Talk:Boring Lava Field/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 18:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General

The structure of this article is challenging to follow. It's not always clear why some facts are in the section they are in, and similar sections are not always grouped together. For example, human impact on the field's region, broadly speaking, is in §Human history, except when it's in §Recreation. Geology stuff is spread over quite a few sections – including §Geography, which should primarily focus on where this is, rather than what it is.

Any thoughts with regard to section order? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: I've followed this for past volcano articles (both FAs and GAs). I can see your point about the geology/geography overlap, but I tried to keep the geography to very specific items and less technical material than the geology section. As for recreation, I think the material there makes sense as its own section separate from human history since there's not much "history" to it. Does that make sense? ceranthor 17:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fair. Beyond the GA-level, I might still quibble with the order of the sections. Personally, I might go Geography -> Geology -> Eruptive history [all, broadly speaking, dealing with the rocks involved] -> Ecology [the other natural setting aspects] -> Human history -> Recreation [related topics]. But YMMV, and I don't think the section order is in conflict with any of the GA criteria. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"A center for trade since it was founded in 1845,..." The last subject noun was Larch Mountain, so this pronoun has an unclear antecedent. Maybe reword this sentence to make it initially clear that you're discussing Portland?
"...the Boring Lava Field would be a threat to human life..." I think this needs "if an eruption occurred", or something similar. Just the fact of its presence in city limits isn't a threat.
"Boring Lava may also influence future earthquakes in the area, as intrusive rock from its historic eruptions may influence ground-shaking." Is calling it just "Boring Lava" correct? Also, "ground-shaking" feels too informal here to my ear. Actually, it occurs to me from a section later on that you're using "Boring Lava" here as "the lava that the Boring Lava Field comprises". Do sources capitalize it in this manner when they use that construction?

Yes, they do typically capitalize it. I think I've addressed these. ceranthor 13:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

"This grouping is considered somewhat informal and draws from similarities in age and lithology." The latter half of this sentence doesn't seem grammatically correct to me, and it's a little unclear what meaning you're going for. Perhaps some further clarification would help?

Not sure what the grammatical concern is - what I'm saying here is that the deposits were named first for their proximity to the town of Boring, and then designated as part of a volcanic field somewhat arbitrarily. ceranthor 13:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the compound sentence apart to look at the two clauses, we get: 1) "This grouping is considered somewhat informal." There's nothing grammatically wrong there, although I'm not sure it's entirely clear by whom it is so considered. And 2) "This grouping... draws from similarities in age and lithology." And I'm not convinced that's correct. Geologists have drawn from these aspects to define the grouping, but surely the grouping itself shouldn't be the actor in this sentence? Also, I'm waffling about "draws from" versus "draws upon" here, and I'll confess that the various usage guides weren't very helpful about elucidating the difference. I think "on" or "upon" would read better here, but frankly, you might be best served just avoiding that construction entirely. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about "This grouping is somewhat informal and is based on similarities in age and lithology."? ceranthor 17:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Volcanologists L. Siebert, T. Simkin, and P. Kimberly (2011) of the Global Volcanism Program list its highest elevation as 4,055 feet..." You have a support reference here, so you don't need to do this sort of almost-an-inline-citation with the parenthetical date. Also, this isn't a pull quote or anything controversial, just a numerical fact; you probably can cut the names entirely.
"The Willamette Valley is separated within by hills..." The "within" doesn't scan correctly for me here.

Changed to "is marked by hills..." Fixed the second comment and responded to the first one above. ceranthor 13:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology

"[r]iparian zone"

Oops - sorry, didn't catch that capitalization issue. ceranthor 13:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe pipe a link for the bat to Plecotus townsendii. The subspecies is mentioned there in passing, and that's better than one linkless critter in a line of blue.

Fixed. ceranthor 13:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Human history

In general, since I'm not familiar with the area, it's a little tough for me to follow this section. I know you're trying to present things people have built and done within the boundaries of the lava field, but I suppose that doesn't always come across clearly?

Tried to rework this a bit to make it clear that I was trying to organize it chronologically. Let me know what you think. Happy to take it further if you think it's still a bit loosely organized. ceranthor 14:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is more approachable now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"scoriaceous" needs a link or a gloss or something.

Fixed. ceranthor 14:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite the popularity of historical quarries," I'm not sure this wording makes your point clear. Were the quarries historically "popular" (and I'm not sure that's the right word here), or do you mean they are popular as "historical quarries" (tourism etc.)?

Changed the wording here to this: "Despite the prevalence of quarrying activity in historical times..." ceranthor 14:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The center had been constructed..." implies that it was built before the vote. You just need "was" here, not "had been", and the tense of the next several sentences bears revision.

Fixed the "was" note, but not sure why the tense of subsequent sentences would change - can you clarify? ceranthor 14:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore me about tenses here, I clearly read something differently than I thought I did. That said, you do have a bunch of "It was..." sentences in a row. Tweaking one or two of those to break up the redundancy would read better.

Fixed I think. ceranthor 18:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link Quaternary.

Fixed (except the responses above). ceranthor 14:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

"There are 90 volcanic centers..." You need to make the referencing for this clearer, because the footnote contradicts it. The footnote itself also needs the pseudo-inline-citation format reworked into more fluid prose.

Clarified where the 90 figure comes from - Allen 1975. The point of this footnote is that there is some disagreement. I'm confused about your note about "inline-citation format;" are you sugggesting I get rid of the footnote and just add it back into the prose itself? ceranthor 15:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I'm happy for the footnote to stay a footnote! I mean that the footnote introduces claims with these inline-citation style subjects: "Evarts et al. (2009)", "Le Corvec et al. (2013)". And that's not really how you should do that in prose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Understood. Could you suggest an alternate way? ceranthor 18:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like: Not all sources agree as to the number of volcanic centers; totals of 88 and 80 (with additional buried vents uncounted) have been published. (placing the citations appropriately). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow this vent count paragraph at all. There are more than 90 vents, but... perhaps that's the broader area? Then there are 20 in the Boring Lava Field. But then there are 80 in the field?

Correct. 90 vents within the broader area. Cut out the 20 figure since it was confusing; but to clarify, it says 20 centers, which typically encompass more than one vent. Left the 80 figure; that comes from the USGS, which is the gold standard reference when it comes to US geology/volcanology. ceranthor 15:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Cascade volcanic arc that includes the Boring Lava Field..." needs a comma after Field.

Fixed. ceranthor 15:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...in the fore-arc setting within a transitional zone..." I might reword this. This section is sort of dense to begin with, and this phrase makes it hard to tell whether the field "fore-arc setting" is intended to be a term of art.

Cut down to "residing in the forearc setting between tectonic extension to the south and compression to the north." ceranthor 15:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"tectonic microplate that lead[s] to"

Fixed. ceranthor 15:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the long gloss of slab window is useful since we actually have a fairly approachable article on the topic.

I still think it helps for a lay reader. Can take it out if you feel strongly. ceranthor 15:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly. You're probably good. Someone may quibble about the length of gloss if you push this to FA, but this if fine at the GA level. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hey, here's my answer about that "Boring Lava" question way up top. This needs to be presented much earlier in the article.

I think it's already clarified in the Geography section to a certain extent; however, I moved this sentence to the second sentence of geography. Better? ceranthor 15:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Boring lava" ... other uses are "Boring Lava"; is this intentionally different?

No, went through and standardized, with the exception of one instance where it was "Boring lava flows." ceranthor 15:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Some of the Boring lava vents are known to truncate hydrogeologic units in the surrounding area." Although I actually speak fluent geophysicist and know what this is about, I don't think lay readers are going to know what it means to truncate a hydrogeologic unit.

Good point. Reworded to "Some of the Boring Lava vents are known to cut off hydrogeologic units in the surrounding area." Not sure if that's any better - plz let me know! ceranthor 15:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish we had something slightly more precise to link to for "hydrogeologic unit", but this is at least better than it was. If you go to FA, expect objections there to the current wording. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subfeatures

We're back to vent counts. At the very least, you might want to consider this as a subsection to §Geology and to give it all a good read-through for redundancy.

Made it a subsection. I think I was careful about redundancy - are there any specific examples I missed? Or do you mean general redundancy? ceranthor 15:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can these vent lists be placed in a table format? Perhaps with some additional information, like inline-displayed Template:Coord? That's probably not necessary at the GA-level, but it would certainly be nice.

Should be converted fully. ceranthor 15:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much nicer now. If you want to push this towards FA, I think the reviewers will expect another field in these tables with the coordinate locations of these various features. That, needless to say, is not an expectation for GA. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation

"The Boring Lava Field and its cones make up part of the trails in the city of Gresham." The trails are in the field, and visit the cones (there are lots of ways to word this), but I don't think it's correct to say that the field and cones "make up" the trails.

Changed to "Trails in the city of Gresham travel over parts of the Boring Lava Field and its cones." ceranthor 18:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References / Sources

You cite several theses. Thesis citations need to indicate what degree they were submitted for. I can't tell about Dougall, but the rest are for Masters. Those are considered to fall into something of a gray area regarding their suitability as reliable sources, especially if they weren't formally published or widely cited. You should consider seeing if these were published or are otherwise replaceable (I only checked one, and Werner 1991 was apparently published in a modified form with some co-authors in Tectonics). I'm not really likely to hold up the nomination over these thesis sources, but it's something you should certainly consider.

I will do my best, but this sort of thing takes time that may extend beyond the length of a GA review. Happy to work on it and keep tabs with you independent of the GAN - if you're on board with that. ceranthor 17:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As my time allows, I'm always willing to help with most anything! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this looks good at the GA level. As a frequent FAC contributor, some stuff stands out here that won't count against the GA criteria: ISBNs should be present for all book works, and ideally standardized to properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. Book-format sources without and ISBN could use an OCLC.

ISBN is present for all book works I think in the ISBN-13 format (at least for every ref using the cite book template). Added an ISIN for Hartford and OCLCs for a few citations. ceranthor 17:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can use an ISBN converter to go between ISBN-13 and ISBN-10 (for US books, anyway) until it gives you the ISBN-13 with full hyphenization. This is the official one, but there are lots. This is not even CLOSE to being a GA requirement, but it's sort of my pet peeve at FAC, and I'll lose my "mean judge" card if I don't mention it. Otherwise, Wood & Kienle (1990) looks like it's a book in need of an ISBN? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got that! Thanks. ceranthor 18:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have a mix of cite-family and citation templates, which result in very different formatting; at GA, that's fine, but it's worth considering in future.

No pass/fail at this point. I think there's the core of a well-researched article here, but there are some prose concerns, and the overall structural disorganization strikes me as a 1a/1b issue. I look forward to seeing some development over the next few days. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage, thanks for the thorough review. I'll give you a ping when I think I've made substantial progress on your concerns. ceranthor 19:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Think I have made some progress. Replies to some; a lot fixed per your suggestion. ceranthor 17:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: I think you've cleaned up most of the issues. I'd like to hear your opinion on the section order issue (there's not necessarily a right answer there, but I'd like to know where you're coming from), and I tried to clarify the last couple points that were still outstanding. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Going to try and work thru your replies. In the mean time, I responded to your section order note above. ceranthor 17:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think at this point my remaining concerns aren't actionable issues at the level of the GA criteria. If you want to continue development of this article, perhaps with an eye toward an eventual FA push, I would suggest that you consider whether the section order is optimal, and probably tweak the footnote (perhaps as I noted above, or some other manner to render it in prose). But just as FA doesn't demand perfection, neither does GA. And this is a good article, and I'm happy to promote it as such. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.