Fort Towson

Add links
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2024 [1].

Mount Edziza volcanic complex

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 22:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a group of volcanoes in British Columbia, Canada. It includes Mount Edziza, one of the highest volcanoes in Canada. The volcanic complex has been an area of volcanic activity for at least 7.4 million years, most recently in the last 2,000 years. It is also the most active volcanic system in Canada, having erupted more than 29 times during the Holocene. It also remains as one of the best-studied volcanic centres in northwestern British Columbia. Volcanoguy 22:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Mount Edziza, British Columbia.jpg or File:Mt. Edziza - 4037992482.jpg might be better off in the vegetation section. Also, given the widely diverging resolutions, I kinda want to check if the Flickr uploader has taken any files from elsewhere. With some of the ALT text, it may need a bit more detail to describe the shape of the objects shown. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I've moved File:Mt. Edziza - 4037992482.jpg to the "Animals and plants" section. I've also improved some of the alt text. Volcanoguy 22:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a topic that is frequently remarked upon, but the article structure seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would File:Big Raven Plateau.jpg be a problem to use in this article? I'm more concerned about the sourcing since the original source link is dead and I wasn't able to find the original image on https://ava.jpl.nasa.gov/. So I replaced the dead link with the website link since I couldn't find the original image archived anywhere. Volcanoguy 00:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it sounds like a plausible source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

  • The most recent eruptions took place in the last 11,000 years but many of them remain undated. – I think this should be "many eruptions" instead of "many of them", since "them" would refer to "the most recent eruptions", and if undated we wouldn't know they are recent.
    Not necessarily true. Geologists can tell they're recent by the lack of erosion by the Cordilleran ice sheet which retreated from the area about 11,000 years ago. This is explained in the Volcanism section. Volcanoguy 04:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but that was not really my point. My point was that you are explicitly stating that many of the most recent eruptions remain undated. If this really is what you want to say, does that mean that the older eruptions are better dated? Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot more dates for the older eruptions, yes. Volcanoguy 16:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • several species of trees, including pine, aspen and spruce. – You are listing genera, not species. It would be much better to list the most common species; genera are not really informative here.
    Done. Volcanoguy 20:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wide variety of animal species inhabit the area. This includes – I suggest to make it one sentence: ", including"
    Reworded. Volcanoguy 01:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A large provincial park dominates the MEVC which can only be accessed by aircraft or by a network of trails. – Give name of the provincial park?
    I don't think the name of the park is necessary? Volcanoguy 05:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would add at least a wiki-link to the article of the park. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 16:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider switching the two paragraphs of "Location" around, because the one with the basic information should come first.
    Done. Also moved a sentence further in the article to this section with the basic information. Volcanoguy 02:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ecosection stuff is hard to understand, and the link does not really help. Add a bit of context/explanation, maybe?
    I'm not sure what's so hard to understand here. Volcanoguy 17:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is an ecosection? What are they for? According to the linked article, they exist only in British Colombia? Why? I have no idea what to make out of this. As said, some background here (one sentence or half-sentence should be enough) would help. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ecosection article already explains what an ecosection is: a biogeographic unit smaller than an ecoregion that contains minor physiographic, macroclimatic or oceanographic variations. I don't think explaining why ecosections are only in British Columbia is relevant to the MEVC article. That sounds more like something that should be explained in the ecosection article if that's really true. I would like to note that the ecosection article doesn't exactly say that they are only in British Columbia but rather they are virtual ecological zones of that province. Volcanoguy 17:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the reader has to be helped here with an explanation here. Something like this: "… ecoregion (areas that share a distinct combination of climate, flora and fauna, and other environmental factors)". If this is specific for British Columbia (it doesn't seem to be the case, but as said, the ecoregion article is poorly written and not helpful), it should be mentioned as well. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've created an article for the Boreal Mountains and Plateaus Ecoregion and redirected the Southern Boreal Plateau Ecosection to this article. I've explained what an ecosection is more clearly in that article. I hope this helps. Volcanoguy 03:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temperatures are warmest in mid-summer during the day when they may hit the 30 degrees Celsius – Doesn't that drastically vary with altitude? For which elevation are these temperatures valid? In the next paragraph you give other temperatures according to elevation, so I do not really understand what "30 degrees" is meaning here exactly.
    Not much I can do here unfortunately since the sources don't specify. My guess is the "30 degrees" is for the general area so I've changed The climate at the MEVC is characterized to The surrounding area is characterized. Volcanoguy 01:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Osborn caribou? (to reindeer)
    Done. Volcanoguy 01:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure of "Animals and plants" is not ideal. You first provide a list of "wildlife" (only encompassing mammals and "several species of birds"), then detailing some large mammals, and then providing a list of birds? I would start with mammals, then birds, and info on reptiles, amphibians, and fish would be great too.
    Restructured. There doesn't seem to be information for reptiles, amphibians and fish unfortunately. I assume they're not an important part of the local ecosystem. Volcanoguy 22:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It still feels a bit repetitive to firs have that list of mammals, and then mention some of these mammals again. Consider to remove that list (the second sentence in "Animals and plants"), and put a sentence "Other mammals include …" at the end, just before the bird sentence, that lists all those mammals that have not yet been mentioned. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 00:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deglaciation of unstable and oversteepened valley walls has caused several landslides, especially along the Mess Creek Escarpment. – Landslides that happened in the geologic past? Should be clarified.
    Clarified. Volcanoguy 04:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything about the effects of climate change? Are the glaciers retreating?
    There doesn't seem to be information about climate change or glacial retreat in this area, most likely because of a lack of such studies in this remote location. Volcanoguy 04:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bimodal population of volcanic rocks characterizes the MEVC – too technical I think. Try re-writing for general readers?
    Removed since it's not very informative. Volcanoguy 04:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack: I think I've addressed most of your comments. Volcanoguy 20:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dominant rocks comprising these volcanoes are alkali basalts and hawaiites but – comma before "but"?
    Done. Volcanoguy 00:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All four complexes differ petrologically and/or volumetrically from the rest of the NCVP. – A bit unclear; does this mean that these four complexes are more similar to each other than to the rest of the NCVP? Or are they just individually different from the rest (which is what you currently state)? If it is the former, replacing "All" with "The" should solve it.
    Clarified. Volcanoguy 02:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • MEVC hawaiites are thought to have formed as a result of partial fractional crystallization and the accumulation of feldspar inside rising columns of mantle-derived alkali basalt – Should this be "magma" rather than "basalt"? Fractional crystallization can only occur in a magma, because a basalt is already fully crystallized, right?
    Maybe "alkali basaltic magma" instead? Volcanoguy 19:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the sentence above: I assume you are saying that as the magma rises, some components (the fledspar) are removed from it, changing its composition to that of a hawaiite? This is pretty difficult to understand for a general reader, I suggest to try to formulate this in a more comprehensible way.
    Accumulate means to gather, not remove. The magma undergoes partial fractional crystallization and then feldspar accumulates in the rising magma. I'm not sure how to make this sentence simpler unfortunately. Volcanoguy 01:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a note explaining what fractional crystallization is. Volcanoguy 02:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This sentence is the last open issue; when solved I am ready to support. With fractional crystallization, you get 1) the minerals that crystallize and 2) the impoverished magma that is left over (and will crystallize later). Which of these form the Hawaiites? Is it the impoverished magma, or the feldspar rich magma? A second point: When you write and the accumulation of feldspar, should this be resulting in the accumulation of feldspar? Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack: per source: "Hawaiite is thought to be a cumulate rock, formed by partial fractionation and feldspar accumulation within rising columns of primary alkali olivine basalt." Volcanoguy 17:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So it seems that the crystalized feldspar and the magma remain mixed and later form the Hawaiite? But aren't Hawaiites normally formed after eruption, when lava cools down rapidly? Is this the case here, too? Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack: What if the sentence is reworded to "MEVC hawaiites are thought to be the product of partial fractional crystallization and the accumulation of feldspar inside rising columns of mantle-derived alkali basaltic magma"? Volcanoguy 18:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue seems to be that we do not really understand the sentence, and hence are unable to re-write it for a general audience, right? I would, then, consider to just remove it. But either way, I can support now (and yes, please at least add the "magma", as otherwise the sentence seems wrong). Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack: I have added "magma" to the sentence but I'm still having difficulty understanding what's wrong with the sentence. How I understand it is that hawaiite is the product of basaltic magma that underwent partial fractional crystallization and feldspar accumulated in the magma as it rose to the surface. Volcanoguy 20:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in a good Wikipedia article, each sentence makes a particular point that teaches the reader something. But with this sentence here, I do not see this point, and I do not know what to learn from it. MEVC hawaiites are thought to be the product of partial fractional crystallization – sure, but doesn't that apply for other magmatic rocks as well? Isn't fractional crystallization the principal reason why we have different rocks in the first place? If a sentence does not convey such a point, it shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The paragraph that sentence is in also claims the peralkaline rocks at the MEVC (trachyte, comendite and pantellerite) are products of fractional crystallization but on a more extreme scale. Volcanoguy 23:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • that accreted to the continental margin of North America – "accreted" needs at least a link. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Volcanoguy 00:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The volcanic and sedimentary rocks comprising Stikinia are remnants of a former island arc.[80] – Hard to follow. And it is basically an explanation what you already stated earlier; that these rocks accreted? I would combine it with the sentence "accreted to the continental margin of North America"; the reader would directly know what that means, then.
    Removed. Volcanoguy 01:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The elongated structure of the MEVC is 75 kilometres (47 miles) long and 20 kilometres (12 miles) wide. – Shouldn't this sentence appear under "geography" instead?
    I don't think so since the MEVC is a geological structure rather than a geographical one. Volcanoguy 01:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is more geography than geology. In other FAs (I looked at Mount Berlin and Cerro Blanco, all this information is summarized in a section "Geography and geomorphology", which makes much more sense to me. Why not do the same here? Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that Mount Berlin and Cerro Blanco are geographic features. The MEVC is a lithodemic unit per the Lexicon of Canadian Geologic Units. Volcanoguy 02:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see complex (geology). Volcanoguy 02:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, not sure if this convinces me. The article states in it's first sentence that it is "a linear group of volcanoes", which is clearly a geographic feature. It does not mention anything about lithodemic units. If you are correct here, then maybe you didn't correctly define the topic of the article? I guess that it is both, a lithodemic unit and a geographical feature. Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the source you cite for this clearly speaks about it as a geographic feature. These numbers describe the geomorphological feature, not the lithodemic unit. Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What source are you referring to? Volcanoguy 04:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wojdak, Paul (1993) Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem here is that the MEVC can be considered a geological or geographical feature depending on how one views it. The complex can be seen as geographical due to all the volcanoes and plateaus or geological since it consists of layers of lava flows and pyroclastic rocks. The article makes it clear that the complex is subdivided into 13 geological formations. Volcanoguy 23:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved this information and the information about the plateau into the "Geography" section which I have renamed "Geography and geomorphology". Volcanoguy 22:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit awkward to start the section "structure" with composition. I would start that section with the most important, general information. Why not moving the composition info out into a section of its own (named "Composition")? Composition and structure can be considered different things.
    I don't think it's weird at all since it's the rocks that make up the complex. Volcanoguy 01:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that is not my point. Every volcano article I looked at had a separate "composition" section. "Structure" and "composition" are separate topics. Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Different editors have their own ways of organizing articles. Most of the articles you've seen were probably written by one editor (Jo-Jo Eumerus). Volcanoguy 01:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But we should aim for 1) consistency and 2) for the best possible layout. Let's wait and see what others think about this point. Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of a guideline that says article sections should be consistent. The best possible layout of something is quite subjective. Volcanoguy 02:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that this is subjective. "Composition" is objectively different from "Structure". Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've decided to move the composition and basement information into its own section. Volcanoguy 21:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack: I've also removed the structure section altogether and split it up into several smaller sections. Volcanoguy 04:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They differ from the central volcanoes in that they are much smaller in size and they are mainly of mafic composition. – You want to say that they differ from the central volcanoes in bouth their smaller size and mafic composition, right? Then I think you need to remove the second "they".
    Done. Volcanoguy 02:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "subfeatures", you give a lot of information that is actually geography. Should these be moved into a section under "geography" that discusses the relief structure of the complex without diving into geology, and keep the bits about geology for the geology section? But I see that it makes sense to mention these geographical features in their geological context, too. But at least the paragraph on "mountain passes" does not have anything to do with geology, right? This should fall under geography.
    I've decided to move "Subfeatures" to the geography section because I think it makes more sense for it to be there. What bits of geology are you referring to? Volcanoguy 21:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Koosick Bluff and Ornostay Bluff are two bluffs – You link "bluffs", but the term is not even mentioned in the linked article. Please add an explanation, or replace with a more common term ("cliff"?).
    Relinked. Volcanoguy 01:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mess Creek Escarpment is a long laterally continuous, often cliff-like feature – What does "long laterally continuous" mean here? Doesn't it just mean "long"?
    Removed "laterally continuous". Volcanoguy 01:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MEVC was originally subdivided into 15 geological formations – link "geological formations"
    Done. Volcanoguy 01:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as well as several lesser advances of local alpine glaciers. – "smaller" advances?
    Source uses lesser. Volcanoguy 02:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, make sure to avoid close paraphrasing. Don't copy the wording of the source, that would be copyvio. If the source says "lesser", better use a different word here.
    Done. Volcanoguy 21:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • of which there are at least 29 of them. – delete "of them"
    Done. Volcanoguy 01:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potassium–argon dating of the MEVC has yielded ages ranging from 11.4 to 0.28 million years old.[11] Most of these ages are consistent with the general volcanic stratigraphy, though some of them are anomalously old and most likely result from contamination of lava with older rocks of the underlying Stikinia terrane. – So, this means the "11.4" is probably incorrect? You already stated earlier in the section that it "started erupting at least 7.4 million years ago", which seems to be the better estimate? If so, it feels a bit strange to repeat this again. Maybe combine these, or just remove the part on the potassium-argon dating; if these numbers are not reliable they do not add much to the article and may be better discussed in the main article "Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex".
    I've reorganized the Volcanism section. See if it's better. Volcanoguy 22:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section "Present day status" – I wonder if this title should rather be "hydrothermal activity" since it is exclusively about that? Since you mention inactive springs, not everything in there is precisely "present day status" anyways.
    Done. Volcanoguy 01:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parts of northwestern Canada would be affected by an ash column if an explosive eruption were to happen at the MEVC. – The source says "could be", not "would be". That's a big difference. The former does not rule out that a eruption could be much less severe.
    Corrected. Volcanoguy 01:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Canadian National Seismograph Network has been established to monitor earthquakes throughout Canada, but it is too far away to provide an accurate indication of activity under the complex – what precisely is "too far away"? The nearest seismograph? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The seismograph network. Volcanoguy 01:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a network. You certainly mean the nearest seismograph. Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source provided mentions the Canadian National Seismograph Network, not a specific seismograph. Either way I don't see why this matters since the closest seismograph would obviously be part of the Canadian National Seismograph Network. Volcanoguy 03:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tahltan people – should be linked in the main text, too.
    Done. Volcanoguy 01:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edziza obsidian from the Hidden Falls archaeological site in Alaska has a date of 10,000 years. – "is dated to 10,000 years old"?
    Done. Volcanoguy 01:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stratigraphically, it has also been referred to as the Mount Edziza Group or the Edziza Group – Stratigraphy was already linked, but here it makes sense to link it again.
    Done. Volcanoguy 01:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the section "Naming" is ill placed under "Human history". It doesn't fit in there at all. Consider placing it right before "geography" (i.e., as the first section of the article).
    I thought about moving this section earlier. Done. Volcanoguy 02:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five students conducted studies at the MEVC in 2007. […] – This whole paragraph seems way to detailed compared to the rest (issue of balance). Are these students really relevant? Are these really the only students who worked on the MEVC recently? Consider to remove this whole paragraph, or reduce to one sentence combined with the previous one.
    Shortened to one sentence and merged with the previous paragraph. Volcanoguy 21:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should be everything from me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

More than four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may have someone to do a source review. Volcanoguy 03:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JJE

  • "linear" might be a bit too jargony.
    How is "linear" jargony? Volcanoguy 15:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "highest summit which " sounds like it refers the outlet glaciers to the summit rather than the ice cap.
    Reworded, not sure if it's better. Volcanoguy 16:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "issued" is a weird term for volcanic rocks.
    Replaced with "produced". Volcanoguy 15:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arctic ground squirrels are abundant above the timberline where grizzly bears are occasionally seen" wouldn't that be better off split?
    Why? Volcanoguy 15:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it looks like you are drawing a connection between squirrels and grizzly bears when you discuss them in the same sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they both occur above the timberline. Volcanoguy 20:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source does not seem to mention Edziza. In general, the sources there are talking about volcanoes in general more than Edziza in particular.
    None of the volcanoes in Canada are monitored which means Edziza isn't monitored either. Common sense. Volcanoguy 15:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support With the caveat that my prose skills aren't so great, but the prose seems adequate, images and sourcing too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RoySmith

This is a long article, so I'll work my way through it in bits and pieces as I find time. Hopefully Gog the Mild can hold off on the archive hammer of death long enough for me to make it to the end. RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now feel like Thor, wielding the hammer of doom. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Archive this nomination please. I've decided that I'm not going to work on this FAC or have anything to do with FAs anymore. Volcanoguy 16:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Volcanoguy, if you are sure, then (obviously) I will. But can I suggest a 48-hour cooling off period and then reconsidering? I am personally all too familiar with a review causing me to want to drop kick my monitor through the window. Usually the desire passes. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'm more concerned about your comment above: "More than four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived." There's two supports now but I'm thinking this article isn't going to get many more reviews. Volcanoguy 00:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the images have alt texts, so we're off to a good start.
  • "linear group" in lead but not in body
    It says in the article that the complex is about 65 kilometres long and 20 kilometres wide so it's roughly rectangular in shape, not to mention this image in the article illustrates just that. Volcanoguy 00:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2,786 metres (9,140 feet) above sea level" in the lead, but in the body you don't specify that it's above sea level. Maybe just add a footnote saying all elevations are MSL so you don't have to clutter up the whole article with that?
    Changed "above sea level" to "in elevation". Volcanoguy 00:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "formed over the last 12 million years" in the lead (and the infobox) but not in the body. BTW, the infobox has "12,000,000"; standardize on either all digits or spelling out million.
    Changed from "12,000,000" to "12 million". Volcanoguy 00:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Earth's four most recent geologic epochs" in the lead, but not the body; not sure if that's a problem or not.
    Actually they are mentioned in the Volcanism section: Miocene, Plio-Pleistocene (Pliocene and Pleistocene) and Holocene. Volcanoguy 00:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's not mentioned are that these are the four most recent epochs. But, as I said, I don't know if that's really an issue or not. RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've decided to remove "Earth's four most recent". Volcanoguy 16:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tahltan people used volcanic glass" in the lead. In the body you mention obsidian, but not glass. I guess they're synonyms, but it might reduce some reader confusion to be more explicit.
    Obsidian is a type of volcanic glass. Volcanoguy 00:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that and you know that, and some of our readers will know that, but some of them won't so this will be confusing to them. My mental model of how a naive reader would approach this is that they start reading the lead and when they get to "people used volcanic glass", they think that's interesting and decide to jump to the section of the article that talks about glass so they can learn more about this. So they search for "glass" and can't find it. If in the body you said, "In prehistoric times, the MEVC was a significant source of obsidian (a type of volcanic glass) for the Tahltan people" then they would be able to find it quickly. RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made it clear in the next sentence that obsidian is a volcanic glass. Volcanoguy 18:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "geological work has been carried out at the volcanic complex since the 1950s" in the body you're explicit that it's 1956 and don't mention any other dates before that. Is there a reason for the vague "1950s" in the lead, or could you just say "since 1956"?
    There's no specific date for when geological work began at the MEVC. Volcanoguy 00:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've slightly changed the text to "at least the 1950s". Volcanoguy 00:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coordinates 57°42′55″N 130°38′04″W". A second of latitude is 100 feet (less than 100 for longitude). The area is 40 miles x 12 miles; specifying the location to that level of precision isn't justified, and make it harder to read. I suggest stating it to the nearest minute of lat/long.
    I'm not understanding you here. The coordinates are for the highest point of the MEVC (Mount Edziza), that's why they're in the "Highest point" section of the infobox. The level of precision used is needed to pinpoint the highest point on Mount Edziza, not to mention it's what the cited source uses. Volcanoguy 00:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that makes sense. RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the source of my confusion. I saw the "Coordinates" label and didn't scan back to where it says "Highest point". RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added range coordinates in the infobox that are simpler. Volcanoguy 18:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(that takes me to the end of the lead)

  • "Mount Edziza–Spectrum Range complex or the Mount Edziza Plateau[16][17][18]" Either of 16 or 17 is sufficient to verify "Mount Edziza–Spectrum Range", so just pick the better one and use that.
    Done. Volcanoguy 15:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the "Naming" section is referenced to the BC Geographical Names web site, which in turn cites other sources that you mention here ("A 1927 report by J. Davidson"). Why not just cite the original source directly? I'm also concerned about WP:CLOP in this section. For example: David Stevenson, University of Victoria Anthropology Dept advised in October 1970 that "kutlves" is actually the Tahltan word for sand or dust in the source becomes David Stevenson of University of Victoria's Anthropology Department advised in 1970 that the actual Tahltan word for sand or dust is "kutlves"
    Simply because I don't have access to the 1927 report. How would you rephrase that sentence then? Volcanoguy 17:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that close paraphrasing like this is an absolutely critical issue. If you cannot rephrase a sentence to be sufficiently different, then you simply cannot include it in a Wikipedia article. This one is easy, though, you could write something like "According to David Stevenson, "sand" or "dust" is instead translated as "kutlves" in the Tahltan language" or similar. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've done some revising, not sure if it's better. Volcanoguy 19:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Note that if you come across something that you think is "close paraphrasing", it's because I don't believe it is. Volcanoguy 19:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If you think that the example above is actually not close paraphrasing, please have another look at WP:CLOP. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Opinions vary. Volcanoguy 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You will have to follow WP:CLOP; your opinion is not relevant when it comes to copyright issues. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to write things in my own words but sometimes, as shown above, it's obviously not enough. Nobody is perfect. Volcanoguy 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the above is pretty close paraphrasing, but the thing about CLOP is that there are many edge cases and sometimes you need to factor in whether the formulation is actually creative enough to create a copyright (WP:LIMITED). So concerns about CLOP need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general note, I'm not a fan of lumping several citations at the end of a sentence because it makes it hard to know which citation is supporting which stated facts. If a sentence states facts from multiple citations, I think it's better to move the citations to wherever in the sentence makes it clear what they're supporting.
    I find that makes the text look messy and harder to read. Volcanoguy 17:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but it makes it easier to review :-) RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rises from a base elevation of 760 metres (2,500 feet).[4][21][22]" Ref 4 says 816m. Your 760m figure looks like it comes from ref 21. Why do they differ?
    I don't know. I'm guessing different parts of the plateau rise from different elevations. It could be changed to 760 to 816 metres (2,493 to 2,677 feet). Volcanoguy 17:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demarchi 2011 is available on-line at https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/ecosystems/broad-ecosystem/an_introduction_to_the_ecoregions_of_british_columbia.pdf, so include that link in the citation.
    Done. Volcanoguy 22:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The highest, youngest and northernmost central volcano is Mount Edziza..." join this to the previous sentence with a semicolon and omit "central volcano".
  • "It is a large ice-covered stratovolcano rising well above the general level of the Tahltan Highland" This is cited to 3 sources, but Holand 1976 is sufficient to verify everything in that sentence. BC Geographical Names doesn't apply at all.
  • "It is a composite stratovolcano that has been reduced to a steep-walled pyramidal peak", it's not clear what the subject is: "it" could be either of Mount Edziza or Ice Peak. I'm guessing Ice Peak, so I'd join this to the previous sentence with a semicolon and then "the later is a composite..."
  • In the first paragraph of "Landforms", you keep repeating "central volcano", which reads awkwardly. The introductory sentence says we're talking about the four central volcanoes. I'd try to reword the rest so the reader can infer thats what you're still talking about so you don't have to keep repeating it.
    All above has been revised. I kept the Wood source because Holland seems to refer to Mount Edziza as a shield volcano rather than a stratovolcano, the latter of which seems to be more common. Volcanoguy 22:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cinder cones with reliefs of up to 460 metres", not everybody will know what "relief" means. I'd add a short explanation, i.e. "(height above the surronding terrain)".
    I've reworded this sentence to "several small cinder cones dotting the plateau surface rise up to 460 metres (1,500 feet) above the surrounding terrain, most of which occur in three lava fields". Is this okay? Volcanoguy 23:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As another general comment, I'm finding much of the prose to be, well, not "engaging", as WP:FACR requires. I know this is a vague complaint, but here's an example. Take these three sentences:

Various stages of erosion have modified these central volcanoes. In some cases, only a few small remnants of their original surface remain.[29] The degree of erosion becomes less pronounced on those that have more recently formed.[22]

They're all short simple sentences, which results in a kind of stodgy cadence. Since these sentences are all talking about the same topic (i.e. the effects of erosion), there's opportunity to combine them in different ways. You could combine the first two:

Various stages of erosion have modified these central volcanoes; in some cases, only a few small remnants of their original surface remain.[29] The degree of erosion becomes less pronounced on those that have more recently formed.[22]

which takes advantage of the natural grouping by citation. The varying rhythm makes for more interesting reading.
I've gotten complaints in the past about sentences being too long. Volcanoguy 00:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the semicolon you suggested above and I've added others throughout the article. Volcanoguy 01:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also merged some sentences together to form larger ones. Volcanoguy 01:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contains 10 cinder cones, namely Eve Cone, Storm Cone, Moraine Cone, Williams Cone, Sleet Cone, Twin Cone, Sidas Cone and the three Triplex Cones" There's a WP:SEAOFBLUE problem here. Unfortunately, I don't have any good ideas of how to fix that. One thing I thought of was to rephrase it as "contains 10 cinder cones, namely Eve, Storm, Moraine, Williams, Sleet, Twin, Sidas and the three Triplex Cones" which cuts down some of the verbiage, but doesn't do anything about the seaofblue. So maybe there's nothing really to do here.
Note that WP:SEAOFBLUE is only concerned with links placed directly next to each other so that they appear to be a single link. This is not the case here, since the words are separated by commas. I personally don't see any problem here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jens Lallensack here. Volcanoguy 17:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making it the largest of the two lava fields ... The smaller of the two lava fields is" I'd leave that out. People can figure out on their own that 40 sq km is larger than 18 sq km.
    Removed. Volcanoguy 20:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which covers around 18 square kilometres" I'd leave out the "around". If there's some strong reason to emphasize the uncertainty, be explicit about it, i.e. "Joe Scientist and Bob Scientist give different values)" or whatever makes sense.
    Removed. Volcanoguy 20:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "containing volcanic features such as ..." I'd just say "containing ..." In an article that's all about volcanoes, the reader can assume you're talking about volcanic features, and "such as" doesn't add anything useful.
    Removed. Volcanoguy 20:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Koosick Bluff and Ornostay Bluff are two bluffs", leave off the "are two bluffs"; the that should be obvious from their names.
    Done. Volcanoguy 20:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kaia Bluff is a steep-sided hill" isn't "steep-sided hill" pretty much the definition of bluff? I'd leave that out. Or maybe it makes sense define the term for the sake of the non-expert reader, but do it once at the beginning of the passage: "The area contains several bluffs (steep-sided hills)..." instead of tieing it to one specific instance.
    The problem here is that Kaia Bluff is described as a steep-sided hill while Hoia Bluff is described as "a shoreline terrain elevation with an almost perpendicular face" in the cited sources. They don't sound like the same thing to me. Volcanoguy 21:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The MEVC is situated within the Southern Boreal Plateau Ecosection", omit "situated", and maybe shorten "within" to just "in".
    Done. Volcanoguy 19:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Artifact Ridge is a crescent-shaped mountain ridge" -> "Crescent-shaped Artifact Ridge is east...". The general pattern here is that whenever you've got a phrase of the form "<specific name><type of feature> is a <type of feature>", see if there's a way to rewrite that to eliminate the repetition.

As a general comment, there's a lot of wikilinks in this article to minor geographic features. Many of these are stubs that you've created, i.e. Source Hill, Thaw Hill, Ridge Cone, Keda Cone, Cinder Cliff, etc. I'm unconvinced that most of those meet WP:GEONATURAL, but that's not an issue for FAC. What is an issue is that the extent of the linking is distracting, per the introductory paragraph of MOS:OVERLINK. The key question there is "whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from?" In most of these cases, I'd say the answer is "no".

I don't see an MOS:OVERLINK problem here. When articles for the mentioned minor geographical features exist, they have to be linked, there is no question about that in my opinion. I furthermore think that the bar set by WP:GEONATURAL is pretty low and (in my interpretation) should cover these articles. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jens Lallensack here. Volcanoguy 17:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between the heads of Bourgeaux Creek and Raspberry Creek." I'd make this "between the heads of Bourgeaux and Raspberry Creeks". As a general pattern, whenever you have a construction like "<name 1><type of feature> and <name 2><type of feature>", consider condensing that to "<name 1> and <name 2> <type of feature>s" This pattern shows up in many places where you list hills, bluffs, creeks, cones, etc.
  • "all of which lie inside Kakiddi Valley" -> "all in Kakiddi Valley".
    Done. Volcanoguy 19:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the exception of Mowdade Lake, all three lakes drain north into the Klastline River." -> if you rearrange the order of the list, you could condense this to "; the {first/last} three draining north ..."
    Done. Volcanoguy 20:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(this takes me to the end of "Lakes", I'll pick up with "Drainage" next time)

Actually, upon reconsideration, I'm going to withdraw from the rest of this review. I see that I've already written 2500 words, I'm only about 1/4 of the way through, and I'm finding something to complain about in practically every sentence. It's possible that there's just a mis-match here between Volcanoguy's writing style and my personal preferences. If so, I apologise. I'm not going to oppose, but I'm not seeing how I can get to supporting on the basis of "prose is engaging and of a professional standard". RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Just so you know I agree with much of what you brought up. Volcanoguy 19:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eewilson review

Support @Gog the Mild and Volcanoguy:, notes and source changes have been made to my satisfaction and have my stamp of approval. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes section
  • In each of your notes, the defined terms are being used as words (MOS:WAW); thus, each term you are defining should be in italics:
    • Peralkaline rocks are magmatic rocks that have a higher ratio of sodium and potassium to aluminum.
    • Felsic pertains to...
    • Mafic pertains to...
    • Fractional crystallization is the...
      Done. Volcanoguy 17:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References section

The purpose of my reference review is for citation and source formatting, dates, urls, and other parameter accuracies as compared to the actual sources when viewed, as well as to check for duplicates. This is not a comparison of sources to article information.

  • Reference "LD" (Wood and Kienle, Volcanoes of North America: United States and Canada): Check your publication year. You have 2001, but I find 1990 for print and 1992 for electronic. If 2001 is correct, is it a newer edition than 1990/1992? If so, add the edition to the citation template and verify the ISBN is correctly identifying that edition.
    Corrected. Volcanoguy 18:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference "AK" (cite bcgnis for "Mount Edziza"...): Not setting |url-status= makes the archived url the default because it assumes the original url is no longer there (e.g., |url-status=dead). Unless the original URL is dead, I recommend setting this parameter to |url-status=live, verifying that the source matches what is in the article and updating accordingly, including dates. The original URL takes you to "Mount Edziza" in the BCGN database, which uses minorly different coordinates than the archived page from 2018. Alternatively, you can set |url-status=deviated, which is designed for when the url is still 'live' but no-longer supports the text in a Wikipedia article. This could be an option here since the coordinates are slightly different. It would then, by default, also direct the user to the archived url. It depends on how you want to do it and whether or not the text on the current official BCGN web page supports all of the parts of the article for which it is a reference.
    The reason I didn't set |url-status= for this and other sources with live links is so I don't have to update the article to comply with changes in the sources. |url-status=deviated doesn't seem to make a difference. Volcanoguy 22:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference "Edwards" (Edwards, Field, kinetic, and thermodynamic studies...): If you use cite thesis rather than cite book, and change |type=PhD to |degree=PhD, your result will have a subtle but important difference: after the title of the dissertation, you will have "(PhD thesis)" instead of "(PhD)".
{{cite thesis|last1=Edwards|first1=Benjamin Ralph|degree=PhD|title=Field, kinetic, and thermodynamic studies of magmatic assimilation in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province, northwestern British Columbia|publisher=[[University of British Columbia]]|year=1997|pages=6, 10, 11|isbn=0-612-25005-9}}

Edwards, Benjamin Ralph (1997). Field, kinetic, and thermodynamic studies of magmatic assimilation in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province, northwestern British Columbia (PhD thesis). University of British Columbia. pp. 6, 10, 11. ISBN 0-612-25005-9.

Done. Volcanoguy 17:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I managed to use {{cite book}} instead of {{cite thesis}}. Volcanoguy 01:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was in the Volcanism of Mount Edziza... article, not this one. I don't even remember how I came upon it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the one I changed today? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That one too but I used {{cite book}} instead of {{cite thesis}} in this article and the geological formation articles ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) as well. I forgot to change it in the volcanism article so thanks for that. Volcanoguy 02:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Probably copy and pasted the wrong one. I don't know how many times I've done that.
Sources are looking good I'll get my updated review Saturday. Friday, I'm booked. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference "Pinti2011", which cites the chapter "Mafic and Felsic" in Encyclopedia of Astrobiology, is using template Citation instead of a template such as Cite book or Cite encyclopedia. It is causing a problem because it is defaulting to CS2 rather than CS1, which is the standard in this article. I think you could change this to use one of the standard templates that I mentioned.
    Changed to {{cite encyclopedia}}. Volcanoguy 17:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see the rest of the report, book, and journal references use shortened footnotes. This isn't a requirement for FA, but if you want to continue to improve the article, it would significantly improve the look and feel (and readability) of the references section. Because the topographic map Telegraph Creek, Cassiar Land District, British Columbia is used in so many places, you could consider doing the same for it.
    I'm not sure if adding a footnote for that topographic map would make much of a difference since there are no page numbers to cite; it would still be one footnote being cited. The reason I added footnotes for the five sources in the Sources subsection is because the article cites multiple pages in those sources unlike the others being cited. Volcanoguy 15:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. It might be a good idea in the future for stylistic reasons to be consistent (e.g., use shortened footnotes for the whole article or don't), and it seems like I may have read that somewhere... but I see no reason to hold up my FA approval for that. If you want to (or even anybody could after FA) later move this to SFNs, I think it would be cool. I understand your reasoning and it's all good. My stamp approval is HERE. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's my first run-through. See also the Sources subsection, below. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources subsection
  • Demarchi 2011: Each citation references the page number(s) in the book, so here, you don't need to use the parameter |pages= and can remove it.
  • Edwards & Russell 2000: Here, use |pages=1280–1295, the page range of the article in the journal.
    Why use page numbers in this source and not the others? Volcanoguy 15:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's a journal article. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Souther 1992: Like for Demarchi 2011, each citation gives the page number(s) used for it, so the page numbers don't need to be listed here. You can remove |pages= because it is not needed.
  • Souther et al. 1984: Same here as with the Edwards & Russell 2000 journal article. Use |pages=337–349, the page range of the article in the journal.
  • Wilson & Kelman 2021: Set |series=Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8790 and remove |pages= because it is not needed.
    All done. Volcanoguy 15:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eewilson, how are these looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent them an email waiting for a response. Volcanoguy 20:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are looking good. Let me do a quick run-through and see if there is anything else. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GeoWriter

Introduction

"The most recent eruptions took place in the last 11,000 years but many of them remain undated."

The eruptions that took place in the last 11,000 years have therefore been (roughly) dated (to less than 11,000 years old). I suggest that this should be changed to "The most recent eruptions took place in the last 11,000 years but many of them still lack precise dates."

I've changed the end of this sentence to "but none of them have been precisely dated" since the few eruptions that have been dated using geologic techniques aren't precise either; they contain errors. Volcanoguy 00:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

"claims that Edziza means "sand""; "Edziza means "cinders"".

I suggest that when referring to the word rather than the proper name, "Edziza" should be changed to "edziza" (assuming the Tahltan language does not capitalise all nouns).

This section in the article is about the proper name rather than the word, hence it's capitalized. I've also never seen Edziza lowercased. Volcanoguy 00:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have misunderstood my point, so I'll try to clarify:
Again, assuming that the Tahltan language does not capitalise common nouns (which does happen in some languages, such as German),
  • Mount Edziza volcanic complex – proper name, Edziza capitalised — OK.
  • Mount Edziza–Spectrum Range – proper name, Edziza capitalised — OK.
  • Mount Edziza Plateau – proper name, Edziza capitalised — OK.
  • Mount Edziza Group – proper name, Edziza capitalised — OK.
  • ... claims that Edziza means "sand" in the Tahltan language – this is a common noun for the group of particles of a certain composition and size; it is not a proper name because it is not referring to Edziza as the mountain, volcanic complex, mountain range, plateau or group; Edziza should be changed to lowercase and put in quotation marks as "edziza", similar to how you have written: "sand" or "dust" is instead translated as "kutlves" (lowercase), which is OK because you did not write "Kutlves" (uppercase).
  • Edziza is a corruption of Edzerza, the name of a local Tahltan family – family name, Edziza capitalised — OK.
GeoWriter (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear from other users about this issue. Volcanoguy 21:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may or may not be correct on the capitalization in this instance, but I think more importantly is the reader could (and probably will) see leaving it uncapitalized as a typo (I would) and then change it in order to correct it. I would capitalize it in all the cases in the article. Stylistically, I think this would be the prudent choice.
Regarding the use of double quotes, follow MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Unless italics are being heavily used in this article (they don't seem to be), you should use them instead of double quotes, except for linquistic glosses (MOS:SIMPLEGLOSS), which should be put in single quotes. So italics are preferred, except when you are saying "X means Y", and in that case, put Y in single quotes ('Y'). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, not to mention having Edziza lowercased looks rather strange and it might not even be a word in the Tahltan language. Thoughts GeoWriter? Volcanoguy 19:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about MOS:WORDSASWORDS – the article should be changed accordingly.
I withdraw the lowercase point because I now accept that Edziza could refer to the proper name instead of the common noun. GeoWriter (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"its nearly-identical summit ice cap".

The cited source reference reports "similar-sized summit ice cap". Although "similar" can be a synonym of "nearly-identical" in some circumstances, there is not enough documented similarity in this case to justify the use of "nearly-identical" - the two ice caps could be different in numerous (even all) ways except for size. I suggest that "nearly-identical" should be removed (It doesn't seem necessary anyway because it is in a list of similarities, so seems to be redundant repetition of similarity).

Removed. Volcanoguy 23:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

"The surrounding area is characterized by warm summers and cold, snowy winters; Mount Edziza itself is covered by snow year-round."

I suggest that the word order should be swapped to "Mount Edziza is covered by snow year-round; the surrounding area is characterized by warm summers and cold, snowy winters."

I don't think swapping this sentence would work since the Climate section is about the volcanic complex rather than the mountain. Mentioning the mountain first and the rest second would make it sound like it's referring to the area around the mountain rather than the entire complex. Volcanoguy 18:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. GeoWriter (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glaciation

"north-northwest ice movement".

Please clarify this direction. Is it "from north to northwest" or "from north-northwest" or "to north-northwest", or some other direction?

Changed this to "ice movement to the north-northwest". Volcanoguy 00:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Most peaks greater than 2,130 metres (6,990 feet) in elevation contain glaciers".

I suggest that "contain glaciers" should be changed to "have glaciers".

Done. Volcanoguy 23:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

Volcanism

"The MEVC has been scoured by regional glaciations at least twice throughout its eruptive history".

I suggest that "throughout" should be changed to "during" because the glaciations were not in every part of its eruptive history.

Done. Volcanoguy 23:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrothermal activity

"below body temperature".

I suggest this should be changed to "below human body temperature".

Done. Volcanoguy 00:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hazards and monitoring

"highest eruption rate in Canada".

I suggest this should be changed to "highest eruption frequency in Canada".

Done. Volcanoguy 00:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"MEVC trachyte and rhyolite contain silica-rich compositions".

I suggest this should be changed to either "MEVC trachyte and rhyolite have silica-rich compositions" or "MEVC trachyte and rhyolite include silica-rich compositions".

Done. Volcanoguy 00:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the volcanic complex posses a potential threat to air traffic".

Typo spelling error - change "posses" to "poses".

Fixed. Volcanoguy 23:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the surrounding area contains vegetation".

I suggest this should be changed to "the surrounding area has vegetation".

Done. Volcanoguy 00:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"produce floods or lahars that could travel into the Stikine or Iskut rivers".

I suggest this should be changed to "produce floods or lahars that could flow into the Stikine or Iskut rivers".

Done. Volcanoguy 23:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human history

Telegraphy

"to send messages from Ashcroft, British Columbia in the south to Dawson City, Yukon in the north".

Unless it was known to be definitely only one-way transmission for some engineering reason or obtuse administrative reason (e.g. banning replies from Yukon!), I suggest this should be changed to a very much more likely scenario: "to send messages between Ashcroft, British Columbia in the south and Dawson City, Yukon in the north".

Done. Volcanoguy 23:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geological studies

"A three-month period of earthquake monitoring was conducted at the MEVC in 1968 after geologists of the Geological Survey of Canada suggested that there may still be magma movement under the volcanic complex. About 20 microearthquakes potentially associated with the MEVC were recorded by seismographs installed at Buckley Lake and Nuttlude Lake. They had magnitudes of around 0.5 which typically occur in many areas throughout the Canadian Cordillera."

Did the number and magnitude of the microearthquakes indicate magma movement or not? Either way, I think it should be mentioned, otherwise "after geologists of the Geological Survey of Canada suggested that there may still be magma movement under the volcanic complex" seems irrelevant and could probably be removed.

Done. Volcanoguy 23:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"a study of aenigmatites".

I suggest that this should be changed to "a study of aenigmatite crystals".

Done. Volcanoguy 23:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The project was a collaboration between Ben Edwards of Dickinson College, Ian Skilling of the University of Pittsburgh, Barry Cameron of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Ian Spooner of Acadia University, J. Osborn of the University of Calgary, Kirstie Simpson of the Geological Survey of Canada and Bill McIntosh of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.[170] Five students conducted studies at the MEVC in 2007, including Chira Endress of Dickinson Collage, Jeff Hungerford of the University of Pittsburgh, Courtney Haynes of Dickinson Collage, Alex Floyd of Dickinson Collage and Kristen LaMoreaux of the University of Pittsburgh."

I think this amount of detail is excessive and should be much reduced. Of the 12 people listed, I found only 4 of them in this article's list of cited source references. Why should readers care about the others? What justifies this long list?

I don't see anything wrong with mentioning people who were involved with projects and studies at the volcanic complex even though most don't appear in the article's list of cited source references. Not mentioning them would make it seem like very few scientists have been at the volcanic complex since Souther worked on it. Volcanoguy 18:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not convinced me but I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this point and let it go. If the above paragraph is kept in the article, I found two occurrences of a typo spelling error: "Dickinson Collage" should be changed to "Dickinson College". GeoWriter (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typos fixed. Volcanoguy 21:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation

"The weather and climate can change extremely fast along this hiking trail."

Despite this sentence reporting what is claimed in the cited source reference, it is not correct. Weather can change in minutes, which is indeed extremely fast (and can therefore affect a visitor's plans and safety). Climate change is noticeable to people over a period of years, which is not extremely fast (for the purposes and timescales of recreation; it does not increase hazard risk over minute, hour, day or month timescales).

I suggest that this should be changed to "The weather can change extremely fast along this hiking trail."

— GeoWriter (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoWriter: My guess is that the trail traverses through different climate zones at varying elevations (e.g. alpine climate above the tree line) since it gradually climbs onto the plateau. Volcanoguy 21:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A person will experience weather during a visit. Even if there is rain at low altitude in a milder climate zone then snow at a higher altitude an hour later in a colder climate zone, it is still weather to the person, irrespective of different climate zones. I suggest that you should ignore, not repeat, the cited source reference's very poorly worded mention of climate. GeoWriter (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "climate". Volcanoguy 23:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GeoWriter: Have I addressed all your comments? Volcanoguy 18:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Volcanoguy: I have replied to you above on 3 points: (1) weather and climate, (2) uppercase Edziza /lowercase edziza and (3) list of people who have studied the area. All my other points have been satisfactorily resolved. GeoWriter (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Volcanoguy. Have you addressed GeoWriter's three comments? If so, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'm looking for more input from other users for their first comment, they have no problem agreeing to disagree on the second point and let it go, and I've addressed their third comment. Volcanoguy 19:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GeoWriter, and thanks for your input on this one. Have your second and third points been satisfactorily addressed? And is there anything other than your weather and climate concerns preventing a formal support? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only one point (uppercase Edziza /lowercase edziza) remains under discussion. GeoWriter (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (following withdrawal of my last point of discussion about uppercase or lowercase in the Naming section). GeoWriter (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

  • Cite 34 should be pp. (Not p.)
    I think you meant cite 35 but nevertheless I fixed it. Volcanoguy 20:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... or by a network of trails." Does "trails" imply on foot?
    Yes there's no vehicle access to the volcanic complex except for aircraft. Volcanoguy 20:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed "trails" to "foot paths" for clarification. Volcanoguy 20:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In prehistoric times, the MEVC was a significant source of obsidian for the Tahltan people." The source you give does not state when sourcing obsidian ceased. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been able to find a source stating when the obsidian ceased to be used or if it's still used today. Volcanoguy 20:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to make what you say a little vaguer, to match the source. Eg 'Historically, the MEVC was a significant source of obsidian for the Tahltan people' or whatever. Similarly the lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 17:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ok. Now we wait on GeoWriter. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mount_Edziza_volcanic_complex/archive1