Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Fee/archive1
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 not promoted by Karanacs 15:08, 14 September 2010 [1].
Mount Fee[edit]
Mount Fee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Volcanoguy (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I finally recreated Mount Fee's article after doing months of information gathering. There is apparently not much known about its geology because it has not been studied in detail and its age and timing of volcanic events are not exactally known either because they remain undated. I could not find anything about Fee's volcanic hazards (e.g. the danger from future eruptions). So I suspect GSC volcanologists are not worried about future eruptions; it may even be extinct given its circumstances; the current mountain is the remnants of a larger volcanic feature. Anyway I suspect the article is fairly complete. Volcanoguy 08:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 09:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: needs some copyediting at least. I think the worst passage is probably "Mount Fee covers a volume of at least 0.3 km (0.19 mi)" (here "covers" implies an area, which clashes with both "volume" and the linear measures "0.3 km", "0.19 mi"), but there are plenty of places where the text needs work. --Avenue (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Volcanoguy 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, even that specific passage is not fixed. It is slightly improved, in that the word covers is no longer there, but the article still claims Mt Fee "has a volume of at least 0.3 km (0.19 mi)". I have tracked down the source cited for that sentence, and it doesn't support this claim, so I have now requested a source. --Avenue (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - in lead - "At least two major summits constitute the north and south portions of the ridge, with the southern tower being the highest." How many major summits are there on the ridge ? Presumably it doesn't vary much, seeing as the volcano isn't active. Claritas § 10:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I have no idea how many summits it has but two major summits lie on top of the ridge. There are several minor peaks that form the lava spines discussed in the article. Volcanoguy 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comment: all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Overall, a short, but well-written article.
- This mountain ridge represents the base of a north–south trending volcanic field Mount Fee occupies. - which ... occupies
- Mount Fee is one of the southernmost of more than 10 volcanoes occupying the Mount Cayley volcanic field. - This sentence could use a rewrite.
- The volcanic belt has formed as a result of going subduction of the Juan de Fuca Plate under the North American Plate at the Cascadia subduction zone along the British Columbia Coast.[3] - ongoing
- As periods of glaciation covered the ancestral volcano, it removed much of the original outer cone of pyroclastic material. - Verb tense agreement. I don't think periods is the right word, either.
- I just removed "periods of" so it reads as As glaciation covered the ancestral volcano, it removed much of the original outer cone of pyroclastic material. What do you mean by verb tense agreement? Volcanoguy 23:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its volcanics remain undated, but its large amount of dissection and evidence of glacai ice overriding the volcano indicates that it formed more than 75,000 years ago before the Wisconsinan Glaciation. - but the large amount of dissection and evidence of glacial ice at the volcano, versus overriding the volcano.
- Overriding is a better term. During glaciations the volcano was buried under glacial ice of the Wisconsinan Glaciation. Volcanoguy 23:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The remaining products from Fee's earliest volcanic activity is a minor portion of pyroclastic rock. - Verb tense agreement; also, I think you could use a better noun than portion, as that makes it sound like the activity is food.
- This is evidence of explosive volcanism during Fee's eruptive history, - Pipe link explosive eruptions?
- Yup. I thought there was already a link to the explosive eruption article but I guess not. Volcanoguy 23:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cultural ceremonial use, hunting, trapping and plant gathering occured in the Mount Garibaldi area, - Assuming ceremonial use of the mountain, but that's not clear.
- In September 1928, Mount Fee was named by British mountaineer Tom Fyles after Charles Fee (1865–1927), who was a member of the British Columbia Mountaineering Club in Vancouver at the time.[11] - Doesn't make sense if he died in 1927.
- Even though it is a short article, its scope is large for such a small volcano. Volcanoguy 23:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image issue: all images are fine, except for File:Mount Fee.jpg. Initially, I was of the opinion that it only required an administrator to confirm the original license on Wikipedia (the upload log does not state it). However, I found this, which was uploaded to the web as early as 2005. The image on Wikipedia is a crop from Michael Coyle's photograph (which supposedly can be seen in full glory if you are a paid member of the bivouac site). The copyright status of this image should be clarified and resolved if the image is to be used on this project. Jappalang (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice the image's author is the one that uploaded it on Commons. Volcanoguy 12:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now, sorry.
- While much of the article is quite readable, the prose is still not up to FA standard in several places, with the wording often being cumbersome or worse. Some illustrative examples:
"The conduit for which these lava flows originated from...", "The volcanic edifice ancestral Mount Fee represented...", "It is nearly vertical in structure...", and "The ... volcanics composing Mount Fee contain ... 15% vesicular textures" (should be vesicles). The final section on Monitoring is particularly muddled. - There are still multiple spelling and grammar mistakes (especially singular/plural disagreement), e.g.
"crevice that give them","abgle","The remaining products ... is","significant support ... have resulted". - Some inaccuracies remain, e.g. stratovolcanoes can reach heights of much more than 2,438.4 m
(which is a ridiculously overprecise figure, BTW), and the bit saying "About 25% of the volcanics contain crystal content" would be more accurately phrased as "the crystal content of the volcanics is about 25%" (and the source cited says "up to", not "about"). - Some causal linkages are unexplained and seem dubious or unclear, e.g. the "Therefore" in the Eruptive history section, and the linkage between earthquakes and volcanism in the Monitoring section: "with the existence of earthquakes, further volcanism is expected".
- Another minor issue is that the {{convert}} seems to omit
before units, so the article fails to follow WP:MOS where this template is used. This seems to be a known problem with the template (see Template_talk:Convert#Nbsp.3F). While this isn't ideal, hopefully it will be fixed eventually, and I wouldn't oppose based on that. --Avenue (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Avenue, as a member of WP Volcanoes, it seems to be a bit awkward seeing another WP Volcano member giving points to be fixed if they understand what is being discussed even if it is relatively poorly writen. Why not do it yourself and work as a WP Volcano member? Because everything in the article seems quite clear to me. So I am likely not the one to do the copyediting. The reason I used 2,438.4 m is because the source uses feet; apparently 8,000 feet equels to 2,438.4 m according to the Convert template. Volcanoguy 13:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it can be hard to see what parts of one's writing might be unclear to others. That's one reason why an article often benefits from going through peer review, even if the original author knows much more about the topic than the reviewer.
- I'm sorry I haven't yet been able to provide more hands-on help with this article. I have had my hands full with other tasks lately (an FLC, an FAR, and a current event), all also part of WP Volcanoes or my other main project, WP New Zealand. All I have been able to do for this FAC was look in at the beginning, and come back and review the article more carefully yesterday. I hope I will have time to come back to this article again in a week or so. I have a wikibreak scheduled in two weeks time, and I'm hoping to resolve the other tasks before then.
- Also, please realise that copyediting is not always trivial. I might understand most of the statements in this article on one level, but the motivations for various statements and the connections made between them are still obscure to me. To take a simple example, I wasn't sure what meaning you intended the reader to draw from the 8000 ft stratovolcano figure. Is it that Mount Fee is close to 8000 ft in height itself? Or (now that I've checked the source) does the 8000 ft refer to the stratovolcano's height above its base (in which case our text should be made clearer), and so imply that the ancestral Mt Fee stratovolcano could have been vastly bigger than the current remnant? How high is the non-volcanic base that Mt Fee is built on? Is there more specific evidence we could cite about the size of ancestral Mt Fee, rather than fall back on a very general figure?
- I've fixed a few of the simpler problems (and struck them out above). Again, I'm sorry I can't provide much more help with this at present. --Avenue (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While much of the article is quite readable, the prose is still not up to FA standard in several places, with the wording often being cumbersome or worse. Some illustrative examples:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.