Talk:Itcha Range/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 16:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be your GA reviewer for this article. First glance looks pretty good. Give me a little time, and I'll see if there's anything that needs to be done for the green button, and try to provide some feedback in case you're looking to push for the gold star later. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1a (clear and concise): Mostly good, but see below.

1b (MOS compliant): Lead is good. Table inclusion is MOS-compliant. One duplicate link.

2a (references): Mostly good, but see below.

2b (cited statements): Good.

2c (not OR): No problems.

3a (broad coverage): Good.

3b (summary style): No problems.

4 (neutral): No problems.

5 (stable): No problems.

6a (image tagging): Looks good here.

6b (image use/captions): Image choice is very impressive. Captions are good. FAC will want alt text for all of them, but that's not a concern here.

(1a) I'd definitely pipe a link to dissected plateau for dissected.

Where does the article mention a dissected plateau? Volcanoguy 21:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1a) "relief efforts would be quickly organized": This seems a bit informal, and I think you can drop it by combining this sentence with the following one, without any loss of meaning.

Like this: "If volcanic eruptions were to resume at the Itcha Range, teams such as the Interagency Volcanic Event Notification Plan (IVENP) are prepared to notify people threatened by volcanic eruptions in Canada"? Volcanoguy 21:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1a) "Volcanism then shifted eastwards, in displacement contrary with the North American Plate's movement": The use of "contrary" here makes this read as though the volcanism track moved in the opposite direction of what was expected; that's not the case, of course, and I'm pretty sure that's not what you're trying to say.

The North American Plate and volcanism in the Anahim Volcanic Belt move in opposite directions. Volcanoguy 19:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1a) Wouldn't hurt to link Hazelton Group and perhaps redlink Ootsa Lake Group (even if our stratigraphy stubs need a lot of work).

Done. Volcanoguy 20:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1b) One duplicate link: stream, and a piped link from creek, both in Geography / Location and terrain.

Removed duplicate link. Volcanoguy 20:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(2a) What is Summary Technical Report on the Clisbako Property? With no publication information, identifying number, or weblink, I can't judge the reliability of this source.

The web link appears to be this. The information cited in the article is from section 7.0 Geological Setting and Mineralization: "The Clisbako property is located in the northern part of the Chilcotin Plateau (Figure 6). More specifically, it is situated in the south central part of the Anahim Volcanic Belt along an east-west trend defined by three peralkaline shield volcano complexes (Rainbow Range, Ilgachuz Range, Itcha Range) that comprise the western part of the belt." Volcanoguy 21:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced that source with this. Volcanoguy 04:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(2a) Is there any more publication information for "General Assembly of the Chilcotin Nation: A Declaration of Sovereignty"? Not that I doubt the veracity of the source, mind you. Actually, for that matter, is there an alternative source for the name's origins, rather than needing to rely on a political statement?

I have tried to find a better source but with no success. The given source was most likely published by the Chilcotin Nation (Tsilhqot'in). Volcanoguy 20:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a few other notes that I don't think are strictly GA criteria issues:

Is Itcha Lake worth a redlink? It's the source of the Chilcotin River, so it's at least a feasible article topic.

Yes I think so. Linked it. Volcanoguy 20:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might consider rolling the Volcanic hazards / Effects section into Human history / Protection and monitoring. There isn't all that much to say in the Effects section (as expected for volcanoes in the middle of nowhere), and it would make sense to talk about what those effects might be in the same context as the monitoring and response plans. But that's likely your discretion.

I did some reorganizing to try and make things better. The monitoring bit does not really belong in the history section since it does not really have anything to do with history. So I grouped the monitoring and volcanic hazards information to form a new section. The new "Occupation" section is a bit short but can be expanded with at least two more paragraphs. Volcanoguy 08:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have added two more paragraphs in the "Occupation" section. Volcanoguy 00:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real MOS guidance on the order of links in a See Also section. Here, I might move List of volcanoes in Canada to the bottom (so that the links appear in order of increasing geographic area discussed). But alphabetical is fine, too.

Done. Volcanoguy 21:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazco Cone reference is formatted in an entirely different manner than the rest of the Catalogue of Canadian volcanoes sources. Probably not an issue for GA, but people (like me, actually!) will ding you on reference format inconsistencies at FAC.

Is this a serious issue? If it is I have no problem formatting it like the rest of the Catalogue of Canadian volcanoes sources. Nazko's format is for a paper but the information in the paper is also available as a web source under the same titles so it should not be hard to translate it. Volcanoguy 20:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a GA criterion at all, so wouldn't stand in the way of promotion regardless. I suspect there may be more bibliographic information to add to the reference for a paper version, but I'm not going to quibble, especially at GAN. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very little of this is serious, and I have no doubt that I'll be able to promote this after a few quick tweaks. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

Reviewer Squeamish Ossifrage hasn't edited on Wikipedia since October 2, the day this review was opened. As this review has been abandoned, the nomination is being returned to the reviewing pool, where it will hopefully get some attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]