Talk:Silverthrone Caldera
 | Silverthrone Caldera has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For an GA... edit
This article has really transformed. Great job by Black Tusk!
Images
A little expansion
3 or 4 References
--Meldshal (§peak to me) 11:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Expanded and added more references and photos. There's very little known about this volcano because of its remoteness so I would say this article is almost complete... Black Tusk (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
VEI-7 edit
I don't think there's a source mentioning the Silverthrone Caldera as a VEI-7 volcano given the fact it's remote and poorly studied, but it's size appears to be quite similar to other VEI-7 calderas per Category:VEI-7 volcanoes which are mostly at least 16 kilometers wide. It's most likely explosive in nature and not mainly effusive since rhyolite, dacite and andesite lava have high viscosity and are commonly associated with violent explosive volcanism. Not a highly accurate observation but the larger the caldera is the larger the eruption must have been. It's also larger than the Crater Lake caldera in Oregon (another Cascade volcano) which also formed by a VEI-7 eruption. Black Tusk (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I readded this infomation because Silverthrone appears to be subduction-related based on chemistry. I also deleted the bit about its elevation not definitely known because there appears to be no source to support it. References I seen for the Silverthrone Caldera show an elevation of 3,160 m (10,367 ft). Black Tusk (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
GA Review edit
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Silverthrone Caldera/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I have read through this article, and have found it satisfactory. It is well written, engaging, and free from grammatical errors and typos. It catches the readers attention, though it is at times rather technical. However, this level of technicality is acceptable from a "research point of view". It is thoroughly referenced, and in all the right places. The article and its sections are also illustrated by images and a map. There is no history of recent edit warring. All-in-all, this is an article of excellent quality, and a definite Good Article. J.T Pearson (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Edits edit
I've made many small edits, working as an editor who's not a geologist: see this diff. They're intended to make the article clearer, emphasising salient facts. I also added some invisible commented-out queries that only you-all can respond to: some things need to be given explanatory phrases to keep the general reader on board. The date of the "most recent ice age" didn't seem indicated by the rest of the paragraph: do please check that the link I made is right. I de-forced the px of images: now we get to select our own preferences, according to the MoS. --Wetman (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- The bit about the last ice age appears to be from a non-reliable website so I deleted and reworded the infomation. "choss" is just a term for dirty or loose rock, so I changed that as well. However, I don't understand your note about the Cascadia subduction zone theory being doubted. Black Tusk (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- To the unnecessarily hesitant phrase "However, it may be a product of the Cascadia subduction zone" my commented-out note meant "could this possibly be doubted?" Is there any doubt in any quarter that the volcano belt is a product of crustal subduction? The conditional hesitancy should be cleared from the thought. Yes?--Wetman (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not really, unless there's solid evidence. Andesite, dacite, and rhyolite are usually found together at subduction zones as mentioned in the article and that's why scientists consider Silverthrone as a subduction-related volcano. Other tectonic environments usually have different magma types, for example, hotspot volcanoes are usually made of basalt, which contrast significantly because basalt is fluid and andesite, rhyolite, and dacite magma is thick. Black Tusk (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- To the unnecessarily hesitant phrase "However, it may be a product of the Cascadia subduction zone" my commented-out note meant "could this possibly be doubted?" Is there any doubt in any quarter that the volcano belt is a product of crustal subduction? The conditional hesitancy should be cleared from the thought. Yes?--Wetman (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- The bit about the last ice age appears to be from a non-reliable website so I deleted and reworded the infomation. "choss" is just a term for dirty or loose rock, so I changed that as well. However, I don't understand your note about the Cascadia subduction zone theory being doubted. Black Tusk (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Creative Commons photos need to be properly credited edit
Hey editors, this article is using two of my photos without proper attributon pic of the icefall and rockfall on Kingcome Glacier is from https://www.flickr.com/photos/druclimb/299665900
pic of the andesite columns in Charnaud Creek is from https://www.flickr.com/photos/druclimb/404125808
Anyways the licenses for these are both Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution Non-commercial, so it's fine for Wikipedia to use them, but you absolutely must do so with the appropriate attribution and CC license when you do so. 50.67.165.104 (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- @50.67.165.104: Please upload them on Wikimedia Commons and then we can delete the ones with without proper attribution. Volcanoguy 17:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)