Wikipedia:Peer review/Mount Fee/archive1

Mount Fee

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking forward to bring Mount Fee to Featured Article status. This article has been at FAC twice, most recently on 2 December, which has been delisted. The entire article may need to be reviewed for issues. It has been awhile since I last did extensive editing on this article.

Thanks, Volcanoguy 20:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• Why are en-dashes used in place of hyphens for hyphenated words like "U-shaped", "north-south", and many more?

If they are not needed I can just replace them with hyphens. Volcanoguy 22:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

They have to be replaced with hyphens. En-dashes are not correct. Jappalang (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Lede

• "Mount Fee is a volcanic peak in the Pacific Ranges of the Coast Mountains in southwestern British Columbia, Canada, located 13 km (8.1 mi) south of Callaghan Lake and 21 km (13 mi) west of the resort town of Whistler."

  I think there is too much locational ideas in this one sentence. Separate it into two (the first larger scale, the second more precise).

Fixed. Volcanoguy 21:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• "... it rises above the surrounding rugged landscape on an alpine mountain ridge."

  This does not read right to me... the mountain is part of the ridge, not "on" it.

Mount Fee lies on top of a mountain ridge. It was constructed after the mountain ridge formed. Volcanoguy 02:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• "At least two major summits constitute the summit ridge, with the southern tower being the highest."

  "Mount Fee has two major summits; both lie on a ridge and the highest is the southern of the two."

I did some rewording to this sentence. Volcanoguy 02:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Geology

• "This volcanic zone forms the central portion of the larger Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, the northern extension of the Cascade Volcanic Arc, which extends from the Silverthrone Caldera in the north to the Watts Point volcano in the south."

  Again a long sentence that can be broken down into shorter ones (which might be more smoothly combined/integrated with the following sentences).

Removed "the northern extension of the Cascade Volcanic Arc" bit because it is not necessarily needed. I added that because people are less likely to know what the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt is than the Cascade Volcanic Arc, which is a broader term that includes volcanoes in the United States such as Mount St. Helens, Mount Rainier, Mount Baker, Mount Shasta and so on, which are more known than Mount Fee. Volcanoguy 04:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• "... significantly eroded by former glacial periods."

  "... significantly eroded by glaciers in the past."?

Reworded. I changed it to "significantly eroded by glacial ice." Volcanoguy 05:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Stratovolcanoes consist of alternating layers of lava flows, volcanic ash, cinders, blocks and bombs that can reach heights of 2,500 m (8,000 ft)."

  Beware. The bombs can reach 2,500m? Suggestion: "Stratovolcanoes can reach heights of 2,500m (8,000 ft) and consist of alternating layers of lava flows, volcanic bombs, blocks, cinders, and ash." I paused at the end of the original sentence, pondering if "bombs" (even if linked) at the end can confuse; I think this order could prove less confusing.

Fixed. Volcanoguy 22:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• "As periods of glaciation covered the ancestral volcano, it removed much of the original outer cone of pyroclastic material. The removal of pyroclastics has ..."

  "During the glacial periods, much of the volcano's original outer cone of pyroclastic material was eroded away by moving layers of ice and rock. The removal of the ejected volcanic material has ..."

Fixed. Volcanoguy 23:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Eruptive history

• Although the title is proper, I think "History of eruptive activity" or "History of eruptions" is clearer.

I find "Eruptive history" is more simple and appropiate, especially because it is shorter and easier to read. Volcanoguy 03:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• "... large amount of dissection ...", "Following extensive dissection, ..."

  How do the acts of dissections help to indicate age? Should it not be analysis of these dissections that reveal something? Or is dissection meaning something else? The Oxford dictionary has no meanings for "dissection" that relates to volcanic activity.[1]

That is because "dissection" is not being used with volcanic activity. It is refering to the volcano. If Mount Fee formed in the past 10,000 years it would not be heavily dissected by glacial ice like it is now. Why? Because heavy dissection by glaciation in the area occurred during the last glacial period, which ended about 10,000 years ago. So given its large amount of dissection and evidence of glacial ice overriding the volcano, it formed more than 75,000 years ago before the Wisconsinan Glaciation like it states. Volcanoguy 02:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• What are "volcanics"? Oxford dictionary defines no such term.

What are you, a person fascinated by dictionaries? Of course there is such a term. Do some research. According to the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, it means Igneous rocks that solidified after reaching or nearing the earth's surface, which would be stuff like lava. It is also used in names of volcanic features and webpages like the Newer Volcanics Province, the Sierra Blanca Volcanics, Canada Volcanoes and Volcanics, Wells Creek Volcanics, Shoshone Volcanics and so on. "Volcanics" is basically plural for "volcanic". If there is more than one type of volcanic material its either "volcanic rocks" or "volcanics". For example, "volcanics of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt range in composition from basalt to rhyolite." Rephrasing that sentence to "volcanic of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt range in composition from basalt to rhyolite" is just bad grammar. Volcanoguy 21:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The common understanding is that "volcanic" is an adjective, not a noun. If geologists have declared it as a noun and used it in a plural form, it becomes a jargon (technical term) that is not obvious and confusing to the common reader (who Wikipedia is mostly catering for). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Clarity, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Technical language and Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. If jargon is to be used in articles, then on its first use, it has to be clarified/explained for the common readers. Jappalang (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to get past this issue I removed "volcanics" in the text. Volcanoguy 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Petrography

• Again the "volcanics"

History

• The section title does not seem appropriate; the section talks of human activity. How the mountain formed and such is in Geology.

I have retitled that section to "Human history" and removed "Human" in "Human habitation" becuase it is redundant. Volcanoguy 03:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Human habitation

• "Hunting, trapping and plant gathering occurred in the Mount Garibaldi area, but the most important resource was glassy volcanic rock."

  The clauses seem a bit mismatched. The first refers to activity. The second refers to an object.

Reworded. The bit about Mount Garibaldi dosen't really belong in this section anyway because it is quite aways from Mount Fee. Volcanoguy 05:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• What are "pre-contact times"?

Reworded. Volcanoguy 04:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• "... collectively dated from about 8,000 to 100 years old."

  "... collectively dated from about 100 to 8,000 years ago."

Fixed. Volcanoguy 23:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Others included Cauldron Dome, Mount Cayley, Slag Hill, Ember Ridge and Ring Mountain, which was titled Crucible Dome at the time."

  Why is the title (Crucible Dome) of a geological feature (Ember Ridge and Ring Mountain) at that time in italics?

I have no idea. The given source does not mention why Ring Mountain was titled Crucible Dome at the time. My only guess is whoever that named the volcano Crucible Dome was not aware the volcano was already officially named Ring Mountain. Volcanoguy 23:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• "This resulted in the creation of a geologic map ..."

  Note the ambiguity of "this". Coming after the last sentence, "this" can mean the titling of "Ember Ridge and Ring Mountain" as Cruicible Dome...

Reworded. Volcanoguy 03:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Monitoring

• "... dealing with other natural processes, including tsunamis, earthquakes ..."

  "... dealing with other natural processes, such as tsunamis, earthquakes ..."

Fixed. Volcanoguy 23:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• "If it were to erupt there would likely be weeks, months or years of warning signs, such as clusters of minor earthquakes that would likely originate less than 15 km (9.3 mi) below the surface. They are generally too small to be felt by people."

  If they are too small to be felt, by what means are they detected to be warnings?

I rewrote a bit in the "monitoring" section. Please see if there is still something awkward in the wording. Volcanoguy 01:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• "This improvement is continuous and will support the understanding to monitor other volcanoes in the Mount Cayley field for future volcanism."

  This phrasing is speculative.

Deleted. Volcanoguy 01:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a copy-edit should be performed on the article (I am not the best judge or consultant for prose). Hopefully the above can help. Jappalang (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What should I do after all issues are solved, repost it for FAC? Volcanoguy 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you should look for an independent copyeditor first per the comments in the last FAC (I do not consider myself an excellent judge of brilliant prose, so another opinion would help). Jappalang (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)