Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 14 August 2024 [1].

Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex

[edit]
Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 14:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about volcanic activity at a group of volcanoes in northwestern British Columbia, Canada, that has existed for the last 7.5 million years or more. Volcanoguy 14:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth (Eewilson), if you are able to carry out a source review, that would be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild I am beginning it today. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding concerns about 1c of WP:FACR the reason this article cites Souther a lot is because he was the only volcanologist who studied the MEVC in detail. As a result, his publications are significantly more detailed than others published since 1992. I've searched Google Scholar and elsewhere thoroughly for information about volcanism of the MEVC and added the relevant sources. I'd dare anyone to prove me wrong. Volcanoguy 14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Arconning

[edit]
  • File:MEVC map.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:EdzizaTopo.jpg - Public Domain
  • File:Raspberry Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Little Iskut Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Armadillo Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Nido Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Spectrum Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Pyramid Formation cross section.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Ice Peak Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Pillow Ridge Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Edziza042909-- 113-16.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Edziza Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Outcast Hill cross section.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Tahltan River mouth.png - Public Domain
  • File:Kakiddi Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Tennena Cone.jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:Nahta cone from east june 2006 (Spectrum Range).JPG - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • File:Mess Lake Lava Field.jpg - Public Domain
  • File:Edziza obsidian.jpg - Public Domain
  • All images have good alt-text and are relevant to the article.
  • Images have proper licenses, images with links to their sources are live.

Support on image review. I admire the your work ethic into making majority of the images used in the article! Good luck! Arconning (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arconning: Thanks! I've made some changes since this image review, not sure if that means the swapped images should be reviewed as well. Volcanoguy 19:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. I will note here that this seems a very long article given the topic, and I will be watching to see if an appropriate summary style approach has been adopted.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why are "Mount Edziza volcanic complex" and "British Columbia" linked in the lead but not the first sentence of the main article?
    I think it's optional to relink things in the main article, no? I'm pretty sure I remember reading that in one of the guidelines unless something has changed. Volcanoguy 14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rule used to be that links should appear at first mention in both the lead and the article. This changed relatively recently to allow subsequent repeat links in the article "where readers might want to use them".
I've added the links inside the main article. Volcanoguy 17:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly for "stratovolcanoes, shield volcanoes, subglacial volcanoes, lava domes and cinder cones".
    See above. If the volcano types are relinked than why not also relink the rock types? Volcanoguy 15:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This volcanic complex of Miocene-to-Holocene age". Give what this is in mya in brackets.
    I just removed it since the precise date of when volcanic activity started isn't known. Volcanoguy 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "816 metres". Really? That seems sillily precise.
    That's what is given in one of the sources. Volcanoguy 14:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking lava flows.
    Separate from lava? Volcanoguy 15:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Felsic pertains to magmatic rocks that are enriched in silicon, oxygen, aluminum, sodium and potassium." Grammar: you can have 'Felsic pertains to magmatic rocks that are rich in ...' (as in note b) or 'Felsic pertains to magmatic rocks that are enriched with ...'
    Done. Volcanoguy 15:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The MEVC covers 1,000 square kilometres". Exactly? Or approximately/about?
    About. Volcanoguy 15:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making it the second largest eruptive centre in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province". This seems a slightly clumsy way of introducing the MEVC as part of the NCVP.
    How is it slightly clumsy? Volcanoguy 14:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworded it, not sure if it's better. Volcanoguy 22:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "North America" really need linking.
    No, delinked. Volcanoguy 14:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is thought to result from rifting of the North American Cordillera driven by changes in relative plate motion between the North American and Pacific plates." Only likely to be understood by aficionados. Either simplify or unpack.
    I don't see what's so hard to understand in this sentence. Rift even outside of geology means to break/crack and from my experience people usually know what a plate is. I would also like to note that other reviewers in previous FACs didn't find this sentence a problem (I used it other articles). Please explain what is so technical about it. Volcanoguy 16:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am hitting a surprisingly high number of issues given that I am only four paragraphs in. I note that the article has not been through either PR or GoCER, both of which would have been of benefit. I shall take a break, then pick a couple of random sections to sample, to see if it is just a rocky (pun intended) start. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether some of the things you brought up are actual issues rather than just nitpicking. See my comments above. Volcanoguy 15:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the responses and rereading my own comments I am leaning oppose, but will see what things are like elsewhere.
What's wrong with my responses? I don't have a problem with changing the text I just think maybe you're going a bit overboard on that one sentence about rifting and the plates. Volcanoguy 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second magmatic cycle and Nido eruptive period
  • "such that the lava flows formed two separate lava fields at each end of the volcanic complex." Do you mean that, four lava fields in total, or should it be 'such that the lava flows formed two separate lava fields, one at each end of the volcanic complex'?
    Added "one"; seems to have been a missing word. Volcanoguy 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both are separated by the Armadillo Highlands". "both" → 'they'.
    Done. Volcanoguy 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three major volcanoes of the Tenchen Member were active during the Nido eruptive period, all of which have since been reduced to eroded remnants. Alpha Peak was the oldest of the three major volcanoes ..." I don't think it is necessary to repeat "three major volcanoes" in consecutive sentences; perhaps 'them' in the second?
    Done. Volcanoguy 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "365 metres (1,198 feet)". Seems a bit false precision, perhaps insert a "|sigfig=2"? There seem to be other conversions in the article where a false degree of precision has been introduced. A "sigfig sweep" should catch them
    Done. Volcanoguy 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An eroded remnant of this volcano comprises a prominent rock pinnacle". Can one use "comprises" here? Several things need to be involved to be comprised. Perhaps 'forms'?
    Yes changed to 'forms'. Volcanoguy 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A feature which puzzles me is the summary of each eruptive period in "Second magmatic cycle". I would suggest ending this section at "... into three distinct eruptive periods". The subsequent text immediately describes them.
    The eruptive periods of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex are represented by the geological formations making up the complex that's why they're mentioned. Not all of the subsequent text is mentioned in the eruptive period sections. For example, the "Nido eruptive period" does not mention the fact that the Nido Formation is exposed along the Mess Creek Escarpment, nor does it mention the fact that the Nido Formation lava flows appear to have originated from several separate eruptive centres along the eastern margin of the MEVC. The "Spectrum eruptive period" doesn't mention the fact that the Spectrum Formation is almost entirely underlain by the Nido Formation and consists mostly of trachyte and rhyolite. The "Pyramid eruptive period" also doesn't mention the fact that the Pyramid Formation overlies the Nido Formation. Volcanoguy 15:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth magmatic cycle
  • "passive basaltic lava flows". What is a passive lava flow?
    Removed passive. Volcanoguy 22:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Therefore, the MEVC has been demonstrated as a potential source for these two tephra layers along with Hoodoo Mountain, Heart Peaks and Level Mountain." I am struggling a bit with this sentence. I think it is "demonstrated". Is it being used in the sense of 'suggested'?
    Yes, changed to 'suggested'. Volcanoguy 18:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Desolation and Mess Lake lava fields
  • Citation 165 leads this page. The cite is used to support:
"Fission track dating has yielded an age of 950 CE ± 6,000 years for the Sheep Track pumice" which I cannot see mentioned.
It is stated earlier in the article that only one eruption is known to have produced pumice during the fifth magmatic cycle and that was the Sheep Track eruption from the southwestern flank of Ice Peak near the end of the Big Raven eruptive period. In the "Eruptive history" tab being linked it clearly says that the eruption that occurred 0950 ± 6000 years ago produced pumice and came from the southwestern flank of Ice Peak. Click the date to see the details. Volcanoguy 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A small but violent VEI-3 eruption burst from the southwestern flank of Ice Peak near the end of the Big Raven eruptive period" which I cannot see supported.
Supported in the "Eruptive History" tab being linked and Souther 1992 which is already cited. Volcanoguy 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Willow twigs preserved in ejecta from Williams Cone have yielded a radiocarbon date of 610 CE ± 150 years." The source goives the date of the last eruption as 950 CE and does not mention willow twigs, carbon dating nor an error bar.
See above. Volcanoguy 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 110 leads to this page which is used to support:
"Eruptions during Big Raven time continued within the last 2,000 years, but the precise age of the latest one is unknown." The source states both "Last Known Eruption 950 CE" and "ending with felsic and basaltic eruptions as late about 1,000 years ago."
That's for the last known eruption of Mount Edziza, not the volcanic complex as a whole. The latest eruption of the complex may have came from The Ash Pit near the Spectrum Range since it may be the youngest feature. The source for the Spectrum Range gives unknown for the last known eruption. Volcanoguy 19:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page claims some eruptions are younger than about 1,300 years before present but this page claims The Ash Pit may be the youngest volcanic feature of the volcanic complex. Volcanoguy 23:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"These cones are of Holocene age and occur on Mount Edziza, in the Snowshoe and Desolation lava fields and adjacent to the Spectrum Range." Cones in the Desolation lava fields is not supported.
Supported by Souther 1992. Volcanoguy 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Prior to collapse, the summit of Mount Edziza was at least 610 metres (2,000 feet) higher than its current elevation of 2,786 metres (9,140 feet)." Only the current elevation is supported. Possibly the missing support is in Souther p 21, is it possible to make that available to me?
Supported by Souther 1992. There's no link to Souther's document you have to download it from the Canadian government website; see the doi provided for the source. Volcanoguy 19:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: well written, reasonably graspable by a non-expert IMO, and if a little lengthy, within the bounds of summary style (bar the seeming redundancy noted in "Second magmatic cycle"). The source to text discrepancies need to be explained. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Response? Volcanoguy 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, but have run out of time to get on with this review; I shall be away from the internet for the next week. If the nomination is still open when I get back I shall carry on. If it is considered for closure before then could the closing coordinator note that while I have not reviewed enough of the article to be able to support, I have seen nothing which would cause me to object to it being promoted. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eewilson

[edit]
  • Comparing article source/citation list to original sources. Listed only if question or problem found.
Sources:
  • Lakeman, Thomas R.; Clague, John J.; et. al. (2008) – publisher in Wikipedia article given as "NRC Research Press" which Wikilinks to a redirect to Canadian Science Publishing. Canadian Science Publishing seems to be the modern-day name (since 2010 according to its Wikipedia article) of the publisher, and is the name of the publisher used on the website where the article is located. Are you using NRC Research Press because it was the name of the publisher in 2008? If so, this is consistent with the instructions for the publisher parameter in template cite journal, which reads, "If the name of the publisher changed over time, use the name as stated in the publication or used at the time of the source's publication." Since I don't have the original journal article in front of me, just want to make sure it states the publisher as NRC Research Press.
Yes, the journal uses NRC Research Press instead of Canadian Science Publishing. Volcanoguy 21:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Souther 1992 – It doesn't appear that Geological Survey of Canada is the publisher. It appears to be the first part of the work, which is Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir, 420. I think using cite report template is a better choice, report (using title param) is The Late Cenozoic Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex, British Columbia. With parameters I have set in this example, you get something that I think better reflects the publication.
{{Cite report |last1=Souther|first1=J. G.|author-link1=Jack Souther|title=The Late Cenozoic Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex, British Columbia| work=Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir |series=420| year=1992|isbn=0-660-14407-7|doi=10.4095/133497}}
This gives us
Souther, J. G. (1992). The Late Cenozoic Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir (Report). 420. doi:10.4095/133497. ISBN 0-660-14407-7.
If there is a publisher, you could/should add that parameter as well. The detailed metadata page doesn't actually show a publisher. Perhaps it is Natural Resources Canada? If you can figure that out, add a publisher, too.
Done. Volcanoguy 22:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Volcanoguy 21:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saving to pick up in a bit. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Souther, J. G. & Symons, D. T. A. (1974). Stratigraphy and paleomagnetism of Mount Edziza volcanic complex, northwest British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper, 73-32. https://doi.org/10.4095/102538
So in the cite report template, I think you want work to be Geological Survey of Canada, Paper and series to be 73-32. Publisher possibly Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?
It gives Paper 73-32 on the cover of the report. Volcanoguy 18:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as the publisher. Volcanoguy 21:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A 502 is actually the name of the map; the series is 104 G. They're both provided in the top right corner of the map. Volcanoguy 17:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. I looked it over several times and didn't see it. I do now. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: It appears they have it the other way around on this map. On the Dease Lake topographic map they give 104 J for the map and A 502 as the series; you can see this here. I'm not sure if the Telegraph Creek map details in this article should have 104 G for the map and A 502 as the series despite the map claiming otherwise. Volcanoguy 00:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just use whatever is on the map. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|work=Geological Survey of Canada, Open File
|series=1732
Done except I put Geological Survey of Canada in |work= and Open File in |series= since Open File and 1732 are together separately from Geological Survey of Canada in the report. Volcanoguy 19:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 20:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 20: Imam, Naiyar (2003) – Which edition? When I pulled the ISBN on Amazon, I got 2nd edition.
Done. Volcanoguy 21:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 95: "Ice Peak Formation" – Could reference an archive? Make one and use in citation.
Done. Volcanoguy 20:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 103: Lloyd, A.; Edwards, B.; Edwards, C.; Skilling, I.; Lamoreaux, K. (2006) – Page number(s) of a write-up/abstract of the conference?
No page numbers it's a webpage. The webpage is provided via the bibcode in source. Volcanoguy 17:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your information in the article is coming from the abstract of the conference which is on this web page? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Volcanoguy 21:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 105: "Types of volcanoes" – work seems to be called Volcanoes of Canada instead of repeating "Types of volcanoes"
Fixed. Volcanoguy 17:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 113: Skilling, I.; Edwards, B.; Hungerford, J.; Lamoreaux, K.; Endress, C.; Lloyd, A. (2006) – same question about page number(s) as with other conference (103). What is used as the source?
See above. Volcanoguy 17:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 129: Logan, J. M.; Drobe, J. R. (1993) – work = Geological Fieldwork 1992
Done. Volcanoguy 19:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 145: Hungerford, Jefferson D. G. (2013) – go to the link and the date shows as 2014?
Replaced with 2014. Volcanoguy 20:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 148: Hickson, C. J. (2005) – Is this a book chapter? If so, need book editors. Does the chapter happen to be available online? If so, link.
Done. Volcanoguy 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 175: Reiner, Rudy (2015) – Check last name; web page spells it "Reimer". Should journal be Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports?
Fixed. Volcanoguy 17:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 176: "Archaeological Overview Assessment of the Cassiar-Iskut-Stikine LRMP" – Shouldn't Millennia Research Ltd. be the author?
I don't see where it says Millennia Research Ltd. as the author. Maybe Kleanza Consulting? Volcanoguy 20:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I downloaded the report and on the cover page, it has that. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind it appears I was looking at the wrong source (oops). Done. Volcanoguy 21:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 182: Lamoreaux, K. A.; Skilling, I. P.; Endress, C.; Edwards, B.; Lloyd, A.; Hungerford, J. (2006) – same question about page number(s) as with other conferences (103 and 113). What is used as the source?
See above. Volcanoguy 17:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 184: Duk-Rodkin, Alejandra; Barendregt, René W. (2011) – Needs book editors.
Done. Volcanoguy 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 20:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 187: Edwards, B. R. (2010) – same question about page number(s) as with other conferences (103, 113, 182). What is used as the source?
See above. Volcanoguy 17:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for first run. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: I think I got all of them. Volcanoguy 22:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll look at it after supper. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few more to look at. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "five cycles of magmatic activity which were characterized by 13 periods of eruptive activity". "which were characterized by" does not make sense here. Maybe "in"?
    I removed it since it wasn't necessary; the second paragraph in the introduction mentions them. Volcanoguy 03:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1,000-square-kilometre (390-square-mile) plateau". Is it almost exactly 1,000? If it is approximate then I suggest {{Convert|1000|km2|mi2|-2|adj=mid|abbr=off}} to round to 400.
    Added "approximately". Volcanoguy 00:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that the first cycle ended 5.3 mya and the second started 6 mya. The overlap needs explanation.
    Fixed. Volcanoguy 01:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe say in lead that each cycle has been less productive than the previous one.
    Done and also did some rewording. Volcanoguy 03:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This volcanic complex comprises a broad, steep-sided, intermontane plateau that rises from a base elevation of 760 or 816 metres (2,500 or 2,675 feet).[5][9][10] A northerly-trending, elliptical, composite shield volcano consisting of multiple flat-lying lava flows forms the plateau. Four central volcanoes of felsic[a] composition overlie the plateau" This is confusing. You appear to say first that the whole complex is in one plateau, then that the plateau is one volcano, then that other volcanoes overlie the plateau.
    That's right the plateau is overlain by other volcanoes. Volcanoguy 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having increased the rate of magmatism in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province" You are describing here the start of the volcanism, so what does it mean to say that it increased?
    "Volcanism at the MEVC about 7 million years ago increased the rate of magmatism in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province from 100,000 cubic metres (3,500,000 cubic feet) per year to 300,000 cubic metres (11,000,000 cubic feet) per year". In other words, volcanism in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province occurred at a lower rate until the MEVC started erupting about 7 million years ago; the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province was already an area of volcanic activity before the MEVC existed. Volcanoguy 02:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An eruption recurrence interval of 379 years has been calculated for the MEVC by dividing 11,000 years by the number of demonstrable Holocene eruptions". Presumably you mean the Holocene MEVC, but you imply the whole of it.
    Reworded. Volcanoguy 15:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magmatic cycles section. You do not need to keep repeating "second most productive", "third most productive" etc, just say that each cycle was less productive than the previous one.
    Did some rewording. Volcanoguy 02:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that the first cycle occurred in three successive periods, the first from 12 to 5.4 mya, the second 7.2 mya, the third between 7 and 6 mya. Successive periods at the same time does not make sense.
    It's a complex rather than a single volcano. Multiple volcanoes of the complex were active at different times, some longer than others. Volcanoguy 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have several different dates for the start of the MEVC, in the lead 7.4 mya,in the 'Eruption rate and composition' section 7 mya, and 12 mya in 'Magmatic cycles'. In the lead you have 7.4 and 6.1 mya for the first cycle, in First magmatic cycle, you say "restricted to the Late Miocene between 12 and 5.3 million years ago". This is ambiguous whether you are giving the period of the first cycle or the Late Miocene, but in any case it is the cycle which is relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles: Changed "restricted to the Late Miocene between 12 and 5.3 million years ago" to "restricted to the Late Miocene between 7.5 and 6 million years ago", same in the lead. Note that in the "Eruption rate and composition" section it gives about 7 million years ago, which is an approximate date provided by the cited source rather than an exact one. In the "Raspberry eruptive period" section it says the "minimum age for the timing of Raspberry volcanism is 7.4–6.2 million years"; 7 million years would fall in that range. Volcanoguy 19:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed "about 7 million years ago" to "at least 7.4 million years ago". Volcanoguy 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed "12 to 5.4 mya" to "7.4 mya". Volcanoguy 01:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volcanism of the Nido eruptive period was limited to the northern and southern ends of the MEVC". So the periods were not in specific areas or at successive times, so what does distinguish them? This is not explained.
    Most of the periods occurred at successive times it's just that some of the older dates are not accurate. I've changed some of the dates around so please check to see if it's better. A few of the other periods like Arctic Lake, Klastline and Kakiddi occurred in specific areas. Volcanoguy 01:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first age comes from basal basalt of the Kounugu Member overlying basement rocks and, if correct, implies that the Nido eruptions may have initiated during the Raspberry eruptive period." According to your dating the whole second cycle occurred during the Raspberry eruptive period.
    No, the Raspberry period took place around 7.4 million years ago. Volcanoguy 01:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done to end of second cycle. More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles: ? Volcanoguy 17:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The next eruptive period, the Pillow Ridge period, occurred when the MEVC was still overlain by an ice sheet." You say above that the ice retreated during the previous Ice Peak period.
    It says it was receding but the ice sheet could have advanced later on. Volcanoguy 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lava fountaining at the extreme northern end of the Arctic Lake Plateau created the Outcast Hill cinder cone which blocked westerly flowing streams to create a temporary lake against its eastern side." You do not need to say that a lava lake was temporary. Maybe change "temporary" to "lava" for clarity.
    It was a water lake, not a lava lake. Removing "temporary" would make it unclear whether or not the lake still exists. Volcanoguy 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both tephra layers may have been deposited shortly after the last glacial period". "after the last glacial period" is another way of saying the Holocene. I think it is better to stick to that term for clarity.
    Removed "after the last glacial period". Volcanoguy 14:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the height of the neoglaciation". Neoglaciation is a term I have not come across before. According to the article on it the height was the Little Ice Age, and if that is what you mean I think it would be much better to use the more familiar term.
    Replaced with "or during a more recent glacial advance". Volcanoguy 14:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are very few dates in the Fifth cycle section, and unless I have missed it you do not make clear whether the eruptions in different fields were in different periods or approximately contemporary.
    Most of the volcanic rocks produced during the fifth magmatic cycle have not been dated that's why there aren't many dates. Volcanic activity in the Desolation and Snowshoe lava fields occurred more or less simultaneously but I'm not sure about the Mess Lake Lava Field. Volcanoguy 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentioned that volcanic activity in the Desolation and Snowshoe lava fields most likely overlapped in time. Volcanoguy 17:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the Last Glacial Maximum and Last Glacial Period. It would be helpful to add dates in brackets at first mention. I am not familar with the terms for North American glacial periods, but it would also be helpful to link to earlier ones when mentioning earlier eruptions through glacial deposits. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the timing of the Last Glacial Maximum, not sure about the Last Glacial Period since there doesn't seem to be an agreement on when it began and ended. Volcanoguy 15:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I see that Eewilson has already commented on some of the sourcing, but adding here for completeness. #1 seems to be a reasonably well cited thesis, so it probably passes muster. "The Mechanics of Subglacial Basaltic Lava Flow Emplacement: Inferring Paleo-Ice Conditions" and " The Late Holocene White River Ash East Eruption and Pre-contact Culture Change in Northwest North America" are a bit more iffy, though, as I don't see many cites. Regarding the completeness criteria, perhaps there are sources here that can be used. Why is "Stratigraphy and paleomagnetism of Mount Edziza volcanic complex, northwest British Columbia" not used as a source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are PhD theses which are generally considered reliable. Masters theses on the other hand are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. As for "Stratigraphy and paleomagnetism of Mount Edziza volcanic complex, northwest British Columbia", it's an an outdated source. It seems the MEVC hadn't been subdivided into geological formations until the 1980s so I'm not sure where that source can be used in the article. Volcanoguy 16:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already checked Google Scholar for sources, not much left to use in the article. The featured article criteria claims featured articles should be comprehensive rather than complete. Volcanoguy 17:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the article already has 9,000+ words of readable prose. The more information the article has the more likely it will need to be cut down. Volcanoguy 18:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open for almost two months now and has stalled, with no activity for two weeks. As we don't have a consensus for promotion, I am archiving this nomination. The usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 20:02, 14 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Volcanism_of_the_Mount_Edziza_volcanic_complex/archive1&oldid=1240356839"