Talk:Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex

Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 19, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Volcanoes: Canada Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Volcanism of Canada task force (assessed as High-importance).

Canada: British Columbia / Geography / The 10,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.
	This article was created or improved during The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada, which started in November 2016 and is ongoing. You can help!!

GA Review[edit]

Passed. grungaloo (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 21:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this up! Will ping you when I have a full review. grungaloo (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Volcanoguy, another great article! I only have one comment below, but it's just a suggestion and not something to hold up GA promotion for. The prose is clear and consistent, the references check out (thanks for using page numbers!), it has good coverage of the details, good images, and no evidence of any edit warring. Congrats on another GA! grungaloo (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"An eruption recurrence interval of 379 years has been calculated for the MEVC by dividing 11,000 by the number of demonstrable Holocene eruptions. " - I'd suggest a minor rewrite or adding a footnote to clarify that it's 11,000 years and why 11,000 years is used (as opposed to some other number).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pre-FAC review[edit]

Volcanoguy - sorry I'm just now getting to this - life got busy.

"The MEVC has a volume of 670 cubic kilometres (160 cubic miles) " - I'm assuming this is of post-eruptive material, but it wouldn't hurt to explicitly state this as it is not very common to see geographic areas measured in volume
I've reworded this part of the first sentence to "The MEVC covers 1,000 square kilometres (390 square miles) and comprises 670 cubic kilometres (160 cubic miles) of volcanic material". Volcanoguy 21:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Volcanism of the MEVC took place during five magmatic cycles" - I'd rephrase this a bit - the use of the past tense here indicates that all volcanism at the MEVC is over, but as the article notes, the fifth cycle might still be going on
Replace "took place" with "has taken place"? Volcanoguy 20:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may just be completely misunderstanding this, but I'm not seeing how the dates for the periods of the first magmatic cycle work. If the Little Iskut conformably overlies the Raspberry formation, then how does it work that the dates for the Raspbery formation extend essentially for the entire range for the first magmatic cycle, including up to 1.8 my after the Little Iskut formation? - so further on in the article I learn that they're possible coeval or nearly contemporaneous. I think it would be best to mention that fact in the introductory paragraph for that first magmatic section
I've moved that sentence to the introductory paragraph and reworded it a bit to "Eruptions of the Little Iskut period immediately followed or may have been coeval with those of the Raspberry period due to the lack of an erosion surface between the two formations." Volcanoguy 00:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"As the lava domes continued to grow their slopes became oversteepened, " - is this grammatical? Something seems off here to me
I'm not sure. Volcanoguy 21:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the second magmatic cycle, will continue soon. Hog Farm _Talk 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I've responded to all of your comments. Volcanoguy 00:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The lava flows buried lag gravels" - I think you'll need a link or a short gloss for what "lag gravels" area
Linked "lag" to lag deposit. Volcanoguy 14:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Potassium–argon dating has yielded ages of 0.31 ± 0.07 million years for Kakiddi mugearite" - but the article says earlier that the Ice Peak formation was the only one to involve mugearite?
I've changed the text in the Ice Peak eruptive period section so it claims this eruptive period was the only one involving the eruption of large volumes of intermediate rocks. Volcanoguy 23:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are the any estimates for volume of eruptive material for the fith magmatic cycle?
Yes it's already mentioned: "About 1.7 cubic kilometres (0.41 cubic miles) of volcanic material was deposited by the Big Raven eruptions." Volcanoguy 13:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will be good to go for FAC once the above are addressed. Let me know when you nominate it and I'll likely support; apologies for this taking so long. Hog Farm _Talk 02:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: No need to apologize I don't plan on nominating this article for FA yet, but I have nominated the Big Raven Formation article if you want to take a look at it. Volcanoguy 16:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]