Wikipedia:Peer review/Level Mountain/archive1

Level Mountain

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 believe in terms of structure and content, this is very close to the FA standard. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Volcanoguy 21:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rhinopias

Hi, Volcanoguy! I've read through the article and here are some suggestions:

Lead

I think it'd be helpful to include a time frame for when animals "once thrived", and what happened to the caribou

Unfortunately I have not been able to find out what happened to the caribou. I assume the population dwindled from over-hunting. Volcanoguy 00:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential hazards could be discussed briefly (and a little monitoring), but other than that it's a good representation of the body

I'm not sure if it's necessary to mention them in the lead since they are not big topics of the subject. The information about monitoring is for Canadian volcanoes in general and since the source is an old archived website it is possible the information is outdated. There seems to be no information about monitoring at Level Mountain itself so maybe that whole section could be deleted with the landslide paragraph merged into the structure section. Volcanoguy 14:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense why you didn't include it in the lead. I think that the section is useful even if there isn't much happening monitoring wise – could prompt readers to look into it more and could always be expanded later if more information is available. Rhinopias (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

Tectonic setting

Couple instances of adjacent links: not sure if period needs to be linked in "Cretaceous period", if era should be kept in "Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras" the sentence could be reworded – also, intrusions of granite instead of "granitic intrusions"?

I'm not sure either. "Granitic" is a term used to describe rocks that are similar to granite so it may or may not be accurate to change the text from "granitic intrusions" to "intrusions of granite". It seems to me that granitic should be redirected to granitoid. Volcanoguy 15:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha – I think I only suggested that because it was redirecting to Granite. Rhinopias (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both structures have had strike-slip motions since the Cretaceous period, which has resulted …

Done. Volcanoguy 14:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

… take their shape from the environment they formed, in regardless of the type of magma they produced.

Done. Volcanoguy 14:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rift xsection.png could be a tiny bit larger as some of the labels are a little difficult to read

Changed image size from 350px to 400px. Volcanoguy 03:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this subsection seems to be out of scope as multiple articles cover the NCVP, but I think many sentences could be reworded just slightly to give relevance for the region's tectonic history to specifically Level Mountain

I do not see how it's out of scope when Level Mountain is part of the NCVP. It's not unusual for volcano articles (especially those at FA) to have a section explaining the regional geology. "Regional setting" may be a better title for this section. Volcanoguy 14:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Do the FAs with such a section also have an article that extensively covers the region's geology? I'm assuming this information is in Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province (and also Volcanic history of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province), but I haven't read the article. I just meant that, seeing as the section doesn't mention Level Mountain, you may be able to work in short explanations of why particular geological points are relevant to specifically Level Mountain. For example, which one of the "four large crustal fragments" does Level Mountain belong to? Or is it multiple?

Maybe you're using the section solely to provide background information so points later in the article about Level Mountain make sense in context of the region's geology (e.g. "The NCVP contains over 100 volcanoes …" and then shortly after, in #Structure, "Level Mountain is the largest volcano in the NCVP …"), but it just seemed to me that the section was too detailed and not relevant to the subject. I like "Regional setting" better than the previous, but maybe "Geological background" or something with the words historical or history would make it more clear that it's background information? Rhinopias (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhinopias: I did some revising. The section also has "Several types of volcanic eruptions have since created different landforms across the NCVP, including shield volcanoes, lava domes, stratovolcanoes and cinder cones. Other volcanic formations, notably subglacial volcanoes, take their shape from the environment they formed, regardless of the type of magma they produced." All of these volcano types are mentioned in the "Volcanic history" section. Two of the "four large crustal fragments" (i.e. Stikinia and Cache Creek) are mention in #Structure. Volcanoguy 03:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

You could use |disp=out (or something else) in {{convert}} to avoid double parentheses, as in (1,700 m (5,600 ft)), like {{nowrap|(1,700 m or {{Convert|1700|m|ft|abbr=on|disp=out}})}}: (1,700 m or 5,600 ft)
- Actually, there are a few better options listed at Template:Convert#Brackets and sep. Rhinopias (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the image caption, links to shield volcano and stratovolcano are repeats

Removed. Volcanoguy 15:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanic history

Exposed south of Level Mountain is a rock outcrop consisting - does this mean "A rock outcrop is exposed on the south side"?

Yes reworded and also added "near Hatchau Lake" to give a more precise location. Volcanoguy 16:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's clearer. Rhinopias (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Link to geologic map in the image caption is a repeat

Removed. Volcanoguy 17:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

Since Flora and fauna isn't used in the article and therefore isn't linked or explained, I'd suggest using "Plants and animals" for the section title and flora/fauna can be used in the body

I have changed the section title to "Plants and animals" but it may be best to avoid the words flora/fauna in the body to make it less technical. Volcanoguy 16:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the list of plants avoid the redundant link to Saxifraga by moving the second: "prickly and brook saxifrage"

Done. Volcanoguy 16:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also common in the alpine are brown bears, which are … seems weird when they've been introduced already; maybe "Brown bears are common in the alpine and are …"

Done. Volcanoguy 15:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shallow, coarse, textured, steep to strongly sloping soils … missing "and"?

I assume you meant Shallow, coarse, textured and steep to strongly sloping soils …? Volcanoguy 14:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Rhinopias (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Volcanoguy 18:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Human history

The recognition of Level Mountain as a long-lived volcano in contrast to the small Tuya field volcanoes has given its status as a separate volcanic centre. "it" not "its", or reword: "Level Mountain is a long-lived volcano in contrast to the small Tuya field volcanoes, resulting in its status as a separate volcanic centre."

Done. Volcanoguy 23:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring and volcanic hazards

The acronym GSC is only used twice, so I'd recommend removing the (GSC) designation in #Geological studies and replacing both instances with the full name. If not the one in that section, at least the one here.

Removed. Volcanoguy 13:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References and other

Refs #18 (Mark 1987) and #26 (Ash Fall newsletter) have a CS1 error; either add a URL to them or remove |access-date=

Done. Volcanoguy 23:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating external links to the same source in citation style seems a bit jumbled – is it possible to cite the source and then have bullets underneath for the four pages?

I am not understanding what you are trying to say here. Volcanoguy 13:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of:

"Level Mountain". Catalogue of Canadian volcanoes. Natural Resources Canada. 2005-08-19. Archived from the original on 2007-07-13. Retrieved 2015-01-16.
"Level Mountain North". Catalogue of Canadian volcanoes. Natural Resources Canada. 2005-08-19. Archived from the original on 2007-07-13. Retrieved 2015-01-16.
"Level Mountain S-E". Catalogue of Canadian volcanoes. Natural Resources Canada. 2005-08-19. Archived from the original on 2007-07-13. Retrieved 2015-01-16.
"Level Mountain S-W". Catalogue of Canadian volcanoes. Natural Resources Canada. 2005-08-19. Archived from the original on 2007-07-13. Retrieved 2015-01-16.

How's this change? The archive date for all four archived links is the same, 2006-02-19. Rhinopias (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it looks better. Volcanoguy 18:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prose, illustrations, and organization are great. My only concern is that the Geology section is very technical to the point where linking terms isn't sufficient to allow for laypeople to understand it, so they may lose interest. WP:MTAU#Avoid overly technical language and MOS:JARGON have suggestions on how to make technical topics more accessible, but that's likely difficult to accomplish for #Geology as it's a technical topic within the broader subject of a volcano that may attract attention from non-technical readers. Obviously, though, geology is essential to the subject, so I'm not sure what the best course of action would be if one would be beneficial.

I tried keeping things simple but like you say it's not easy to do with a technical subject like geology. Volcanoguy 01:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time in between your regular tasks, I'd appreciate some comments on the peer review I have open if you're interested. I'll watch for your reply to my comments here but feel free to ping me also. Rhinopias (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the Monterey Bay Aquarium article and I honestly do not have any suggestions. Very well done! Volcanoguy 02:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

Lead looks good.
"Mafic magma rises along these fractures to create passive lava flows" - what do you mean by passive lava flows?

Passive → fluid. Volcanoguy 18:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"lacustrine and glacial sediment." - should probably clarify what lacustrine means for a general reader

Lacustrine redirects to lake article. Volcanoguy 18:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, not many suggestions prose-wise. It is very, very well-written, and I think you've done a fantastic job working out some of the more technical terms. That being said, I worry a bit that FAC reviewers might take issue with the more technical material, but I think consensus wouldn't be too hard to reach. ceranthor 18:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]