Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boring Lava Field/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2022 [1].

Boring Lava Field edit

Nominator(s): ceranthor 19:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the FAC plunge for the first time in 3 years by my measure. This is part of a series of articles I've been working on over the past decade off-and-on related to the Cascades Volcanoes. I recognize it still needs alt text and I'm hoping to get to that ASAP, but I think this is otherwise more or less ready to become an FA. Looking forward to comments to improve it further! ceranthor 19:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JJE edit

  • "moderate climate with wide temperature variations " sounds like a contradiction.
    Changed to "subject to Portland's moderate climate with variable temperatures and mild precipitation." I just went by what the source said. ceranthor 13:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " mark notable tributaries " is weird prose.
    Changed to "tributaries for the Columbia River include the Washougal and Sandy Rivers." ceranthor 13:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Larch Mountain-Oregon from Washough-Washington.JPG wants a better source.
    Struggling to find a USGS source. Might email the author and see if she has any idea if they were from USGS or the source is incorrect. ceranthor 13:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, it looks like Lyn Topinka recently passed away, so I went ahead and replaced the image. ceranthor 13:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:JuandeFucasubduction.jpg and File:Bobs mountain.jpg sources are broken.
    Source found for JuandeFuca. Working on Bobs mountain.
    Replaced the Bobs Mountain image. ceranthor 13:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no ALT text.
    Will get to that ASAP. ceranthor 13:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. ceranthor 14:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to some, working on others. ceranthor 13:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Believe everything is now resolved. ceranthor 14:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at the rest of the prose, it seems OK. No obvious omissions in the article, either. Structure, stability, length, media are fine. Support Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback and help! ceranthor 13:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review edit

The tables are missing captions, col scopes, and row scopes per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: I believe I have fixed the issue. Thank you, ceranthor 20:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Fredddie edit

This is my first foray into reviewing an article about geology, so hopefully my comments will benefit readers who also don't know a lot about geology.

  • Geography
    • I know when you say elevation, you mean above mean sea level, would a wikilink help?
      • Added a link to elevation. ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ecology
    • "...and flooding has gotten worse over time.[28]" Has worsened?
    • Is it common to list every sensitive species? The first time I looked it over, I thought the language suggested that it wasn't an exhaustive list, but it read like one.
      • It's what I've done for other volcano FAs. It's hard to find reliable sources describing the wildlife exhaustively, so it's a compromise that I've found works in previous FAs. ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fair enough. I've been told recently that personal and project standards don't matter, only policies matter, so it's good to see that they do in fact matter. –Fredddie™ 23:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • History
    • Right away you say indigenous twice in a row, I would replace one of them. Your choice.
    • Metric isn't my forte, but shouldn't acres convert to hectares? You'd get 22.63 acres (9.16 ha).
    • 50,000,000 US gallons to 50 million US gallons (190×10^6 L)?
      • To clarify, are you suggesting changing the scientific notation? ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      More suggesting 50 million instead of 50,000,000 for readability. I suppose 50 million US gallons (190 million L) works. This is not make-or-break. –Fredddie™ 23:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Fredddie: I think I fixed it. Let me know if it needs a little tweaking. Thanks for your helpful comments! ceranthor 14:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oregon and Washington vents
    • Why are Mount Scott and Brunner Hill the only ones to have notes in their respective tables?
      • Those are the only ones that I thought merited having notes. Would it be better to just add footnotes to those two and remove the column? Open to suggestions. ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be better. Some IP might come along and fill up those empty cells with trivia. –Fredddie™ 23:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. –Fredddie™ 05:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: Implemented changes and responded to a few. Thanks for your helpful feedback! ceranthor 14:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the updates, so I will support. –Fredddie™ 04:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! ceranthor 00:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry edit

You could write a good April Fool's blurb with a name like that!

  • They are located in the western portion of the U. S. state of Oregon. We've established the country in the lead but it's reasonable to assume most people know that Oregon is a state so maybe lose that bit to improve flow?
  • at Larch Mountain,[15] with most vents reaching an elevation of 660 to 980 feet (200 to 300 m) don't use ", with" like that to join two independent facts. You could split the sentence or use a semicolon.
  • Can we split the geology section up a bit more? There are seven paragraphs, some of them quite chunky, before the first subheading, which makes it look a bit daunting.
  • encompass a wide area, with Boring Lava deposits averaging As above
  • (located 20.5 metres (0.0205 km) northeast of Portland I suspect that was supposed to be miles!
  • Recent research suggests that eruptive activity at the Boring Lava Field began How recent? I wouldn't normally question relative times in an article like this, but the 1990s are mentioned earlier in the paragraph, which is relatively recent by some standards.
  • extending to its current expansive state about 1 million years ago MOS:NUMERAL isn't entirely clear on this but I'd suggest either "one million" or "1,000,000" to avoid juxtaposition with figures in surrounding sentences.

That's it. Nothing too concerning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for your helpful comments. Working on the geology section. I think everything else is fixed. As a reply to the recent research comment, the paper I cite was from 2009, so maybe you suggest replacing with "more recent", or do you think it's fine as is? ceranthor 17:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: Added two more subheadings. Since Jo-Jo Eumerus has also written a lot of volcano FAs, I'm curious to get their feedback on the subheaders as well. ceranthor 17:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think subheadings are useful in general for breaking up blocks of prose. But you've addressed all my nitpicks. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not picky on the subheaders, they seem OK although you may want to keep the ecology, history and recreation subheaders together. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your feedback, and thank you HJ for your support. ceranthor 14:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image review edit
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Boring_lava_allen_map.png: I'm a bit confused by the sourcing here - the original work appears to be from a state rather than federal government body, correct? Also see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I removed the fixed px size, but wouldn't it make more sense to expand the map pixel size since it's not readable at the default? As for that map, the original source is [2], so I believe the map was created using the information from the Ore Bin article to which that url currently redirects. I'm not sure I follow the last bit; I didn't make the map myself, and the author is deceased now. Are you suggesting that we should replace that map? ceranthor 02:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can scale the map (or any of the images) using |upright=.
So the issue with the licensing is this: the current tagging is based on the image being a US federal government work. However, that source indicates that it is derived from a US state government work (Volcanoes of the Portland Area, Oregon). If the image was, or was a derivative of, a state work, the given tag doesn't apply. So there are three options: determine that it is in fact a original federal work, not a derivative; determine that there is some other reason that the image is PD, and update the tagging to reflect that; or remove/replace the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked up the original map and the image here is not a derivative work. It's pretty clear the uploader used a different underlying map and different icons than the one displayed by the Oregon agency, even if the information is sourced from the Oregon map. I've pinged them here, we probably need some kind of uploader licence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: The map was made by Lyn Topinka for the USGS, then, so it should be ok then I think, right? She recently passed away otherwise I'd be happy to reach out to her to clarify the situation. ceranthor 17:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, if it's not a derivative work as the source suggested then that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks, I think I've implemented your suggestions then! ceranthor 18:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Balon Greyjoy edit

  • "The area typically does not experience frost, with more than 200 frost-free days annually." This seems a little confusing, as it reads like Portland still has frost for roughly half the year.
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of history about Portland (first 2 paragraphs in the section) that doesn't seem to relate to the Boring Lava Field. I don't think it needs to be included unless trade/business related things happen because of the Boring Lava Field.
I think it provides important context. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it marks the deepest train station" Wouldn't it just be easier to say that "it is the deepest..." Same for "Gresham marks one of just a few places..."
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The migration rate for volcanism within the field is an average of 0.37 inches (9.3 mm) ± 0.063 inches (1.6 mm) per year relative to the motion of crustal blocks in the region,[53] using the last 2.7 million years as a starting reference point." It's not really clear what this means. My understanding is that the location of the volcanic activity is changing relative to the location on the plate, but this seems like a pretty small change considering that the volcanism is not centered in a single location. Additionally, there should be an explanation for why this is happening.
The explanation is in the prior sentence, which states, "The uneven distribution of vents within this forearc suggests a local zone of crustal expansion, indicative of northward movement and clockwise rotation of a tectonic microplate that leads to gradual northwest-trending propagation for the field over time." The sentence you highlighted just provides the rate of migration relative to the baseline crustal block motion.
I rewrote these sentences to use less jargon and hopefully be a little more approachable. My version is "The uneven distribution of vents within this forearc suggests a local zone of crustal expansion. Over the last 2.7 million years, the volcanic field has irregularly rotated clockwise and migrated to the northwest at an average rate of 0.37 inches (9.3 mm) ± 0.063 inches (1.6 mm) per year relative to the surrounding crust. This northwest trending is consistent with other faults in the nearby area." I also removed some citations, as I found all of this information on page 1305 of the Fleck 2014 source. Does this work? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that works for me. ceranthor 13:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would either explain high-K/low-K, or simplify it with something like potassium-rich.I would also state why it's significant (such as showing that there is lava that is similar to other Cascade lava and lava that is different). A reader not familiar with igneous rocks won't understand the significance of how much sodium and potassium is in these rocks.
I added a footnote to explain the terminology, and I believe the two following sentences explain the significance. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access the journal article with the information, but are the tholeiitic lavas similar in composition to lavas from the High Cascades? I think that would help give some context to the reader, as it's not clear why the lava is presumed to be from there. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the journal article says that. I changed to "Given their similar compositions, some of the low-K tholeiite deposits likely originated from vents closer to the High Cascades[...]" - how's that? ceranthor 14:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that the calc-alkaline sources are more refractory." There should be an explanation on what refractory means.
I added a footnote. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does the lava being refractory relate to the different compositions? I would change the sentence to say who Shemphert is (something like "a volcanologist at X institution") and then state that they proposed two different mantle sources, as the rest of the paragraph is about the different compositions and what the cause for that may be. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Different chemical compounds have different levels of ease of vaporization. Rephrased to "J. M. Shempert, a geologist at Portland State University, proposed that mantle sources for the two different lava types may be different and that the calc-alkaline sources are more refractory." ceranthor 14:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "producing steep head scarps with heights of 66 feet (20 m)" 66 feet seems too exact for a large-scale geologic boundary; is that the tallest recorded, the average, or a ballpark figure?
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of the Boring Lava vents are known to cut off hydrogeologic units in the surrounding area" Can't this just read "vents cut off hydrogeologic..."
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are very exact distances (20.5 miles) for a summit crater and Bobs Hill and Battleground Lake. I'm assuming both of those large features are bigger than a tenth of a mile, so I think these should lose some significant figures.
The distances are taken directly from the sources, so not sure losing sigfigs will help. I think they're actually relatively loose approximations of distance from Portland, which is the most obvious landmark from the area. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it make more sense to just use 20 miles then? Since neither Portland or these locations are a single point/small area, it's not clear from where these 20.5 mile lines begin and end. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would kind of be original research, though, since the source says 20.5 miles. I'm inclined to keep it as is; I don't think anyone is using this article to determine the exact distance between the two points. ceranthor 14:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recent research suggests that eruptive activity" Rather than say recent, maybe say what research conducted was (e.g. the type of radiogenic dating used)
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are four uses of the Evarts et al 2009 p.257 reference in a row in the second paragraph of eruptive history. That can be combined.
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "geographically, younger vents and associated deposits lie in the northern portion of the field" Remove "geographically", as the sentence already mentions geographic references.
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "according to the USGS", as that is a major geological organization. I would just cite their page.
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "magma at Battle Ground Lake in Washington" Shouldn't this be "lava at Battle Ground Lake"
Source says magma - I believe it's underground so therefore magma. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it "Battle Ground Lake" or "Battleground Lake"? Both are used in this article.
The former; now fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to form the eponymous maar volcano" I'm assuming there is a Maar Volcano there that all other maar features are named after? Shouldn't this be capitalized for the proper noun?
No, the eponymous maar volcano refers to the maar at Battle Ground Lake. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to why "eponymous" is being used in this context then. What is the name of the volcano? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Battle Ground Lake. See [3]. ceranthor 14:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nonetheless, according to the USGS," I would remove this. "Nonetheless" is a bit of a weasel word and the this makes it seem like the low probability of an eruption is a USGS opinion, not a scientific conclusion.
Fixed. ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the probability of any future eruption low, or just one in the near future? The article makes it seem like future eruptions are low, but then says they're likely to occur every 15,000 years.
I'm not sure how to phrase this differently. The source states "Since activity started 2.6 million years ago, it is rare that 50,000 years passed without an eruption. However, all existing Boring Volcanic centers are extinct and the probability of an eruption in the Portland/Vancouver metro area is very low." So I think all future eruptions are low, but historically they had been occurring at a frequency such that 50,000 years passing is unusual. Does that help clarify at all? ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the information on the field itself not being considered extinct? That source makes it seem like the volcanologists consider the likelihood of future eruptions very low, not just eruptions in the near future. I would remove that last sentence then, since it comes across like casting doubt on their prediction, when it sounds like that is the scientific conclusion by the experts. I would also combine the first two paragraphs and maybe shorten the effects of a possible eruption, as it sounds like they are unlikely and hypothetical. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the source text is that the existing vents are extinct, but the magma that formed the field could very well lead to future eruptions. Any future eruptions, however, would not occur in the immediate Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area. Does that make sense? ceranthor 14:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the recreation section; it reads a bit like an advertisement (albeit for a free place) when it includes potential activities and hours of operation. Since this article is about the lava field itself, and not a state park, I don't think it needs to be here.
As above re the history section, I think the recreation provides important context, and presumably the article should act as a resource for human activity in the area as well. I did some copyediting to tone down some of the language re advertisement, though I think offers is fine to use since the only alternative I can think of is "has." I cut out the quote as it did seem a bit crufty/advertisement-y, is it better now? ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Excited to see a lava field article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: I've fixed most of your comments and replied to a few others. Thank you for your helpful feedback! ceranthor 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Balon Greyjoy: I think I've responded to/implemented your responses. ceranthor 14:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Hi -- welcome back to FAC. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • FN 91 has no access date.
  • Some dates are still in YYYY-MM-DD format.
  • You have {{citation}} and {{cite}} families mixed; they give inconsistent formats so we need to pick one or the other.
    In the past I've used this approach for FAs and hasn't been an issue. I only use it where there's not a clear cite template, and most of these are government publications/reports. Is there a Cite report template that would work here? Happy to use if so! ceranthor 02:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, {{cite report}} should work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Thanks, will make use of that in the future for sure. ceranthor 18:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing the publisher parameter for Fleck et al. 2002.
  • Publisher locations are given in a handful of cases but most are omitted -- they're optional but it should be consistent.
  • Werner (1991) is a master's thesis -- what makes it a high-quality reliable source? Same question for Swanson (1986).
    This was discussed at the peer review. Both have been cited by other academic articles (Swanson 17 times, Werner 4). I think both are sufficiently reliable, but I am open to further discussion. ceranthor 02:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Swanson is fine per the citations; Werner seems borderline -- can the citations to Werner be used to make a case that the thesis is considered reliable? If not I would suggest cutting it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked Google Scholar and it's now up to 8 citations including books and published papers as recently as 2020, what do you think? ceranthor 18:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive links for FNs 42 and 43 are not working for me; can you check that they work for you? They might just be very slow.
    It doesn't look like they work anymore, but the current linked urls do. Should I just remove the archive urls? ceranthor 02:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're not working I think you might as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, removed. ceranthor 18:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for helpful comments as always. I replied to three with follow-up comments/questions. Believe I fixed everything else. ceranthor 02:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Fixed 2/3. Replied to your note about the Werner source. ceranthor 18:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always for helpful comments, Mike. ceranthor 19:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just giving Gog the Mild a ping that source and image review have been completed. ceranthor 20:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Boring_Lava_Field/archive1&oldid=1127115329"