Talk:Pelican Butte/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Ceranthor (talk · contribs) 02:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 17:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'll take this one!  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Agency Lake.JPG - I see that there are annotations, but it might be worth mentioning the butte in the caption as well.
• File:View from Mount McLoughlin.jpg - Everything looks good; proper license, and tagged as reviewed.

Prose review

• Lede is a bit sparse and should be expanded.
• Is there a good target for axis, within the context of geology?
• several tens of meters - is there a more specific number available, something less ambiguous? This suggests something between 30 and 50 m, at least to me.
• Check capitalization on animals. I note, for example, that Northern flying squirrel does not capitalize "N" in the article itself.
• breccia based on eroded areas with breccia between lava flows, though breccia - any way of avoiding the repetition of breccia?
• There are a couple of one-sentence paragraphs. Any way of merging them elsewhere?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• The Global Volcanism Program of the Smithsonian Institution does not list any specific subfeatures for Pelican Butte. - This is quite short, and as a layperson I'm not sure of the relevance. Is it worth merging with something?
• Pleistocene - worth contextualizing with MYA?
• Lost Peak - any etymology on this?
• L-4 lookout - any link for classification of lookouts?
• The United States Congress designated the Sky Lakes Wilderness area in 1984. - Worth mentioning the volcano again, as Sky Lakes Wilderness was mentioned three sections ago?
• The Pacific Crest Trail passes through the Sky Lakes wilderness area, running about 35 miles (56 km) in length. - Does it cross the butte?

Source review

• Not a GA requirement, but moving forward I would recommend archiving the internet references. It helps prevent link rot.
• Overall, reference formatting looks really good! I did standardize the date format.
• Earwig indicates low likelihood of copyvio.
• Have spotchecked Refs [6], [8], [17], and [29]. I didn't see any issues.

Conclusion

This is very well written! Just a few comments, and it should be an easy pass. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)