Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Takahe/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 June 2020 [1].

---

Mount Takahe

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Marie Byrd Land, and one of the (relatively) best studied of the edifices there. It is not currently active and almost entirely covered with ice and snow, but deposits of volcanic ash from Mount Takahe have been found in ice cores and suggest that it was very active during the latest Pleistocene and early Holocene. As far as I can tell, no Antarctic volcano is currently featured, so if this FAC passes it'd be the first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• File:MountTakahe.jpg—how can I confirm that this is US Navy photograph?
• Other images are free + relevant. buidhe 23:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  @Buidhe: Seems like TMA 1718 F33 (Fig 96) may be the source; there are lots of little details that match so it's probably derived from same. Some details don't match; Nikkimaria do you think it's the same image? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  I think it could be derived from that one. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  Resolved. buidhe 05:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

• "(5.0 mi)" Could we lose the .0?

  Certainly, but since miles are not exact decimals of kilometres I wonder if it'd suggest something incorrect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That depends. If the "8 kilometres" meant 8,000 metres (if it did then it should say so) then yes. But to convert 8 km to 5.0 mi implies a false precision.

I've put in a parameter, let's see if it works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I have just inserted "|sigfig=1" here. If you don't like it, revert.

• I find the history in the lead a little confusing: "ages of 300,000 years and less ... reached its present height about 200,000 years ago ... [m]ajor eruptions took place around 17,700 years ago". Maybe open the paragraph with a statement summarising the period over which it is believed to have been accurate?

  Did a minor change, but I am not sure if it makes this clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not either. Let me sleep on it.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Glacial erosion is not pronounced, however," The first comma is unnecessary.

  Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• "The Rift became active during the Mesozoic" Any chance of bracketed ages after the geological periods for those who don't have them at their fingertips?

  Yes; done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• "These volcanoes occur in groups or chains, although isolated edifices are also found." I don't see that this conveys any information.

  It does convey the information that these volcanoes are not simply randomly distributed, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Er, to me it conveyed that they were"! (I don't say this just to make a rhetorical point - I thought that that was what was being communicated. Is there not a better form of words?

Attempted a thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Most volcanoes are large" → 'Most of these volcanoes are large'?

  Yes, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "later research published in 2013" Delete "later".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "The entire volcano may have formed in 300,000–400,000 years or even less than 200,000 years" Would this not be better expressed as 'The entire volcano may have formed in 200,000–400,000 years'?

  Possibly, can Mount Takahe (IVD B.2) is unusual, because it apparently formed entirely within the last 300,000-400,000 years. be interpreted in that way though? If no, merging the numbers like that could create WP:SYNTH issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If you mean replacing "The entire volcano may have formed in 300,000–400,000 years or even less than 200,000 years" with 'Mount Takahe (IVD B.2) is unusual, because it apparently formed entirely within the last 300,000-400,000 years.' then yes, that addresses my concern.

Actually, that was a quote from the source. The source for the 200,000 number says This is one of themost thoroughly sampled and dated volcanoes in Marie ByrdLand, and <200 ka seems a short time to accumulate 552–780 km3of dominantly trachyte lava; I was wondering if we can merge these number statements w/o creating SYNTH in the process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why not. If it were one of my history FACs I might put something like "The volcano is believed to have formed in less than 400,000 years, with some experts suggesting less than 200,000." Lots of scope for tweaking this, it is just a general suggestion.

Attempted a tweak. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "years old rocks" → 'years-old rocks'.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "formed underneath of ice" Would 'formed underneath the ice' read better?

  Done, but "the" implies a particular ice mass - which might be an issue here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I see your point, but in this context I think that would be an unnatural reading.

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "over the history of Mount Takahe" Is there a better word than "history"? ('life'?)

  If people are fine with the anthropomorphism... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily anthropomorphical; Wiktionary: "A period of time during which something has existence".

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "but it is also possible that the growth of the ice sheets at that time squeezed magma chambers at Mount Takahe and thus induced an increase of the eruptive activity." Perhaps add a brief explanation of the proposed mechanism?

  The source does not explain that. The idea is that magma tends to squeeze out of a magma chamber compressed that way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand that if you put weight on something it is liable to squeeze its contents out. But a reader is left to infer this or to scratch their head and go "huh?". Surely there is a general source which states the mechanism in general terms?

I looked a bit around on Takahe sources and none of them goes into more detail than "increased lithostatic pressure on the magma chamber triggers eruptions". Honestly, I think that most people are familiar with the concept of squeezing toothpaste out of a tube so it might be clear enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

OK - rather reluctantly. Something like "the growth of the ice sheets at that time caused the magma chambers at Mount Takahe to be squeezed and thus induced ... " would make me happier, but I leave that to your discretion.

• "60,000&–57,000"

  Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "In the latter part of this period" Do you mean 'In the latter of these periods'?

  Changed it to something similar. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "that Byrd Station tephras originate at" Maybe 'that the Byrd Station tephras originate at'?

  Not sure on this one; some of the tephras there, as elucidated elsewhere in the article, might come from Mount Berlin instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• " In particular, tephra deposits at Byrd may originate from eruptions at Mount Berlin, and tephra layers between 30,000 and 20,000 years ago have been attributed to the latter volcano." This sentence confuses me. It seems to say the same thing twice and I am left unsure whether there is disagreement or not between sources regarding the origin of some tephra layers.

  Attempted to reword this a bit. It seems like that attribution of these tephra layers has changed over time - first they were linked to Takahe and now to Berlin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Mount Berlin has produced more tephra layers over the past 100,000 years than Mount Takahe" I don't relly see how this is relevant.

  Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• How can "a magmatic eruption 7,500 years ago" "correspond ... to two 6217 and 6231 BC tephra layers"; ie 8,237 and 8,251 years ago?

  The problem with this whole section is that nobody has attempted to cross-correlate tephra layers. In this case though ice core researchers have connected the tephra layers to the 7,500 years event - I presume it's because of margins of error. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• In two sentences you mix "Years ago", "BC" and "BP". As this is Wikipedia, I am not sure that BP works that well here.

  Yeah, but I am not confident on converting between units, as it's not clear how the margins of error would interact with a conversion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Then I think that you need to attribute them inline.

Spelled out BP instead; I am not convinced that this is a situation where intext attribution is normally used or would help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• Could Note b be converted into grammatical sentences?

  Sorry, which note b? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What is now Note d; the fourth under Mount Takahe#Notes.

Ah, that one. Corrected the grammar. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A great article. I enjoyed that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, I have responded to your queries above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Good stuff; thanks. A couple of thoughts above. I'll give it another read through and see if anything else comes up. (Which may be tomorrow, in an attempt to come at it "fresh". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Further thoughts

One response above. Some further thoughts below. Most are varying degrees of optional; any that aren't I will clearly separate off.

Lead

• "snow-covered shield volcano 200 kilometres (120 mi) from the Amundsen Sea in Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica" → 'snow-covered shield volcano in Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica 200 kilometres (120 mi) from the Amundsen Sea'.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Most of the volcano is formed by" "is" → 'was'.

  No; the volcano still exists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "It is within the West Antarctic Rift System" "within" → 'part of'.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "although late Holocene eruptions are also possible" This seems an odd use of tense and would recommend changing. Something like 'it is also possible that there were eruptions in the late Holocene'. (I assume that you are not trying to say that future eruptions, within the late Holocene, are possible?)

  Rewrote that part. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "late Holocene" or 'Late Holocene'.

Geography and geomorphology

• "elongated in east–west direction" → 'elongated in an east–west direction'

  Done, although it sounds a little odd. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "8-kilometre-wide (5.0 mi)" → 8-kilometre-wide (5 mi)'.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "15-metre-high (49 ft)" → '15-metre-high (50 ft)'.

  I think I got this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "A lava dome might crop out inside the caldera" "might" → 'may'.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "0.5 square kilometres (0.19 sq mi)" → '0.5 square kilometres (0.2 sq mi)'.

  I think I got this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "2–10 metres (6 ft 7 in–32 ft 10 in)" → '2–10 metres (6 ft–33 ft)'.

  Probably got this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "with sastrugi and other wind-roughened surfaces reported" Delete "reported".

  Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Air temperatures recorded at Mount Takahe usually are below the freezing level" → 'Air temperatures recorded at Mount Takahe are usually below freezing'.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Geology

• "Volcanic activity there commenced about 34 million years ago" Specify "there". It could be read as the West Antarctic Rift System or as either of the areas mentioned in the previous sentence.

  Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Most of these volcanoes are large, capped off by a summit caldera and appear to have begun as fast-growing shield volcanoes. Later, calderas formed" The two mentions of "calderas" and the mid-sentence change of text is confusing. Maybe 'Most of these volcanoes appear to have begun as fast-growing shield volcanoes. They are large, and capped off by summit calderas which formed later. Late in the history of the volcanoes parasitic vents were active.' or similar?

  Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• "came from a 80–90-kilometre-deep (50–56 mi) lithosphere" a lithosphere? → 'came from 80–90-kilometre-deep (50–56 mi), in the lithosphere'.

  Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Eruption history

• "for volcanic rocks on the flanks," The comma should be a full stop.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• In the same paragraph: "between 60,000 and 7,500 years ago"; "between 18,000–15,000 years ago"; "between 20,000–15,000 years ago".

  Not sure what you are asking for here, and the first isn't there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Tephra in ice cores; 2nd paragraph: the first has "and", the other two "–". Very optional, but the lack of consistency jarred a little.

• "In particular, tephra deposits at Byrd may originate from eruptions at Mount Berlin; particularly, tephra layers ... " Could one be rephrased?

  Redid this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Notes

• Note b: It is unclear whether this refers to the Holocene or the early Holocene.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Less optional

• "The wind appears to blow around the mountain" I am not sure what this is trying to convey. As opposed to blowing through the rock?

  Instead of over the mountain, I take. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. I am officially an idiot. That never occurred to me, in spite of my being familiar with mountain wind patterns.

• Caption: "Topographic map of Mount Takahe (1:250,000 scale)" Delete "(1:250,000 scale)". It will be pure coincidence if a screen's settings and a viewer's preferences happen to produce a 1:250,000 result.

  Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Even by your standards this is well written and clear. And an interesting read. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Lemasurier or LeMasurier or Le Masurier?

  The middle; standardized the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• What makes Peaklist a high-quality reliable source? What about Peakbagger? Amar Andalkar?

  The first two have been used as sources by reputable academic publications so WP:UBO might apply but I won't mourn them if they have to go. The last isn't being used as a source, but I think it's at best marginal under WP:ELNO as an external link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Currently the final section is a Bibliography, not an External links - not convinced it has merit as an EL either, but that's a source-type section. Wrt Peakbagger, on a quick look most of the citing references don't appear to be reputable academic publications; Peaklist is slightly better. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  Changed it to clarify that it's an external link, but don't take that as endorsement for it staying. Agree that most of the hits are not very good but some [2][3] are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• FN5 is a dead link

  Rectified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when you include access date

  I've left only one of them as I don't know the stability of the GNIS database. The other links point to stable sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you include locations for publications

  Standardized to not using any. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• How are you determining which sources end up in Sources and which are footnotes only?

  Sources, if I use more than one page. Footnotes, when it's just one page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• FN92: can you include the full publication title?

  Changed as it was actually a conference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations

  (As it refers to the above mentioned questionable sources) Will resolve this if the sources stay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• FN97: is there a published paper supporting this claim?

  Not as far as I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Not super-happy with this as a source, any chance we could track down something better? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't find anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Anderson should include publisher

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Dunbar: verify title?

  Seems like a copypaste error; cleaned it up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Don't mix {{citation}} and {{cite}} family templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  I think it's now standardized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I've copyedited a little; revert anything you disagree with.

• The wind appears to blow around the mountain. I think I must be missing the intended meaning; why is this worth saying?

  It probably isn't worth saying. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  OK, I cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of "Eruption history" starts with the definite statement that the oldest rock sample is 310,000±90,000 years old, but then gives contradictory evidence. If the source for this first statement has primacy for some reason (e.g. it's a recent survey taking into account the other cited sources) then we should make that clear; if it does not, we should qualify it with reference to the date as we do with the other statements about date in that paragraph.

  That's why the definitive statement is "the oldest rock sample"; the 360,000 age is limiting age that the source does not really expound upon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, not really seeing how this can work. I understand that the "oldest" refers to a specific sample, but since that's 26 years earlier than the source that says the oldest possible date is 192,000 I think we have to point this out. You do say "although", but I don't think that's enough. I see LeMasurier is cited (to two different papers) for the 192,000 maximum age and the 192,000 maximum age for caldera rim rocks; is it possible that the former is really just talking about caldera rim rocks or is he definitely saying that's the maximum age for anything anywhere on the mountain? If it really can't be reconciled, perhaps putting the research dates in chronological order of publication and pointing out the inconsistency when it comes up would work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Mike Christie: LeMasurier 2016 says A total of 24 K–Arand40Ar/39Ar ages have now been published, none older than 192 ka while LeMasurier 1990 says A late Quaternary age for Mount Takahe was indicated by the K-Ar ages of three samples collected during the 1967-1968 reconnaissance [LeMasurier, 1912a, c], and this has been confirmed by recendy completed results from the 1984-1985 field season. Among 12 new dates the oldest is 0.31 ± 0.09 Ma (Figure B.2.2), and the remainder are all younger than 0.1 Ma (LeMasurier and Rex, unpublished data, 1987).. I see that LeMasurier 2016 does not cite LeMasurier and Thomson 1990 for its claim. To me this sounds like they either forgot their own research, discounted it for some reason not expounded in the source or something else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think the problem is that the article says "no rock older than...occurs" and "maximum ages", which both imply that no older rock is possible, but the source seems to be saying only that those were the maximum ages found from the samples tested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Mike Christie: The former can certainly be improved, although I confess that I am a little unsure what to say otherwise. On the latter, I am not sure if the article text as-is conveys that it is one study's findings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  How about "The volcano was active in the late Quaternary. Radiometric results reported in 1988 include ages of less than 360,000 years for rocks in the caldera rim and of less than 240,000 years for volcanic rocks on the flanks. In a 1990 paper LeMasurier gave 310,000±90,000 years old as the oldest date for the samples tested to that point, citing K-Ar dates from an unpublished paper, but in a 2016 review of dates for Mount Takahe LaMesurier reported none older than 192 ka." This doesn't include the 2013 data but if you agree with this approach it wouldn't be hard to slot that in. This approach is explicit about the contradiction which I think is necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Mike Christie:That works for me, if it includes the 2013 paper. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, then how about this:

"The volcano was active in the late Quaternary; radiometric results reported in 1988 include ages of less than 360,000 years for rocks in the caldera rim and of less than 240,000 years for volcanic rocks on the flanks. In a 1990 paper LeMasurier gave 310,000±90,000 years old as the oldest date for the samples tested to that point, citing K-Ar dates from an unpublished paper, but in a 2016 review of dates for Mount Takahe LaMesurier reported that none were older than 192 ka. LaMesurier had also reported K-Ar dates in a 2013 paper, again with no results older than 192 ka."

This is slightly out of chronological order, but since the 2016 paper is the one that directly contradicts the 1990 paper I think they should be mentioned together; the 2013 paper just lists more results without claiming to be a survey of all dates, so it can be mentioned at the end. If this wording works I'd rather you made the change as I don't have the sources in front of me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Added a variation on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• where they were used to constrain the rate of deglaciation: should be something like "constrain estimates of the rate", or "where it was determined that they would have limited the rate" -- "used" implies human agency so if we stick with "used" it's the estimates we're talking about, not the deglaciation itself.
• Went for the first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  Looks like your edit didn't take, so I did it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

That's all I can find. It's a very technical article, and I'm not qualified to evaluate the geological content, but it reads well enough and the prose is clean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Replied. In case you're interested, the next topic I want to bring to FAC is Laguna del Maule (volcano) which however needs a little more work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Support. The wording in the eruption history section is tricky because the sources are inconsistent, but I think the last edit does as good a job as can be done with it. Re Laguna del Maule, I'll keep an eye out for it but I am behind on some other obligations at the moment so will probably not look at it until it gets here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Harry

• Suggest reducing reliance on semi-colons. These can hamper readability. Sometimes short sentences or a conjunction work better.

  Reduced them a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Glacial erosion is not pronounced however, with only a few corries Both "however" and this use of "with" are discouraged.
• However, it cannot be entirely "however" again (NB, it's listed on WP:WTW)

  Removed the earlier instance, but I think the second needs to stay. There is a bit of a source contradiction/uncertainty between sources going on here that needs a word of contrast mentioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• A series of eruptions about 200-years-long took place You don't need the hyphens there. It's not a compound adjective in that usage.

  Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This is very well written and very engaging, even to somebody with little knowledge of volcanology and I'm not sure why it's sat here for six weeks. I had to be extra nit-picky just to find something to comment on! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Done, with one exception. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.