Wikipedia:Peer review/Mount Mazama/archive1

Mount Mazama

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to eventually bring it to FAC. Any and all feedback on improving the article is welcome.

Thanks, ceranthor 21:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891

coming soon. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks! ceranthor 20:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, just checking in to see if you still have time to review Mazama. No worries either way - I appreciate any and all feedback. ceranthor 21:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: I am hoping to nominate this for FAC within the next week or two, so if you have any additional comments, let me know! Thanks for all you do. ceranthor 22:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Freikorp

I should mention that other than reviewing a few of your GANs, I don't have any experience with geography articles, so I don't know exactly what a geography FAC should entail. Though as I said at the GAN this article looks particularly thorough from a general readers perspective. I'll have another look now and see if I can find anything else.

"Much of the volcano fell into the volcano's" - I'd replace the second use of 'volcano'
In the same section you've got United States Geological Survey linked and also USGS linked, which redirects to the same article. I'd specific (USGS) in brackets after the first mention then unwikilink the second.
I'd wikilink Cirque
Those third and fourth paragraphs in 'Ecology' are still almost an eyesore in terms of wikilinks. I can't think of a good solution to fix the issue though. Just thought I'd mention it.
"Now the water from precipitation nearly" - consider replacing 'now' with a year as per WP:REALTIME
Dacite is wikilinked, though not at its first mention
Most of your journal references have Digital object identifiers, but a couple don't. If possible, I'd add them in.
Some of your book sources have ISBN 10s, while others have ISBN 13s. I'd try and replace the 10s with 13s if possible.

I would support this at FAC. Leave me a message on my talk page when you nominate it :) Freikorp (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll work on these in the next few days. ceranthor 21:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Freikorp, these should all be fixed (except the ecology note, for now). ceranthor 20:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jo-Jo Eumerus

North American volcanoes aren't really my area of interest (I've penned up only two substantial articles Big Pine volcanic field and Cima volcanic field as I was more interested in lakes such as Lake Cahuilla, Lake Tecopa, Lake Manix and Lake Manly), but I notice that only one sentence in the article refers to the far field effects of the Mazama eruption. This eruption did disperse ash over much of North America, Greenland and possibly as far as Europe, and this dispersal is among other things used to date volcanic eruptions and other geographical events (e.g lake cycles) in the region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. I'll work on doing more digging and expand accordingly. ceranthor 21:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, do you have access to [1], [2], [3], or [4]? ceranthor 20:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, possibly, possibly and no. WP:RX is the place I go to to find non-public sources so that might help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Making some progress. Should finish up in the next few days. ceranthor 01:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: What do you think? Does it need more detail, or is what I've added sufficient? ceranthor 18:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of basic. Do the sources not mention any effects of the ash in the far field? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus - Added some more to the climactic eruption section. Is that any better? ceranthor 21:38, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is better now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14

The article appears to be in FA shape, then again, my experience in geography FAC is very limited. Here are my initial comments starting with the lead down to the 'Ecology' section.

In the lead, perhaps replace the second mention of 'Mazama' - "The eruption also destroyed Mazama's summit, reducing Mazama's approximate 12,000-foot (3,700 m) height by about 1 mile (1,600 m)"
In the first line of the physical geography section, maybe revise/replace "over and over". Perhaps frequently? or Glaciers were formed on the mountain over time/throughout the years as Mazama developed.
I'd wikilink Bull trout on the first mention.

Will get to the rest of the sections next. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: thanks for these notes - should all be addressed. ceranthor 20:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: do you have more comments? Let me know if there's anything else that needs revision or expansion. ceranthor 22:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor:, Apologies for taking a while, nothing more to add for the remainder of the article. These should be all. Leave me a message when you have this at FAC and would be happy to support. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ceranthor 18:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]