Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Newberry Volcano/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Newberry Volcano edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to FAC in the next month or two, and I would love to get as much detailed feedback as possible to prepare. ceranthor 18:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ceranthor 18:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of rapid fire comments:
  • There is some odd verbiage such as "The volcano is extremely dry" and " the volcano once held large volumes of water"
  • Fixed the first; for the second one, I'm not sure how to fix this. Let me know if there are a bunch more of these. I will go thru and fix them. ceranthor 13:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jo-Jo Eumerus, sure. Page six says: "Evidence for large volumes of water is more compelling. In addition to the multiple large channels (Fig. 2 and 4), scattered dry waterfalls have been identified (Fig. 4) showing clear evidence of polish by high flows of water cascading over a break in slope or through a narrow slot." Page 10 says this: " Newberry Volcano was not spared from glaciation. Diverse meter-sized foreign blocks interpreted as erratics litter cinder cones up to 7 km outboard from the caldera rim. No large U-shaped valleys are present; indicating that modifi cation of topography by ice was limited, probably because of a relatively thin ice cap. However, the multiple dry channels that primarily dissect the western and eastern slopes of the volcano are ample evidence for runoff of water on the now dry slopes of the volcano. Much of the evidence for ice and water on Newberry is on the east side of the volcano, which is heavily mantled with sediments that may represent redistributed morainal material and glacial outwash gravel. Interbedded lava flows and sediments and multiple episodes of channel cutting indicate a complex history of erosion, probably reflecting multiple glaciations." Here's a link to the PDF. ceranthor 18:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thought given my revisit to the source text. I'll add and ping you to check it out once I've finished. ceranthor 19:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Think this is fixed now. ceranthor 14:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You sure that Newberry is in the Cascade Arc? To me it looks more like a backarc volcano.
  • What is the Paulina Prairie?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Got these. ceranthor 13:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch more points:

  • What is the significance of the American pika thing for the volcano?
  • They live on the volcano, and it seemed like a fairly large finding from the study that was worth noting. What do you think? ceranthor 14:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there other sources that discuss the American pika's presence on Newberry? If not, I'd probably take it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " researchers discovered artifacts of a central hearth" does not sound correct to me.
  • Changed to "remnants" - is that better? ceranthor 14:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A more full review edit

Lettering this through in accordance to FAC criteria:

  • 1a:
    • "in length" and similar formulations are odd verbiage.
    • Lava flows from Newberry Volcano of comparable size to its late Pleistocene eruptions would bury settlements throughout the Central Oregon region. They would destroy segments of U.S. Route 97, disabling transportation in the area, in addition to likely ruining gas pipelines and power lines that extend electricity to California,[51] both of which would be accompanied by serious economic consequences.[80] might merit some rewording as some of the verbiage sounds odd.
    • Seems OK otherwise.
  • 1b: Nothing obvious missing from a Google Scholar check.
  • 1c: Seems reasonable too on this one. Spot check:
    • 34: OK.
    • 75: Is it just me, or do the page numbers not follow the same scheme as in the source?
      • Bit confused. Do you mean ref 75, or ref 42? ceranthor 18:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1: Needs a source stating that Paulina Peak is the summit of the complex.
      • Ref 48 states that within the article text. Do you want me to add that to the infobox/elsewhere? ceranthor 18:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 19: OK.
    • 28: OK.
    • 44: OK.
    • 22: OK.
    • 58: Can't access this one.
    • 52: In source it says 400m not 300m.
      • Hmm. Seems like a conversion error, since it also says "150 to as much as 400 m (500 to 1,000 ft)." I think I just went with the US numbers since it's USGS as the source. Do you think it's safe to go with 150 - 400 m and use that for the conversion? ceranthor 18:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 51: As 75.
      • I see now. It looks like a potentially incorrect DOI was added mistakenly; perhaps when I used Citation bot. I removed it. ceranthor 18:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 49: A bit difficult to find the "multiple eruptions" part w/o a page number.
      • Odd. I don't remember adding that bit and it doesn't seem like something I would add given the citation style. That being said, I double checked the source and found no mention of multiple eruptions; perhaps it was just poorly written and did not mean to say that there were multiple caldera-forming eruptions, but rather multiple eruptions before the caldera formation. Either way, fixed to remove the multiple bit, and added a page number. ceranthor 18:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 82: OK.
    • 33: Can't access this one.
    • 57: That source does not seem to call the cone "flat topped".
      • Suspect this comes from Harris then. Will check. ceranthor 18:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 72: OK.
    • 63: I don't see Horse Lava Tube.
      • Horse Cave love / Horse system are the same thing. clarified. ceranthor 18:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 105: Can't access this one.
    • 40: I am not sure that the article text is supported by this source.
      • Suspect this is a reference formatting error - possibly mixed up two of the refs nearby. Will check. ceranthor 18:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • 61: Can't access this one.
    • 103: Can't access this one.
  • 1d: With the proviso that my understanding of Cascade geology is rather poor, it seems to work.
  • 1e: Passes.
  • 2a: Seems OK; lead is fairly comprehensive.
  • 2b: OK.
  • 2c: OK.
  • 3: All images have ALT text and seem pertinent to the section. Is the source link to File:Nebe caldera10832l.jpg broken?
  • 4: Seems OK.

That's it, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks. Will work through these once I finish posting comments for Samalas. Provided the archived url for that image in the meantime. ceranthor 21:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "©Robert A. Jensen" sure that it is PD? Sometimes government documents include photos by third parties. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Removed that image. Agreed that it seems a bit dubious. ceranthor 15:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Think I've fixed these. Still not sure what's wrong with the text linked to ref 40; do you just recommend removing that bit of the sentence? I'd like to bring this to FAC relatively soon. ceranthor 14:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: Source #40 is fine, unless it changed number when I wasn't looking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber edit

Drive-by comments...

Glaciers may have once been present at the volcano, though this remains unclear, and the volcano is very dry with low precipitation levels and little surface runoff. - avoid run on 'and' - suggest splitting sentence.
@Casliber: I split these into two sentences. ceranthor 13:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any other thoughts here, Casliber? ceranthor 16:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Been busy. Will take another look in a day or two when I have time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - greatly appreciate any and all input. ceranthor 01:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Newberry_Volcano/archive1&oldid=889114323"