Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Mazama/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2018 [1].

Mount Mazama

Nominator(s): ceranthor 18:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the volcano responsible for a cataclysmic eruption, the largest in the Cascade Range in the last million years. Easily the longest article I've written, I think it is ready to become an FA. I think it is an engaging article about one of the most important volcanoes in the world. ceranthor 18:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Freikorp

Following up my comments at the peer review, I think this is article meets the FAC criteria. Just had another read through and I'm happy to support now but consider the following:

"and making it Oregon's highest peak" - should this be past tense? I'm guessing it isn't still the highest peak.
It would be nice to get some more information on the potential use of geothermal energy, how that would work etc. I note the source is from 1996; has anyone commented on this since then? Freikorp (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into the geothermal energy content and get back to you. ceranthor 00:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: I can't find anything more recent than that. I would be happy to add more content, though, if someone else identifies potential sources I missed. ceranthor 23:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. If you can't find anything more recent I'm happy with that as it is. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley

After initial read-through for spelling etc only one query: "Scott Dreek" looks odd, and I wonder if it is a typo for Scott Creek? A swift googling suggests so. Tim riley talk 08:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Should be fixed. ceranthor 00:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Commenting solely on files which need comments:

File:William Gladstone Steel (old).jpg: Source link is broken.

There is apparently no ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Gladstone picture is still there; the NPS site has had a lot of bugs in the past year or so since a certain US President took over... As for the alt text... oops, good catch. Will fix this ASAP (likely tomorrow). ceranthor 00:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Added alt text. Let me know if anything needs to be changed or if I missed any images. ceranthor 22:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: A TinEye search revealed that the image as it appears is no longer available on any NPS site, just a crop. What do you suggest, removing the image or leaving it as is? ceranthor 19:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here?. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are wonderful! Thanks for the find. I'll replace the source information. ceranthor 20:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from my perspective the article is complete enough and covers all the bases. No opinion on sources and accuracy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pseud14

Happy to support an interesting article per my comments at the peer review. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and for your support, Pseud 14. ceranthor 02:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

All sources cited appear appropriate and reliable. A few quibbles about their presentation:

I can't work out the reasons for having some sources detailed in the Notes rather than linked to bibliographical details in the References section, as others are. See for instance (among others) S. R. Mark at notes 4 a–j. I'm probably missing something obvious, but I just mention it.
- I only put journals/publications in the references section, as well as books. ceranthor 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure why S. L. Harris is listed above A. G. Harris.
- Fixed. ceranthor 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You ought, I think, to be consistent about adding, or not adding, publishers' locations for printed books.
- Fixed. ceranthor 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also think you should whenever possible follow the original capitalisation of titles of the works cited, e.g. Bacon, C. R.; Nathenson, M. (1996)
- Should all be fixed. ceranthor 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised at the absence of an OCLC number for Keroher, G. C. (1966).
- Added. Nice catch. ceranthor 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to frighten the horses there, but worth checking I think. – Tim riley talk 17:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to these tomorrow. ceranthor 02:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: I think I've fixed all of these. Please let me know if I missed anything. ceranthor 12:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now looks fine to me. Happy to sign off the source review. Shall now read the article again to see if I can support its promotion. More shortly. Tim riley talk 18:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very readable and evidently comprehensive article, with a wide range of references. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 07:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, Tim. I appreciate your thorough feedback. ceranthor 12:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

Support this very nicely written article on prose. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ceoil, for the support. ceranthor 02:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: @Laser brain: @Sarastro1: Is this nomination missing any elements needed for a review? I think it's had a thorough source review and image review, though I suppose one can never have enough prose checks. ceranthor 15:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nom has only been open a couple of weeks I wouldn't mind giving it a bit longer to see if any more comments are forthcoming. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think this is about good to go now. One thing though, I'd have expected the last sentence in in the first para of Physical geography to be cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Good catch - fixed that. Thanks, ceranthor 18:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Any update on this? ceranthor 15:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time flies. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.