Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mono-Inyo Craters/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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 20 February 2010 [1].

Mono-Inyo Craters

edit
Nominator(s): mav
Toolbox

Hike395 and I have been editing this article off and on ever since I created it in 2003. Over the last few months, I purchased/found many good sources on the topic and have used them to massively expand the article. Much fine tuning by myself and Hike395 has occurred since then (including a Peer Review). I now think that the article is up to current FA criteria. If not, then what else needs to be done? --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I read about half the article and glanced through the rest, and I'm impressed by the detail, comprehensiveness, and accessibility. I don't know a lot about geology, but I found this article easy to read, interesting, and concise. Nice work. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—The article is in fine shape with only a few trivial nits, listed below.
    • "Inyo Craters form much of the southern part of that line and are either phreatic explosion pits or rhyolitic lava flows and domes." It's a nit, but is 'line' here intended as a synonym for 'chain'? Is the 'either' meant to indicate uncertainty or a mixture?
    • Please create stub articles for the red links.
    • "Mule Deer, Coyote, Black Bear, Yellow-bellied Marmot, Raccoon and Mountain Lions all have ranges that are coincident with forests that cover parts of the Mono-Inyo craters." I believe that the common names of animals are not normally capitalized.
    • "...to a depth of 8 inches (20 cm) 20 miles (32 km) downwind to 2 inches (5.1 cm) 50 miles (80 km) downwind." Was one of the 'downwind' supposed to be 'upwind'?
    Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - All fixed except for the red-link stubs. I'll work on that this weekend. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 02:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please clarify the 'either' in the first bullet. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, missed that. Now reads " Inyo Craters form much of the southern part of the chain and consist of phreatic explosion pits, rhyolitic lava flows and domes" --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text is quite good (thanks), except that the alt text for File:Mono-InyoEruptionsLast5000years.gif doesn't convey the essence of that map and diagram to the visually impaired reader. There's no need to give all the details but the overall gist should be given (as it is for the other map). Please see WP:ALT#Maps for suggestions. Eubulides (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Alt text expanded to give a better impression of the image. Hopefully not too wordy now. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's good now. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The precision to which the various conversions are carried needs tweaking. However, there is a problem to be overcome first. There are several in which conversions have been done by someone, either by Wikipedia editors or their sources, before the Template:Convert is used to "unconvert" them back to the original numbers (or at least to get back in the ballpark of what the original numbers were). In these cases, it is the number which is the input into the black box which has improper precision. But it is hard to tell for sure when this is the case. Can anyone help identify those cases? I'd sure like to see all the conversions going from the original measurements to other units, but at the very least, the conversions which are not made inside the article but rather outside it need to be reviewed. For example, "covered {{convert|38|sqmi|km2}}" which gives "covered 38 square miles (98 km2)" should likely be "covered {{convert|100|km2|mi2|-1|sp=us}}" or "covered 100 square kilometers (40 sq mi)". Or, at the very least, fix the input and output of the black box so that you have "covered {{convert|40|sqmi|km2|-1|sp=us}}" (covered 40 square miles (100 km2)); the area it covered nearly a millennium ago cannot be known any more precisely than that, and the 100 km² might indicate an even rougher measurement than what is apparent for 40 mi². Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I fixed your examples and many like it. The books that I consulted used U.S. units but the USGS sources used metric. Per MOS, I had to choose a standard for the article and chose U.S. units as the primary. There are HTML comments in the wikitext that state the exact values and units used in the cited references. I created a feature request for the convert template whereby the cited value could be used in the template but the order reversed when parsed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't have to "choose a standard for the article"; that isn't what the MoS says. It might come close to suggesting that at times, but never as a hard and fast rule, and then it gives many examples where it doesn't apply. And this article shows one big reason why it shouldn't be that way. It's hard enough to figure out the optimal precision when the originals are given first, and it is even harder when they aren't. Sure, if you have two similar measurements of the same quantity nearby, it's probably a good idea--maybe one standard for the elevations in the article, as in the example given in the MoS. But not one standard for every measurement of different quantities. It really depends on the individual measurements. I hadn't noticed any comments in the text, probably would have seen some of them if I'd tried to edit them first. That should help. I'll look at what's there now, see if I can do some tweaking. Unlike the one I mentioned above, in most cases there will be at least two, sometimes even three defensible places as to where the rounding should occur. My guiding principles are that the people who ignore one set of measurements should get basically the same information as the people who ignore the other set of measurements, and that the most common problem with overprecise conversions is that they bog down the reading speed for everyone. Keep in mind that even in the United States, much of our scientific work is done in the metric system, and in the portions of the articles which specifically with the results of those scientific investigations, metric units should usually come first.
I don't like the idea of putting converted values first. It often gives false information, and even if you convince somebody to make a template to do so, the readers who do not see the parameters used in that template will be misled. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a good job, mav. Looks like that problem is resolved. That's not to say I might not quibble on a couple of them, but it really does look good now, much better. Thank you. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - just a placeholder for now, will review the rest of the article later. Sasata (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC) lead[reply]

  • "Politically, it is located in Mono County in the U.S. State of California." Use of politically reads oddly to me, can this just be left out without affecting meaning?
  • wlink cinder cone
  • "Various activities are available along the chain," Maybe reword, sounds a bit strange to say an activity is "available"

Geography and description

  • "Mule deer, coyote, black bear, yellow-bellied marmot, raccoon and mountain lions all have ranges" mixture of singular and plural looks inconsistent
  • "…as lava after its heat had already created a steam explosion crater." lava after its heat?
  • wlink Devil's Punch Bowl
  • "They were formed from slow-moving pasty lava" what's pasty lava?
*There's still a mention of pasty lava in the "Inyo Craters and Paoha Island" section
  • scree wlinked twice in this section
  • why are temperature given first in Celsius,with a F conversion, not the other way around (consistent with other imperial-metric conversions in the article)

History

  • "This book was published in 1872." Extraneous sentence, just mention the year in the previous sentence. Ellipses should be spaced on either side, according to MOS
  • "Gold rush-related boomtowns sprang up near and in Mono Basin in the 19th century to exploit local bonanzas." unclear - is the implication that there was gold to be found there?
  • N/m, found Bodie listed in the Gold Rush article. Sasata (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • wlink tributary
—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sasata (talk • contribs)
  • Had a go at all your suggestions except for adding the wlinks; Devil's Punch Bowl is not notable by itself to have its own article and tributary is just a common English word which is not directly related to the subject. Tributary would be appropriate to link in the Mono Lake article, but not in this article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 02:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The devil sure gets around! (think I also saw him in the details) Sasata (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (continued) Sasata (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Above that layer are basaltic to rhyolitic volcanic rocks" I'm not well-versed in geology… does this means there's a range of rock types between these two without any clear demarcation?
    Swapped "to" with "grading to". --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The massive eruption of Long Valley Caldera some 760,000 years ago laid down a thick sequence of Bishop Tuff over the region." A sequence? Would "layer" work?
    "Sequence" is a better term since there is a layering of different rock/ash/welded ash. ---mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A mix of ash and pulverized rock, called tephra, covered about 3,000 square miles (8,000 km2) of the Mono Lake region to a depth of 8 inches (20 cm) 20 miles (32 km) from the vents and 2 inches (5 cm) 50 miles (80 km) away. (Wind direction varied during that time)." Needs rephrasing, listing the depth and distance values right next to each other may cause confusion (interpret as distance = 20 miles and 8 inches). Not sure what the parenthetical sentence adds, nor why it's in parentheses.
    Good point. Put a "deep" in-between the depth and distance values. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pyroclastic flows of glowing-hot clouds of gas, ash and pulverized lava" were they glowing because someone saw them, or because "glowing" here means "really, really hot"? Does really hot gas glow?
    Not always but very often (the glow can normally only be seen at night). It depends on how far up the ash and lava go before crashing down. I removed "glowing" in this case b/c the source did not in fact say that - I was just trying to give an in-context definition of the jargon "pyroclastic flow" and got a bit carried away. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…38 square miles (100 km2) in the second phase." Just to clarify, was the first phase the stuff that happened in the previous paragraph, or the first part of the sentence?
    " in the second phase" removed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rhyolite magma was rich in the mineral silica and thus oozed out of the vents to form several steep-sided domes" Why "thus"? Is molten silica well-known for oozing?
    The silica part not needed, so removed. Silica is sticky when molten and caused lava rich in it to ooze. Changed to "Rhyolite lava oozed out of the vents to form several steep-sided domes" --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(continued)

  • checking on 1c. Have you considered the following journal articles as possible sources? Sasata (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title: Constraints on continued episodic inflation at Long Valley Caldera, based on seismic and geodetic observations
Author(s): Feng, LJ; Newman, AV
Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH Volume: 114 Article Number: B06403 Published: 2009
  • Title: Use of neural networks and decision fusion for lithostratigraphic correlation with sparse data, Mono-Inyo Craters, California
Author(s): Bursik, M; Rogova, G
Source: COMPUTERS & GEOSCIENCES Volume: 32 Issue: 10 Pages: 1564-1572 Published: DEC 2006
  • Title: Lahar in Glass Creek and Owens River during the Inyo eruption, Mono-Inyo Craters, California
Author(s): Bursik, M; Reid, J
Source: JOURNAL OF VOLCANOLOGY AND GEOTHERMAL RESEARCH Volume: 131 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 321-331 Published: MAR 30 2004
  • Title: A volcanotectonic cascade: Activation of range front faulting and eruptions by dike intrusion, Mono Basin-Long Valley Caldera, California
Author(s): Bursik, M; Renshaw, C; McCalpin, J, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH Volume: 108 Issue: B8 Article Number: 2393 Published: AUG 23 2003
  • Title: Chemistry and mineralogy of a granitic, glacial soil chronosequence, Sierra Nevada Mountains, California
Author(s): Burkins, DL; Blum, JD; Brown, K, et al.
Source: CHEMICAL GEOLOGY Volume: 162 Issue: 1 Pages: 1-14 Published: 1999
  • Title: NEW EVIDENCE ON THE HYDROTHERMAL SYSTEM IN LONG VALLEY CALDERA, CALIFORNIA, FROM WELLS, FLUID SAMPLING, ELECTRICAL GEOPHYSICS, AND AGE-DETERMINATIONS OF HOT-SPRING DEPOSITS
Author(s): SOREY, ML; SUEMNICHT, GA; STURCHIO, NC, et al.
Source: JOURNAL OF VOLCANOLOGY AND GEOTHERMAL RESEARCH Volume: 48 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 229-263 Published: DEC 1991
  • Per WP:PRIMARY and limitations of time and money on my part, I much prefer to use reliable secondary sources. My main use of primary sources is to fill in gaps and help figure things out when secondary sources say different things. But access fees are the major barrier. Density and narrow focus of most journal articles is also an issue. Interpreting them can also easily and unknowingly lead to WP:OR. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Sasata (talk)

Primary sources can also be useful as they each have an introduction section which summarizes research on the topic up to that point, and so they effectively are a secondary source when used that way. They are available at university libraries or through interlibrary loans, so cost shouldn't be a factor. As for time.... you've had since 2003, right? :) Anyway, geology is not a topic I'm knowledgeable about, so I won't even try to determine whether these sources should be included or not, but I did notice from reading the introductions of these papers that Martin Bursik seems to have published widely in this topic area (i.e., geological evolution of the Mono-Inyo area) going back to the 1980s, so it seems that something is missing in that this article does not mention him, nor use any of his numerous publications as a reference for technical information. For these reasons, my support is only weak. Sasata (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess if I can spend hundreds of dollars and a couple days vacation visiting the chain, I can find time to visit local university libraries. I never really considered this before due to the fact the geology, not to mention geology of the western U.S., is not a focus of any local universities. But they must have at least some geoscience journals. I'll keep this in mind, but still insist that WP:PRIMARY is fairly clear that Wikipedia article should mainly be constructed using reliable secondary sources. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (I noted USGS, but there may be others).
    • REALLY picky but consistency in the notes - either US or U.S. (grins) Pick one.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Mav, did you do the two above? the ones above the bolded comments were Sasatas... not mine. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
U.S./US fixed and a few USGS fixed as well. The ones that remain are fine since the publisher on those same cites is written as the "United States Geological Service" and there are two instances of "United States Geological Service (USGS)" in the article to introduce the reader to the initialism "USGS". --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 04:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'm concerned about the grammar of "Mono-Inyo Craters is a chain of...."
Try "The Mono-Inyo Craters are volcanic craters forming a chain which runs north-south.......etc"
  • Mono-Inyo?! Make a clear statement in the first paragraph. Say that there are two types of craters, those called Mono and those called Inyo.
  • If you have any idea what the names Mono and Inyo mean, tell your reader that, too.
  • First parag again. You say North south, then describe south north. Decide which direction your heading and stick to it! Amandajm (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That and similar plural issues fixed.
    • First para already describes all major parts of the chain; Mono Craters and Inyo Craters are there and introduced as distinct parts of the chain.
    • Mention that Israel Russell named Mono Craters added. He did not say what he named them for, but "Mono Valley" (the old name for Mono Basin or "Mono Lake" are likely candidates. I could not find, after a great deal of searching, who named Inyo Craters or what they are named for.
"Inyo" is a Paiute term for the mountains to the east of the Owens Valley. Farquhar says "Chief George (who became a leader in the Indian war) told them that the name of the mountain range to the eastward was ‘Inyo,’ meaning, as near as could be ascertained, ‘the dwelling place of a great spirit.’ ". I have no idea why the specific craters are named Inyo. —hike395 (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Image review. Alt text edited. It is still descriptive in tone. I hope that is OK. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Looks like this needs someone to look through the geology and rubber-stamp it, so I'm volunteering. This note is here to say that I will probably be making edits to the article as I see that they're needed. But maybe not too many tonight - it IS Friday! Awickert (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would prefer a geologist's hammer over a rubber stamp, but any feedback will be most welcome! :) --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your wish is my command: you shall receive this rock hammer of verification when I am done! Awickert (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - first question, "Nearly all the rock east of the Sierra Nevada is volcanic in origin." - clearly this needs a eastern boundary, perhaps this is East of the Sierra Nevada and within Mono Valley, as this is the confines of the cited study? Awickert (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just rechecked the reference; Russell was referring to a map of the Mono Basin area so I added "in the Mono Basin area" to the above sentence. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, that's what I figured; I just didn't want to do it myself without access to the source. Awickert (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder to self (or others): find a ref for the Long Valley and Mono-Inyo magma chambers being separate. Awickert (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know if the subsidence in the ring fracture system is caused by the movement of magma? If so, it would be a nice piece to the story and a way to help tie that paragraph together. If not, I'll try to see if I can find something about it. Awickert (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cited source does not indicate one way or another. I recall from skimming abstracts that the magma system below Mono Craters is not well characterized. Some of the older references even hypothesize that the Mono Arc and the craters may be a precursor to caldera development. But more recent research does not appear to repeat that. I emailed the LVO about this but did not get a response. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might want to double-check if the tephra has a basaltic composition. I'd be willing to believe it, but this is unusual both from the standpoint of regional geology and from the fact that tephra is typically silica-rich. Awickert (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor choice of wording on my part. Source is not clear on form so replaced with "debris". --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)
  • Actually, Wood 1990, page 232 states: "The basaltic ash is largely palagonite - a brownish-green basaltic glass commonly found in maar rim deposits." So that is where I must have got the ash connection but I can't really make sense of that sentence. Black Point erupted underwater so that might also have something to do with this. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs)
  • Is Raised beach (or marine terrace, or beach terrace) what is meant by "beach line"? It is clear what is meant, but would be good to wikilink and perhaps change to more common (at least in the professional world) terminology. Awickert (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the wording used by Russell so I just changed the article text to attribute him explicitly. I searched for a more recent treatment of the topic but came up with nothing. Even after 100 years, Russell is still an authority on lake levels in the Mono Basin so I'm hesitant to remove this bit of info but willing to consider it. In fact, high stands of Mono Lake during glacial periods are referred to as "Lake Russell." --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glaciers did not reach as far as the Mono Craters but stream-rounded stones are found under and on the volcanoes.": the wording implies causality between the rounded stones and the glaciers, but is not obvious enough to make me feel certain of it. Is this intentional (e.g., proglacial stream), or are they unrelated? Awickert (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No relation. Added a full stop after the glacier bit. Was a bit redundant with the next sentence anyway. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I will not be near an Internet connection for the weekend and will be away from home until late Tuesday night. So I will not be able to immediately respond to anything written here but will get to it once I'm back home. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 04:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm now back and will attempt to address remaining concerns after work today. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 14:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful answers to my above questions. I have a few more: Awickert (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • When the article says "years ago", is this years BP (e.g., before 1950)? This is usually no big deal for geologic time, but it matters for the very recent (100s - few 1000s of years ago) dates. Awickert (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rechecked each recent date. All look to be referring to proper BP usage. Some edits done to make this clear and some direct journal cites added. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Columns of rhyolite stuck through the sediment on the north part of the island...". Columns of rhyolite don't just push through things. It will form either as a rapidly-cooled dome of igneous rock or as an explosive eruption. But unfortunately I don't have the book on hand. Awickert (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check any of your dates, etc. I assume that you have these correct, and unfortunately don't have time at the moment to do better. Other than these two issues (above), the whole geology section is fine by me. Awickert (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great - thanks. :) --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 04:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ...have a few minor and a couple less minor quibbles, plus one sentence without a subject.

Most of the surface of the Mono Craters is barren but slopes on the sides of that part of the Mono-Inyo range ..... This is the first sentence of the paragraph, and "that" has no antecedent.
  • Changed to "Most of the surface of the Mono Craters is barren but its slopes are covered by ..." --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the first 2 sentences of history is awkward. Perhaps making Mono Paiutes the subject, rather than Obsidian, will help (also in lead)
What made a town (Bodie) successful enough to need a tree mill?
Muir....did write about the volcanoes ....? Sounds like part of an argument. How about he wrote about them....?
  • Twain didn't write about the Mono Craters, Muir did. But it does sound needlessly argumentative, so removed. What Muir says is quoted later in that paragraph. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some parts of the Mono Craters show evidence of glacial, fluvial, and lacustrine processes. None of the Mono Craters... redundant. None near the lake....
Although glaciers were present throughout the Sierra Nevada, did not reach as far down as the Mono Craters.....missing a subject...they?
First paragraph of Volcanic hazards is overly wordy. First 3 paragraphs of that section, actually, are wordy, have some verb issues (switching tenses), and could use a word wrench (tightening up).
  • Several words removed from first para and parenthetical turned into a ref note. But I'm not sure how to condense the other two paras and can't tell where the verb issue is... --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, a very interesting, well-done article, and I'm happy to support it. Let me know if you have questions about the points I've raised. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Finetooth, assuming remaining items mentioned by Awickert and Auntieruth55 are addressed. (I added the missing "they" noted by Auntieruth55 when I did some proofreading just now.) I should add that I did a peer review of this article in late November, that all of my concerns have been addressed, and that the article, which I thought very good at the time, is now excellent, including the illustrations. Finetooth (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedits and support! --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 04:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose: Support Consider me the harshest critic on geological issues, which I am always surprised how interminably boring and unnecessarily complex I find geology writing when I think it's so interesting. I think the article is detailed, but can be re-organized slightly, or at least include helpful topic sentences to draw the reader in. Geology is both literally and figuratively, very dry stuff. I think the article should start with an overview of the volcanic chain in the scheme of how California was formed, either by shifting up the Geology section or adding one or two sentences to the Setting section. Some of the sentences are formulaic, as in Cone X was formed by Process Y ZZ years ago, such as the first paragraph in Mono Craters, Negit Island and Black Point. I don't think you should go all Carl Sagan on this article by describing in fantastic detail with finger waving and everything just what caused all these formations ("billyuns and billyuns of years ago!"), but some sentence diversity would help, starting sentences with the process that formed the thing. People like to read about explosions, and aren't we here to please? And I'm partial to a more descriptive ecology section as well. Other writing issues: Bodie (north of Mono Lake), was founded in the late 1870s and was successful enough to need a tree mill. The tree mill was located at Mono Mills, immediately northeast of Mono Domes. Naturalist John Muir explored the area in 1869 and did write about the volcanoes. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm - I think you have a valid point about organization. Geology section moved before history section. Article is more chronological now and I think flows better. Note that the first para of the geology section puts the chain's geology in the context of California geology. Yikes - you are right about the formulaic part. More exciting eruptive stuff put first in many cases. This tiny chain really doesn't have an ecology of its own and what I have written is about as much as can be said without going into unnecessary detail. Articles on Long Valley Caldera and Mono Basin are more appropriate places to go into more detail on ecology since those are much larger units. Bodie/mill and Muir sentences redone. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not married to a better ecology section, other than a connection to what plant life is present based upon the elements found in the soil, which are heavily influenced by geology, which you covered. If you decide to tweak some of the article, let me know and I will revisit. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much tweaking already done. Please take another look. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 17:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I keep coming back to the idea of topic sentences for sections. In the Human use section, I think the section would draw readers in more effectively with a sentence starting "Humans have lived among the Mono-Inyo craters for XX years, and the region has provided them with materials for hunting, gold, and geothermal power." Early impressions: "The chain of craters has been the subject of several writers and naturalists." Mono Craters, Negit Island and Black Point: "East-central California has been volcanically active for XX amount of years." (I think more could be added to this, but I'm not sure what). Effects needs something as well, but I am also unsure of what. As readers are drawn in, basically told what they are about to read, it makes them feel smarter as they go along and more engaged in the article. I'd add these, but I'm concerned I don't have enough expertise and I'll compromise accuracy. What do you think? --Moni3 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and will keep that in mind in the future. Added "People have used resources on and around the Mono-Inyo Craters for centuries." None of my sources say when the first use was. Added your suggested sentence to the Early impressions section. Range of volcanic activity already mentioned in Background section. Added "A wide range of effects are expected from future eruptions along the Mono-Inyo Craters." to Effects section. I checked each other section and saw that Climate and ecology needed one. So added "Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub environments exist along the chain." The Activities section also needed one, so added "Many recreational activities are available along the chain." Please feel free to add/modify as you like. :) --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 01:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to support. My objections have been met. Well done on the article and best of luck with it! --Moni3 (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nice article. Well researched and structured. BT (talk) 20:26, 20 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mono-Inyo_Craters/archive1&oldid=1138467153"