just "click on the link" is the absolute wrong approach. Wikilinks exist to provide users with more information about a subject, not as a dictionary (see WP:What Wikipedia is Not). Articles should be written in a way to make them the most accessible to readers (see Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible and WP:Explain jargon), not what is most convenient for editors and experts; in fact, it is a Good Article and WP:Manual of Style requirement to do so. No article will pass GA without meeting those criteria. Best, epicAdam (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't say the infomation is unknown. What I was trying to get to is the subjects knowledge is fairly poor, and not particually "unknown". Saying something like "a few", "many" etc is better than making up an excuse saying, for example, "there's 100 potentially active volcanoes in Canada". Most of the vague terms are used in sources so I don't know how many potentially active volcanoes there are in Canada or how many spines/pinnacles.
  • As for the "click on the link" thing, I didn't mean it as "you should click the link to see what it means" like what you would do with a dictionary. What I ment was to provide users with more infomation about the subject (like you said). I mean, wouldn't explaning the jargon make the article misleading since the subject is about Cayley and not about the rock or mineral? Black Tusk (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Some of those examples above are just that, examples. The key here is to avoid the use of vague terminology as much as possible. Of course, sometimes we will never be able to give definitive statements, like the case of the number of active volcanoes.You can, however, indicate that the number is unknown or provide a generalized statement such "these observations indicate that volcanoes in the Cascade Volcanic Arc are potentially active". I do note, however, that the article Cascade Volcanoes manages to provide at least approximate dates and figures where the exact number is unknown. In certain cases, however, it may be best to say nothing at all. If the information isn't provided in the materials sourced in the article, then it may be necessary to find additional materials. If the information really is unknown, this may be just as important for readers to know that than be left guessing.
  • Typically you can get away with simply introducing terms once so that they can be referred to later in the article. Simple appositives, such as this one, typically do not divert too much from the main topic. If possible, it would be best to simply limit the amount of technical jargon. There are areas where I think it can be a little excessive and seems to be more technical than Silverthrone Caldera, but maybe that's just me. We'll see what a second reviewer has to say. Best, epicAdam (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Second opinionEdit

I agree with much of what Epicadam says, in particular the point about the scientific language used without explanation. For instance, "two small satellitic plagioclase-hypersthene-biotite-phyric dacite lava domes" is just gobbledy-gook. The language needs to be accessible to a general reader. I have a few other points as well:

  • I do not agree with Epicadam's comment that image sizes can't be fixed. What the MoS says is that they shouldn't be fixed at less than the maximum a user can set via their preferences, 300px.
  • I do not agree that vague terms like "many" are always inappropriate and need to be quantified.
  • I see many elementary errors of grammar and poorly written text. Here are some examples:
  • "Many towns and cities near Mount Cayley are home to well over half of British Columbia's human population ...". So each of these towns and cities is home to well over half of British Columbia's population?
  • "The first recorded ascent of Mount Cayley were made ..."
  • "There are significant hazards from Canadian volcanoes that require hazard maps and emergency plains." What's an emergency plain?
  • "The continued presence of unimaginably hot magma near the surface ...". Trust me, I've got a very good imagination; so why not tell me how hot? Or just leave out the hyperbole?

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would limmit the vague and technical terminology, but how are you supposed to explain, for example, "two small satellitic plagioclase-biotite-phyric lava domes" without it being technical? Most of those terms are mineral names and are probably not replaceable. I know the terms can be discussed in the article but where would it be discussed? Black Tusk (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Since I am unsure how exactly what that phrase means, I can't suggest a useful rewrite. However, I'm sure these issues have come up before. It may be helpful to request assistance at WP:WikiProject Volcanoes, as I am sure they have found ways in previous articles to make them more accessible to readers. However, as this nomination has been on hold for over a week, and given the additional comments from Malleus Fatuorum, I think it is clear that the article still needs a bit of work before it can be promoted. Therefore the article will fail for now, but please renominate when you have found a way to make it less technical and make necessary revisions to the prose. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


Why is this article called "Mount Cayley massif" if "Mount Cayley" redirects to it? I can understand wanting a disambiguation if there were two different articles. However, the article titling guideline states that "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". With only a single article, "Mount Cayley" would seem to be precise enough.

There are already a number of articles about ridges and massif named "Mount XXX". See, e.g., Backbone Mountain in Maryland, United States. If we're going to start to use "massif" or "ridge" disambiguators (against the titling guideline), I think we should at least have a discussion at WT:WikiProject Mountains. —hike395 (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

GA ReviewEdit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mount Cayley massif/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ceranthor (talk · contribs) 18:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This has been sitting at GAN for a bit. I contributed a bit to copyediting, but not to the article as a whole, so I'm going to be bold and take this on for review. ceranthor 18:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hoping to post a review here ASAP. ceranthor 23:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "All major summits have elevations greater than 2,000 m (6,600 ft), Mount Cayley being the highest at 2,385 m (7,825 ft) in elevation. " - might not need to repeat elevation twice in this sentence. I think it's implied at the end (can cut "in elevation" at end)
Agreed. Volcanoguy 17:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "The surrounding area has been inhabited by indigenous peoples for more than 7,000 years while geothermal exploration has taken place there for the last four decades." - I get the idea, but this sentence is set up like a comparison, and it's really apple and oranges. Maybe split into two sentences at the "while geothermal" point?
How about "The surrounding area has been inhabited by indigenous peoples for more than 7,000 years, with geothermal exploration having taken place there in the last four decades"? Volcanoguy 00:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Part of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, it was formed by subduction zone volcanism " - the massif is "it"? or just Cayley? be more specific
That is clearly referring to the massif. Volcanoguy 19:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • " 4,000,000 years ago" - easier for reader as 4 million? I know we've discussed this before, so not necessary, just my recommendation
The only problem is then you are not being consistent with rest of the text; e.g. 200,000 vs. 4 million. Volcanoguy 04:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "with lesser activity continuing into the present day." - lesser how? I think less frequent, which I would use instead of "lesser"
Seismic and hot spring activity are inferior to eruptive activity. Volcanoguy 19:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • " Future eruptions are likely to threaten neighbouring communities" - comes abruptly. maybe a brief transition about "if the volcano resumed activity" or something along those lines
What if I split the second paragraph from "Future eruptions are likely to threaten neighbouring communities" to create a third one? Volcanoguy 20:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Geography and geology
  • "It consists dominantly of volcanoes " - do you mean "predominantly"?
Fixed. Volcanoguy 17:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "that formed subglacially" - a link for subglacial volcanoes might be helpful for the lay reader
Done. Volcanoguy 17:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
The Late Pleistocene is an age, not an epoch. Volcanoguy 23:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • link Holocene at first mention
Done. Volcanoguy 23:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • link Garibaldi Volcanic Belt at first mention
Done. Volcanoguy 21:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Wizard Peak with an elevation of 2,240 m (7,350 ft) is east of Pyroclastic Peak and is the lowest of the three main summits.[5]" - bit clunky; rephrase maybe?
  • " draping relief of 2,070 m (6,790 ft)," - explain what draping relief is; in the past I've just used Hildreth's in-text explanation (see Three Fingered Jack)
Done. Volcanoguy 00:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Few times it looks like you have references out of numerical order, ie. [2][1] or [5][4]. Minor issue but something that should be fixed
Fixed. Volcanoguy 00:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Volcanic history
  • "4,000,000 years," - same note as lead; optional
See above. Volcanoguy 04:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • " 4,000,000 and 600,000 years ago" - see above
See above. Volcanoguy 04:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "during which time prolonged erosion destroyed much of the original volcanic structure" - cut out "time" and this should be fine
Done. Volcanoguy 19:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "This was followed by the third and final Shovelnose stage " - awkward introduction for the third stage's name; suggest rephrasing to be a little easier for the reader to understand
Awkward? Volcanoguy 19:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "about 300,000 to 200,000 years ago" - given the 100,000 year gap, maybe it would be better to drop "about" and say "between 3000,000 and 200,000..."
  • Same note about refs out of order, ie. [5][4]
Fixed. Volcanoguy 19:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • " produced volcanic rocks of felsic and intermediate composition" - might wanna briefly elaborate what the difference between felsic and intermediate is
  • "4,000,000 years ago" - same note as above; just noting the instances
See above. Volcanoguy 04:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "separation of the offshore Explorer and Juan de Fuca plates along the Nootka Fault, " - an indication of the general location of these faults beyond just "offshore" might be useful? just a thought, not totally necessary
Done. Volcanoguy 04:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Subsequent activity deposited a series of massive dacite flows up to 150 m (490 ft) thick and form the summit and northern slope of Wizard Peak." - grammatically this sentence doesn't agree
How so? Volcanoguy 19:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Temperatures ranging from 18 to 40 °C (64 to 104 °F) have been measured from the hot springs.[5]" - comes kind of abruptly, could be integrated better into the paragraph
How so? Volcanoguy 19:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Landslide history
  • " A 0.5 to 40 cm (0.20 to 15.75 in) thick sequence of silts, sands and pebbles interbedded in the debris fan suggests that it may be the product of two major, closely spaced, debris avalanches" - what does "it" refer to here? unclear
The debris fan. Volcanoguy 20:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Another large debris avalanche about 1,100 years ago deposited material immediately upstream of the month of Turbid Creek." - suspect this is a typo; "mouth"?
Fixed. Volcanoguy 20:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "diamicton units along Turbid Creek" - definitely link diamicton for lay readers, and perhaps mention what it is briefly
Linked. Volcanoguy 19:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Human history
  • worth noting that First Nations are an indigenous group
For what? It clearly states in the First Nations article that they are a "designated group". Volcanoguy 21:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Mount Cayley massif, along with The Black Tusk, are considered sacred" - awkward phrasing... maybe replace "along with" with "and The Black Tusk"
Done. Volcanoguy 22:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "51 and 65 megakelvin per metre; 45 to 95 megakelvin per metre." - are there any conversions for these? I genuinely don't know
Not that I know of. Volcanoguy 23:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "100 megawatt geothermal power station" - same as directly above
See above. Volcanoguy 20:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "An eruption scenario for the volcano was organized by GSC scientists in 2000 to show how Western Canada is vulnerable to such an event. They based the scenario on past activity in the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt and involved both explosive and effusive activity. The scenario was published in 2003 as an article for Natural Hazards, a Springer journal devoting on all aspects of natural hazards including risk management and the forecasting of catastrophic events.[17]" - is this meant to be in the section underneath?
Not really. Volcanoguy 20:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ceranthor: I know it doesn't matter much now but I have decided to move this to the volcanic hazards section and the bright spot bit to the geography and geology section. Volcanoguy 22:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Volcanic hazards
  • "In the event of a major explosive eruption, an ash plume could reach 20 km (12 mi) in height and may be maintained for 12 hours" - "may be maintained" is awkward; rephrase
Well that is what the source uses so I don't know of a better way to word it. Volcanoguy 19:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "the eruption plume would then spread to envelope most of the west coast from Seattle to Anchorage" - typo? do you mean "envelop"?
Fixed. Volcanoguy 21:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "enclosed airports to be closed and all relevant flights to be diverted or cancelled." - not sure about "enclosed" or "relevant flights" as the correct wording here
See above. Volcanoguy 19:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Reimer/Yumks, Rudy. "Squamish Nation Cognitive Landscapes". McMaster University: 8, 9." - seems like this is missing info
Added missing year. Volcanoguy 19:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Kimball, Sarah (2010). Favourability Map of British Columbia Geothermal Resources (MAS). University of British Columbia. pp. 21, 22, 24, 131." - is there a link?
No there isn't. Volcanoguy 19:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Earwig's tool checks out.
  • all properly sourced and appear to be available for use.

As expected, excellent work. Just some nitpicky comments for the most part. This is in very good shape. ceranthor 16:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Note to @Volcanoguy: Give me a ping when you finish addressing my comments/replying to them. ceranthor 17:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Volcanoguy: Are you finished with my comments? ceranthor 12:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ceranthor: Finished. Volcanoguy 20:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Great. Passing! ceranthor 00:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Return to "Mount Cayley massif" page.