Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Three Sisters (Oregon)/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2017 [1].

Three Sisters (Oregon) edit

Nominator(s): ceranthor 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a complex volcano of three summits in Oregon, one of which last erupted 2,000 years ago and could possibly become active again. I've worked hard on this article over the past few months, and I think it meets the FA criteria now, having undergone a reference tune-up. ceranthor 21:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the topographic map, which will probably require moving it down. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Made an attempt at this, though not sure if this is any better - feel free to tweak if you have a better sizing idea. ceranthor 22:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, Nikkimaria. ceranthor 17:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll do another image review here, but just a question: As a volcano in a well monitored region, is there a more recent update on the ground inflation than 2009? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: The article cites this article from 2017 [2] and explains in the very last sentence that inflation has continued each year. ceranthor 14:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary review:
Everything seems to have good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the Commons page for the Oregon map to clarify its derivative nature from the other image. Thanks for your review. ceranthor 17:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • Ref 5: I'm getting "Error ORA-01722: invalid number". There is also a retrieval date missing, if the link can be made to work.
  • Refs 11 and 35 appear to be the same source
  • Ref 82: The title appears to be incorrect. And where is the date 2007-04-11 found?

Otherwise, sources appear to be in good order, and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: I think I've addressed these. Thanks for your review and assistance! ceranthor 03:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Brianboulton (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Hike395 made some additions from this document that's in the public domain. Is public domain text acceptable within an FA, or would I be better off rewriting the content in my own words? ceranthor 23:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've not been asked this before. My personal view is that incorporating public domain data into WP articles was something we did in the early days, as a way of speeding the process of building an encyclopedia. We've moved on, rather, from there. Unless the text is short enough to appear in a quote box or as a blockquote, I'd say that in quality articles such as this you should rewrite the appropriate content in your own words. This is an opinion – I hope it helps. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG edit

  • Support on prose. My comments are located at the article’s talk; they were dealt with there. However, the rest of my minor comments still stand.
  • Three Sisters vicinity with tilt-leveling networks and electro-optical distance meters (EDMs) - why do we need the initial when there is no subsequent use of it?
  • In 2004 an earthquake swarm occurred with.. a comma after 2004.
  • Might be worth wiki-linking global positioning system. FrB.TG (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: Thanks for the support. I think I've addressed all of these. ceranthor 19:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Finetooth edit

Support on prose and comprehensiveness Comments by Finetooth

This is quite well-written and nicely illustrated. I made a small number of minor changes as I went; please revert any that you think are misguided. Below are some questions and suggestions.
Lead
  • ¶1 "The Three Sisters are three volcanic peaks...". – Delete "three" since their "three-ness" is clear in the lead photo and in context?
  • ¶2 "South Sister, however, last erupted...". I don't think you need the "however".
Geography and geology
  • ¶1 "The Three Sisters are located at the boundaries..." – Delete "located"?
  • ¶2 "...the Three Sisters are approximately located at the latitude 44.103° N and longitude 121.768° W." – Tighten and recast slightly as "...the Three Sisters are at latitude 44.103° N and longitude 121.768° W, approximately"?
  • ¶2 "...the Pleistocene epoch, a geologic period during which an Ice Age occurred" – It might be better to say, "the Pleistocene epoch,, during which multiple glacial periods occurred".
  • ¶2 "...and glaciers ate away at mountains as they retreated." – Clarify that it's the glaciers that retreated rather than the mountains and replace the informal "ate away" with "eroded? Suggestion: "...and glaciers, as they advanced and retreated, eroded the mountains."
  • ¶3 Link "fault" to fault (geology)?
  • ¶6 Link Howel Williams?
Wilderness and climate
  • ¶3 "As part of the National Wilderness Preservation System, motor vehicles and means of transport are prohibited within the Three Sisters Wilderness." – I'd recast this to put the modifying phrase next to the thing modified. Suggestion: "Motor vehicles and means of transport are prohibited within the Three Sisters Wilderness under the rules of the National Wilderness Preservation System."
  • ¶3 I wasn't sure whether the above sentence meant "motorized" means of transport or "other" means of transport rather than "all" means of transport. Your four examples of means of transport are bicycles, wagons, motorboats, and helicopters. The last two are motorized, and bicycles sometimes are, but probably not wagons. I assume that skis, sleds, snowshoes, and possibly paragliders are allowed, but I don't know for sure. Can you clarify?
From the source: "Motorized equipment and equipment used for mechanical transport is generally prohibited on all federal lands designated as wilderness. This includes the use of motor vehicles, motorboats, motorized equipment, bicycles, hang gliders, wagons, carts, portage wheels, and the landing of aircraft including helicopters, unless provided for in specific legislation.

In a few areas some exceptions allowing the use of motorized equipment or mechanical transport are described in the special regulations in effect for a specific area. Contact the Forest Service office or visit the websites listed for more specific information.

These general prohibitions have been implemented for all national forest wildernesses in order to implement the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964. The Wilderness Act requires management of human-caused impacts and protection of the area's wilderness character to insure that it is "unimpaired for the future use and enjoyment as wilderness." Use of the equipment listed as prohibited in wilderness is inconsistent with the provision in the Wilderness Act which mandates opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation and that wilderness is a place that is in contrast with areas where people and their works are dominant." [3] I suppose I could add that there are certain exceptions? ceranthor 20:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I took a whack at recasting and came up with "Motor vehicles and other mechanical means of transport such as bicycles, wagons, motorboats, and helicopters are generally prohibited within the Three Sisters Wilderness under the rules of the National Wilderness Preservation System." Please tinker further if this does not seem to do the trick. Finetooth (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again, I think the sentences about transport would be a much better fit in the "Recreation" section at the end of the first paragraph right after the sentence about horses. Finetooth (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶ Can you add anything about high winds, storms, or floods on these mountains?
I can try and find something, but it wasn't mentioned in any of the sources as far as I know. ceranthor 20:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Flora and fauna
  • ¶1 Link "genera" to Genus? But see my next comment first.
  • ¶1 Since "heather" is a family rather than a genus, maybe "many others" would be better than "many other genera".
  • ¶2 "In addition to predator bobcats, cougars, and coyotes, raccoons, martens, weasels, and American minks live throughout the Three Sisters area." – It's not clear which nouns are being modified by "predator", and most readers won't know if a mink, for example, is a predator or not. Can you clarify?
  • The white furs are threatened by the mountain pine beetle. Are forest fires much of a threat to the flora and fauna? Is there any notable history of forest fires on these mountains?
Not that I know of. ceranthor 20:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
North Sister
  • ¶1 "Its deposits are rich in palagonite and red and black cinders, and they grow progressively more iron-rich with decreasing age." – This might be misunderstood to mean the deposits are still growing. Maybe "...and that are progressively more iron-rich the younger they are."
South Sister
Climbing and recreation
  • Since climbing is recreation, I'd shorten this subhead to one word, "Recreation".
  • ¶2 "Today, the common trail lasts 11 miles (18 km) round-trip,..." – Maybe "covers" instead of "lasts"?
Recent history and potential hazards
  • ¶1 "During a potential eruption..." – Delete "potential" and change to "an eruption" since it is clear from context that these cases are potential. Ditto for "Potential eruptions from South Sister..." since the sentence already says "could be"?
  • ¶1 "Although the Three Sisters vicinity does not exhibit any fumaroles (steam vents) or thermal activity, and geologists have not discovered evidence of recent activity at any of the three volcanoes, there are a number of springs west of South Sister." – Link "spring" to spring (hydrology), and make clear what the presence of springs here might suggest to the geologists. Wouldn't they be connected to groundwater flows rather than volcanic activity? I'm not sure what the connection is. Are these hot springs?
  • ¶2 "However, when the volcano was found to be potentially active when in 2000, satellite imagery showed a deforming tectonic uplift 3 miles (4.8 km) west of the mountain." – Delete the first "when"?
  • ¶2 "...displayed that only small amounts of deformation occurred" – Maybe "revealed" or "showed" rather than "displayed" since "examination ... displayed" seems a bit off.
  • ¶3 Link seismometer?
  • ¶3 "USGS completed campaign GPS surveys..." – I'm not sure what "campaign" survey means. Can you clarify or link to an explanation?
My best response is this, but I don't think that clears it up much. What do you think? ceranthor 20:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After poking around a bit, it appears to me that "campaign" means something like "comprehensive" or "complex" in this context. I twiddled with the sentence, adding a paraphrase of the Unavco description you linked to. Please tweak further if you think I've misunderstood. Finetooth (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • No problems with disambiguation links.
  • No dead URLs.
  • Duplicate links: Pleistocene is linked twice in "Geography and geology". Silicic is linked twice in the main text, but that is probably OK. No other duplink problems.
@Finetooth: I implemented your suggestions except for where I replied to your comment. Thanks for your review! ceranthor 20:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Finetooth: Added a little bit about fires and about floods/lakes in the Wilderness. Also added a teensy bit more to the flora and fauna. Think I've addressed your concerns now! ceranthor 01:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All looks fine. Switching to support on prose and comprehensiveness. I will add the caveat that some of the geology and the GPS stuff is a bit over my head. A geologist might notice things that I've missed. Finetooth (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Finetooth, for your helpful feedback and your support. I can try to reach out to some geology experts to make sure the article sufficiently covers the geology of the Three Sisters. ceranthor 18:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now....

If South Sister were to erupt, it would pose a threat to nearby life - strikes me as a bit of an obvious sentence. try and work it into the following sentence.

Other that that, reads well - looks like hte previous reviewers have done a thorough job....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Changed to "An eruption from South Sister would pose a threat to nearby life, as the proximal danger zone extends 1.24 to 6 miles (2.00 to 9.66 km) from the volcano's summits." Thanks for your review! ceranthor 15:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that is better. Comprehensive and proseful, nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ceranthor 21:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Ceoil edit

This is a fascinating and very enjoyable read, and have made some edits. I'm tentatively a support, although I wonder if Peakbagger.com is a RS. It seems W2.0 (ie user generated) from a glance. Ceoil (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_82#Mountain heights suggests that it may not be reliable in some contexts. It looks self published to me as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. It should probably be replaced - the claims made are mostly statistical, so not worried. [4] needs a retrieval date. Ceoil (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to bring that up, but it wasn't mentioned in the source review so I didn't think it was an issue. Thanks for that catch. I'll replace it accordingly. ceranthor 15:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thats not good enough, the onus was on you rather than me, and you hoping to sake by. Resolved now by another, but tut tut. Ceoil (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: It looks like hike395 has kindly fixed your concerns. Thanks for the review. ceranthor 15:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected that it might be an easy fix. The remainder of the sources seem fine. Ceoil (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ceranthor 16:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead:
  • The opening sentence tries to say too much and is a bit of a jumble
  • Each exceeding - eek
  • Located in the Three Sisters Wilderness, at the boundaries of Lane and Deschutes counties and the Willamette and Deschutes national forests - punctuation and tense mess
  • on and around the mountains - Less is more, maybe snip to "the area" or whatever
  • and still could erupt - phrased to scare children; state more in probabilistic terms. Ceoil (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Think I've addressed these, though not sure what else is wrong with the boundaries sentence. ceranthor 16:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to support this for FA; my nickpicks aside, this is a fine, and in the end, well sourced, piece of work. Have read end top end; the prose are grand, perhaps even good. Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, Ceoil. ceranthor 17:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Ceranthor edit

@FrB.TG: @Finetooth: @Casliber: @Ceoil: Just wanted you all to see that the article has been reorganized a bit, in case you had any objections to the changes. @Nikkimaria: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: One image has been removed and replaced. Four additional images have been added: in wilderness, geology, South Sister, and Recent history and potential hazards. ceranthor 00:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest scaling up the hazard map; new images are otherwise fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried 2.5 scale. If that's too big, feel free to lmk or tweak. ceranthor 00:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would move the aerial view of Middle and South sisters to the right to eliminate the text sandwich. Finetooth (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to do that without it falling under the infobox, though? ceranthor 01:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but is that a problem? Btw, I like recent improvements including the structural changes to the geology text and the addition of the hazard map. Finetooth (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Images seem OK license and use wise. I wonder if In August 2017, officials closed 417 square miles (1,080 km2) in the western half of the Three Sisters Wilderness,[21] including 24 miles (39 km) of the Pacific Crest Trail,[22] to the public because of 11 wildfires initiated by lightning strikes. may be overly recentist; how often do such things happen? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it last happened in 2015, though I found one article suggesting fires nearby in 2016. It's frustrating that there's not one unifying history of fires in the area, as far as I can tell, so I'm not sure how to go about summing them up. ceranthor 13:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jsayre64 edit

  • For helpful context, the total ice volume on the mountains could be compared numerically to some glacier or group of glaciers elsewhere in North America.
  • Some of the scientific language in the geology section really jumps in tone from the surrounding text, which is to be expected. However, in my reading of it, I thought that adding a few surrounding words of explanation for geologic terms and processes would noticeably improve the prose flow.
  • Recent history and potential hazards: to me, this is definitely the best section in terms of prose quality, and I recognize that this is inherently aided by the topic itself (requiring an explanatory style more so than the other sections). One little thing: in the opening sentence, does "the area's volcanoes" refer to strictly the Three Sisters, or does this also include any of the very nearby volcanoes in "the Three Sisters region," as the sentence says?
  • Say some more about wildfires. They're important. Maybe there have not been many big ones within the wilderness boundary, but fires affect virtually every high-elevation forest in the western U.S., so the article should have at least a bit more mention in order to meet criterion 1b.
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph in the recreation section kind of bothers me. "After passing through forest, lava flows, and meadows, scramblers can see from the summit various cinder cones as well as North Sister and nearby volcanoes." Doesn't this refer to the North Sister climb itself, so why mention a summit view of North Sister? And which cinder cones? Of course one can see the other Sisters from up there.

I think this article is very close to worthy of FA status. I've done many small rearrangements to the wording as I've seen fit. Based on targeted feedback posted to the talk page, my understanding is that @Hike395: and @Vsmith: may still be carefully reviewing parts of this article. I think it would be wise to seek additional judgment from them. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jsayre64: I think I've addressed comments 2 and 3; I added explanations for some of the jargon. I am not sure what comparing ice volume on the mountains would accomplish. I think the last sentence in paragraph 2 from recreation was paraphrased from the source, which should be available online if you want to double check. Not sure how else to phrase it better. I am working on adding some more fire material. ceranthor 17:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update - added some more about fire, but not sure how much more there is to add that would be worth including in this article rather than the main Three Sisters Wilderness article. ceranthor 17:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jsayre64: Everything has been addressed, I think, except the ice cover suggestion. I still feel ambivalent about how useful that will be - are you hard-set on its inclusion in the article? ceranthor 23:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support (I stand by my opinion on that issue, but I don't think that alone merits holding up this candidacy.) Jsayre64 (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help with the article, which has helped it invaluably, and for the support. ceranthor 02:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hike395 edit

The article is shaping up nicely, indeed. I think only two small-ish work items are left:

  • Per Brianboulton, above, the handful of quoted sentences from the USGS about vegetation species needs to be rewritten. Ceranthor, do you wish to do this?
  • Per Jsayre64, above, the geological jargon in this article may be overwhelming to the typical reader. Adding a little context could really help. I can attempt to do this, unless Vsmith wishes to take a crack at it? —hike395 (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395: I'm happy to copyedit the quoted sentences. However, I can't find the original source material at the links provided. Are you sure they came directly from that map you linked? ceranthor 17:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think I've addressed the jargon now. ceranthor 17:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm, found all the original source material at this point. Should be able to get it all copyedited by tonight, hopefully. ceranthor 22:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395: Sorry for the updates - but I think I've addressed the public domain material, and formatted it to match the sfn template format. Thanks for finding more information! ceranthor 23:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: I polished some of your edits. I think the article is in good shape. A last copy-editing pass could be useful. —hike395 (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vsmith: Would you be up for one last look? ceranthor 18:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fiddled a bit ... refiddle as needed. Vsmith (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, thanks! —hike395 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wilderness section? edit

@Ceranthor and Jsayre64: Now that the wilderness section has been expanded with information about the lakes and fires, I wonder if now has the correct title. Most of the material is not actually about the wilderness. Should we add subsections "Weather", "Lakes", "Fires" ? That may be overkill. Thoughts? —hike395 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Climate and wilderness suffices? ceranthor 14:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could change the title from "Wilderness" to "Wilderness and environment." Then, since the term environment overlaps a lot with ecology, we could change that title to "Flora and fauna," which is more specific anyway for what that section covers. Makes sense to me, but I bet there are other viable solutions too. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with that assessment, Jsayre64. ceranthor 16:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I very much want to keep the Ecology section, both because of parallel structure with other mountain articles, and also because it segments the area into ecoregions (which is an ecological concept). In other articles, environment is considered distinct from ecology: the former is the interaction between humans and the natural world, while the latter is how the natural world would operate independently from humans. See, e.g., Environment of California vs. Ecology of California.
After thinking about it, I came up with "physical geography" for the subsection containing climate + hydrology + fires. Does that sound good?
(I keep finding little factual or clarity nits to pick, sorry.) —hike395 (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Any other suggestions, @Hike395:? ceranthor 16:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Human history section? edit

@Ceranthor: I was just looking at the French version of this article, which is currently an FA-equivalent. What stands out for me is that they have a section on human history and we don't. So, I'm currently translating it in my sandbox. The French article uses a photograph of Peter Skene Ogden, taken before 1854. That should be PD, right? —hike395 (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're referring to [5], it says PD, so yes, I assume so. ceranthor 01:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395: Thank you for the fabulous addition - I would never have thought to look at the French language version of this article. ceranthor 21:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support edit

I can't think of what else to do to improve the article, and I'm about to go on Wikibreak, so I'll give this my full support. —hike395 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hike395!!! You and Jsayre, as well as the other commenters at this FAC, have been super helpful throughout this process. A well-earned break! ceranthor 04:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt edit

Support just a few comments:

  • "at the boundaries of Lane and Deschutes counties" I would say "boundary" rather than the plural. (also early in body of article)
  • "Once the moisture is wrung from the air, it descends on the eastern side of the crest, which causes it to be warmer and drier." you use "it" to refer to two different things in the sentence.
  • "The local area has a history of flash floods, including an event on October 7, 1966, caused by a sudden avalanche that reached the Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway." Is the explanation at the end intended to inform how the flood happened? Because it may not. The avalanche isn't described as blocking a flow of water, to my reading anyway.
  • "Studies at Collier Lake and Diller Lake suggested that both had breached their dams in the early 1940s and in 1970, respectively. Other moraine-dammed lakes within the wilderness area include Thayer Lake on North Sister's east flank, Diller Lake on Middle Sister's east flank, and four members of the Chambers Lakes group between Middle and South Sister.[21]" As it's just been mentioned, Diller Lake does not qualify as other lake.
  • "One of the earliest major eruptive events produced the rhyolite of Obsidian Cliffs about 38,000 years ago on the mountain's northwestern flank." I would move "about 38,000 years ago" to before "produced" and possibly enclose it in commas.
  • "Hodge Crest, a false peak, formed roughly around the same time as the main cone between 28,000 and 24,000 years ago.[62]" I would move "between 28,000 and 24,000 years ago" to before "roughly".
  • "The slopes of South Sister contain a number of other small glaciers, including the Lost Creek and Prouty glaciers.[" I would cut "other". I think it's clear these glaciers aren't the same as the ones before.
  • Not much said about the political history of the Sisters, how they wound up in their reserve and if any economic use was made of them before. Who discovered them, from the Euro-western viewpoint?
  • "Traveling over cinder cones, domes and lava flows, the hike becomes demanding from the last mile." I am not sure what "from the last mile" means.
Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thanks for your helpful feedback and your support. I think I have addressed all of these, excluding the comment about the political history of the Sisters, which hike395 is working on developing as we speak per a similar comment above. ceranthor 17:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you ping me again when it's ready? Much obliged.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. ceranthor 20:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: It's been added now. ceranthor 21:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only additional comment is on "Congress decided to sign the Endangered American Wilderness Act of 1978," Congress doesn't sign acts.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to respond, but this has been addressed I think. ceranthor 23:37, 3 December 2017 (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/Three_Sisters_(Oregon)/archive1&oldid=1138473782"