Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Garibaldi/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 9 October 2022 [1].

Mount Garibaldi[edit]

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 03:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a dormant volcano in Canada that partially erupted onto glacial ice during the last glacial period. It has been improved greatly since the last time it was at FAC in 2008, two years after I became a registered Wikipedian. Mount Garibaldi is one of Canada's best known volcanoes and Natural Resources Canada considers it to be one of the country's highest threat volcanoes due to its location near the populated southwest corner of British Columbia (e.g. Vancouver, Squamish, Whistler, Brackendale). Volcanoguy 03:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the topographic and route maps, and see MOS:COLOUR
    • I've scaled up the topographic and route maps; not sure why you're linking to MOS:COLOUR. Volcanoguy 04:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The topographic map conveys information through colour alone, and some of the shades are indistinguishable without colour. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure if there's anything I can do about that. Not everything on the topo map is coloured; the names of the map features are black, which is a shade. If the map is really that problematic I can just replace it with images of subfeatures. Volcanoguy 03:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Giuseppe_Garibaldi_(1866).jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JJE's review[edit]

  • "This activity produced mostly dacite, such that much of Mount Garibaldi is composed of this volcanic rock." is a bit of an odd prose.
    • I don't see what's odd about it. Volcanoguy 11:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've revised this sentence, not sure if it's any better. Volcanoguy 22:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several individually named outlet glaciers drain the Garibaldi Névé.[8] This includes" shouldn't that be plural?
  • Nothing about the etymology of the other toponyms on Garibaldi? You only mention Cheekye.
  • "built of granitic rocks." I am not sure that "of" is right here.
    • Changed to "made of granitic rocks". Volcanoguy 21:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to Pacific air often passing over this area" something of an odd prose.
    • I don't see what's odd about it. Volcanoguy 11:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reworded this to "due to air from the Pacific Ocean often passing over this area". Volcanoguy 20:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes https://web.archive.org/web/20210801174342/https://604now.com/garibaldi-at-squamish-ski-resort/ a reliable source?
    • I'm not sure how it's an unreliable source? Volcanoguy 12:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question is whether it's a reliable one. Unlike the other ones, it isn't obviously reliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also found that source questionable when I added it in the article. I've decided to delete the Garibaldi at Squamish paragraph until better sources appear. Volcanoguy 21:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a bergschrund?
    • I've reworded the text to "bergschrunds and other crevasses" to make it clearer that it's a type of crevasse. Volcanoguy 01:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these accidents mentioned in the "Dangers and accidents" section the only ones? If there are more, why were these highlighted?
    • I was not able to find more accidents. Volcanoguy 11:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "(grade II and class 3–4)" mean? Same for similar parentheses farther below.
    • It is stated earlier that the grades and classes of Mount Garibaldi's climbing routes range from II-to-V and 2-to-5 on the Yosemite Decimal System, which is used for rating the difficulty of climbs. Volcanoguy 11:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a table explaining the Yosemite Decimal System grades and classes. Volcanoguy 21:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "moderately angled snow and ice " shouldn't that be "sloping".

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Airship[edit]

I'm not a geologist in the slightest, so this will probably just be a review of the prose.

  • "The northern and eastern flanks of Mount Garibaldi are obscured by the Garibaldi Névé. This is a large snowfield containing several radiating glaciers." would one sentence be preferable?
  • What's a "scarp"? A wikilink would be nice.
  • "fans out in the Squamish Valley" into instead of in, perhaps?
  • "the primary volcanic rock comprising Mount Garibaldi" awkward, please rephrase. Don't think either of the words "primary" or "comprising" are the most precise.
    • "the main type of volcanic rock forming Mount Garibaldi". Volcanoguy 00:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If this were to happen, relief efforts may be quickly organized." Fairly redundant sentence.
    • Reworded to "If this were to happen, relief efforts could be organized by teams such as the Interagency Volcanic Event Notification Plan who are prepared to notify people threatened by volcanic eruptions in Canada." Volcanoguy 00:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " involve traversing glaciers, snow slopes or loose rock. Mountain climbing hazards include crevasses, avalanches and rockfalls." this somehow seems to be saying the same thing twice.
  • I must inquire as to whether the biogeography section is fully necessary — it seems almost entirely reliant on one source, and most of its information only seems indirectly related to the volcano itself.
    • Given that there's no biogeographic information about the volcano itself it doesn't hurt mentioning the areal biogeography. What's in the local ecoregion is what is at the mountain. Volcanoguy 21:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mount Garibaldi is a moderately dissected stratovolcano" is there a link for 'dissection' (whatever it is) as a process?
    • Changed "dissected" to "eroded". Volcanoguy 21:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken the liberty of wikilinking Giuseppe Garibaldi in the body.
  • Two of the coordinates in the recreation facilities section are identical. Are the coordinates really necessary?
  • The table of grade and class explanation isn't necessary—a simple explanation in the body would suffice.
    • I'm not aware of a way to easily explain grades and classes in the body. Volcanoguy 21:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is generally good, although perhaps slightly too punctuated at times. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AirshipJungleman29, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can support now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eewilson[edit]

Support: I have given the article a thorough prose and content review and give my thumbs up for it to move to FA status. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "The northern and eastern flanks of Mount Garibaldi are obscured by the Garibaldi Névé. This is a large snowfield containing several radiating glaciers." These sentences could probably be combined: "The northern and eastern flanks of Mount Garibaldi are obscured by the Garibaldi Névé, a large snowfield containing several radiating glaciers."
  • "Flowing from the steep western face of Mount Garibaldi is the Cheekye River, a tributary of the Cheakamus River." Perhaps: "On the steep western face of Mount Garibaldi is the Cheekye River, a tributary of the Cheakamus River." Removes "flowing" from this sentence, as "lava flow" was in the sentence directly before.
    • I've moved this sentence so it appears before the one about Opal Cone. Volcanoguy 04:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "scarp" be Wikilinked to something? Wikipedia has two articles from the DAB page "Scarp" that could apply: "Cliff" and "Escarpment". If you link here, remember to link on first instance in the main as well.
    • I've reworded this to "The western face is a landslide feature that formed in a series of collapses between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago." Volcanoguy 22:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first period of volcanism that led to the construction of Mount Garibaldi commenced between 260,000 and 220,000 years ago with the formation of an ancestral cone that was subsequently destroyed." – Perhaps: "Mount Garibaldi construction commenced between 260,000 and 220,000 years ago with the formation of an ancestral cone that was subsequently destroyed."
    • Reworded to "Volcanism between 260,000 and 220,000 years ago constructed an ancestral cone that was subsequently destroyed." Volcanoguy 04:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another period of growth began with the eruption of Atwell Peak..." – Perhaps: "Another growth period began with the eruption of Atwell Peak..."
  • "After the ice sheet disappeared..." – "After the ice sheet melted..."? or "After the ice sheet dissipated..."? Disappeared sounds a bit like magic. Your call on that.
  • "...with the eruption of lava from Dalton Dome and Opal Cone" – Could this be "...with eruptions from Dalton Dome and Opal Cone"?
  • "Although the mountain is not known to have experienced a volcanic eruption since that time, it could erupt again..." – maybe just "it could again" as "erupt" is implied within the context of the sentence.
    • How about "Although the mountain is not known to have been volcanically active since that time, it could erupt again..."? Volcanoguy 02:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That works. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...which would potentially endanger the nearby populace." – "...which could endanger the nearby populace" would give the same meaning (probably) and more succinctly.
  • "If this were to happen, relief efforts may be quickly organized." – "may be" or "would be" or "could be"?
    • Definitely not "would be" because it is not accurate to state that this would (definitely) happen. Volcanoguy 21:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about "If this were to happen, relief efforts could be organized by teams such as the Interagency Volcanic Event Notification Plan who are prepared to notify people threatened by volcanic eruptions in Canada." – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They have passed down several stories regarding the mountain, including one involving the great flood." – perhaps replace with "Their oral history includes a story of the mountain and the great flood."
  • "Several mountaineers had climbed Mount Garibaldi by the early 1900s, some of which were members of..." – pretty sure it should be "some of whom", as "who" is for people and "which" is for things.
  • "Attempts at creating a ski resort at Mount Garibaldi began in the 1960s." – perhaps "A ski resort was begun in the late 1960s, but developments were halted in 1969 due to financial difficulties." This gives the "lead-only" readers a succinct sentence about the dead resort and doesn't leave them hanging.
  • I know the Oxford comma is not required and is main writer's preference. I do find the final lead sentence difficult to follow without it. Not sure if there is a solution. "...Brohm Ridge and the Diamond Head parking lot at the end of Garibaldi Park Road." Took me four reads, most likely my problem.
  • "The non-indigenous name of the mountain was given by George Henry Richards in 1860, who named it in honour of the Italian patriot and soldier Giuseppe Garibaldi."
Perhaps "The non-indigenous name of the mountain was given by George Henry Richards in 1860 in honour of the Italian patriot and soldier Giuseppe Garibaldi." – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 17:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

  • Do we also link first time in the main even though something was Wikilinked in the Lead? I thought we did. If so, some links may be needed in this section.
    • I'm pretty sure that's optional. Volcanoguy 04:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have more later. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of these changes look great! Still working on other parts. More this weekend. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geography (continued)

Subfeatures

  • "The eastern side of Mount Garibaldi contains a peak known as The Tent." The other subfeatures have a bit of description. Could you add that to this sentence, or a sentence directly following it, about The Tent?
    • No, there isn't much information about The Tent. Volcanoguy 04:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biogeography

  • Would it be appropriate for Pacific Ranges Ecoregion to be its own article?
Okay, think on that. If you do, you can pull most of what's in here about it out into that. Doesn't have to be fancy. Then you can put a short blurb in here and Wikilink. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary to move the Pacific Ranges Ecoregion paragraph into its own article if that's what you're suggesting. There's enough information about the Pacific Ranges Ecoregion to create a good sized article. The "Biogeography" section is merely background information. I could retitle it to "Biogeographic background" or just "Background" if that would be more appropriate. Volcanoguy 23:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may need to be broken up somehow; let me look again. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Pacific Ranges Ecoregion is something that would be referenced or repeated in other articles, whether on volcanoes or other topics? Would it be something that could go in the article on Pacific Ranges and accessed via a redirect that could be linked to in this article so that the entire explanation/description of it is not included in this one? I am thinking of summary style and scope both here. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think the Pacific Ranges Ecoregion is something that would be referenced or repeated in other articles, at least articles about features that are mentioned in the given source (Mount Garibaldi being one of them). It could certainly be mentioned in the Pacific Ranges article but I'm not sure about a redirect because the ecoregion is not limited to the Pacific Ranges; it also extends into the Cascade Range in Washington state. Volcanoguy 02:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do that? Pull it out and put it in the Pacific Ranges article? Then link to that. A redirect isn't necessary if you think it's not a good idea. I did envision a section in that article about the ecoregion and a redirect to the section, but that's not necessary either if it wouldn't work as its own section. If you will commit to adding it to that article and pull it out of this article now with a Wikilink link to Pacific Ranges and just a quick summary, the same as what you would have in once it's in that article, I could review that change and then go ahead and render my approval. If it's not a big deal just to toss it in the Pacific Ranges article, doing that asap would be awesome. What do you think? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Pacific Ranges article is still Start class, so anything added there would be a help, and I think the Ecoregion could have a section right after the Geology section. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pulling anything out of the article. I'm not sure why you're making a big deal over that one paragraph. The Pacific Ranges Ecoregion surely does belong in this article because Mount Garibaldi is part of that ecoregion just like it's part of the Eastern Pacific Ranges Ecosection, the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, the Garibaldi–Garibaldi Lake volcanic field, etc, which are all mentioned in the article. Why should the ecoregion be pulled out while everything else Mount Garibaldi is a part of stays in? It doesn't make any sense. Obviously Mount Garibaldi is an important feature of the Pacific Ranges Ecoregion if it's mentioned in the given source. Volcanoguy 23:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is that it seems to veer off topic, but I could be wrong. Let me look at it yet again. I hear your frustration, and I would feel it if the tables were turned. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! You're right, and I'm good with it. I paid it even a much closer attention this time. For some reason it was not sinking in to me that this is background information even though it clearly says it. Thank you for your patience. I approve and will state such at the top of my section. Great article, Volcanoguy. Keep up the great work! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Anything larger than the Pacific Ranges Ecoregion would probably veer off topic. That's why I didn't write a paragraph about the Coast and Mountains Ecoprovince or the Humid Maritime and Highlands Ecodivision. Volcanoguy 09:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Geology

  • Link "scarp" on first occurence.
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could hyperlink "levee".
Can you put a few words to explain what it is? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an explanation in the article. Volcanoguy 04:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dacites from a flow remnant at the western end of Alice Ridge...." Should it be "Dacites form a flow remnant at the western end of Alice Ridge...."? Or maybe not. The full sentence is hard to follow. I think you are saying that the dacites were created from these three things or possibly that they are located there. Regardless, can you reword that full sentence to clarify what you mean?
    • Reworded to "Dacite from the western end of Alice Ridge...." Volcanoguy 08:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think what the source was trying to explain is that the eroded remains of a dacitic lava flow are found at the western end of Alice Ridge, Columnar Peak and Mount Garibaldi, but I'm not sure. Volcanoguy 01:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can't interpret, so just report as best you can. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several Peléan pyroclastic flows (consisting of a super-heated mix of gas, ash and pumice) accompanied these cooler avalanches, forming a fragmental cone with an overall slope of 12–15 degrees (erosion has since steepened this slope)." I don't think that what is in parentheses needs to be in parentheses. The part about erosion could be in its own sentence.
    • I've reworded this sentence to "Several pyroclastic flows generated by Peléan eruptions accompanied these cooler avalanches, forming a fragmental cone with an overall slope of 12–15 degrees; erosion has since steepened this slope." Volcanoguy 07:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resulting in a series of landslides between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago that removed nearly half of the volcano's volume into the Squamish Valley." Perhaps "moved" instead of "removed"?
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human history

  • "plays an important part of their history". Perhaps "is important to their history"
Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first American party to climb Mount Garibaldi was made by 13 members..." Instead of "made by" perhaps "consisted of"?
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification here – does "American party" mean a party from the United States, and if so, can you say the first United States party? Or does it mean the first non-Indigenous Peoples group? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first United States party. Volcanoguy 00:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the change. Looks good. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was dreamed up by..." sounds a little judgmental. Maybe a different phrase.
"It was designed by..." or something similar. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 21:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation facilities

  • "as part of the failed ski resort development" How about "as part of the attempted ski resort development"?
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bunk beds for 33 people" How can you have bunk beds for an odd number of people when bunk beds are, by definition consisting of two beds each?
    • The source says "bunks for 33 people (11 double bunks, 12 single bunks)" if that clarifies anything. Volcanoguy 05:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. A bunk bed is defined as two or more bunks with one on top of the other. A bunk is one single-person bed. So a bunk bed would be the double bunks. If the source is saying that the double bunks are double beds, not bunk beds, then that's a bed that will hold two people. So you may just say that it "can sleep up to 33 people" (well, my math comes out to 34, but the source has 33) and leave it at that. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 21:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Climbing and skiing

Hmmm, I don't see it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does there still have to be a link if it's already linked under a different word? "Scree" is already linked under "talus" and "escarpment" is already linked under "scarp". Volcanoguy 21:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reader isn't going to know they both mean the same thing, so yes, unless it's the same word, link it, even if it goes to the same place. That's been my expectation as a reader and editor. I don't know if it's in the MoS or anyplace else, though, but if you don't mind doing it, go ahead. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 21:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for tonight, and may be all depending on what comes from this. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson: Anything else? Volcanoguy 20:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Eewilson, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eewilson supported, see above. Volcanoguy 20:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers[edit]

Hi, nice read thanks for that, sorry for coming in late to the party.

Describing the most recent volcanic eruption as "final" may be a hostage to fortune, I'd only do that if we can attribute a particular vulcanologist as asserting that.
"Final" in this context means "last", not that the mountain will never have another eruption. Volcanoguy 23:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I get that this was the intended meaning and it wasn't meant to be read literally. But we are writing for a general audience, I suggest either latest or most recent.
Reworded to: "The latest period of volcanic activity took place about 10,000 years ago with eruptions from Dalton Dome and Opal Cone after the ice sheet retreated." Volcanoguy 03:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 05:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The geography bit includes "It is characterized by little precipitation and mild temperatures due to air from the Pacific Ocean often passing over this area." I get that air from the Pacific Ocean could lead to mild temperatures, but the little precipitation comment needs more justification. Is the area in a rain shadow from more coastal mountains?
The source does not specify why there's little precipitation, but Mount Garibaldi is surrounded by other mountains of the Pacific Ranges. Volcanoguy 23:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked for other sources? I did a search for rain shadows in British Columbia and had several hits, I don't know if this is from the right part of BC but it explains the phenomenon well.
I haven't been able to find any information about a rain shadow at Mount Garibaldi. The source you provided above is for the interior of British Columbia rather than the coast. Volcanoguy 00:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The flora and fauna has been taken from the wider ecoregion, has no source covered this specific mountain?
I haven't been able to find any flora sources covering this specific mountain, but the fauna is for the Garibaldi area. Volcanoguy 01:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
deer is a tad generic, especially as other animals link to specific species from the ecoregion.
The fauna source does not specify what species of deer are present. Volcanoguy 23:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a source that specifies the type of deer. ϢereSpielChequers 10:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the significance of glaciers to the topic, and the threat to mountain glaciers from climate change, I think there should be coverage of the issue of whether the ice is stable growing or declining. For example this source
I've added "Although the glaciers at times have seen surges reaching further down slope, they overall have been progressively retreating since the early 1900s." Volcanoguy 00:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but given how fast things are changing 2009 is a bit dated. ϢereSpielChequers 10:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the source you gave above is from 2004 so it's not any better. How do you know the glaciers have been changing fast at Garibaldi? Do you have a source? What has happened since 2009 is insignificant compared to what has happened since 1900. Retreating glaciers is nothing new. Volcanoguy 00:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The general retreat that is happening under climate change is not just the sort of fluctuation that happens when a peak has heavy or light snowfall or hot or mild summers. The article uses sources for the wider area on other issues, how about under some scenarios of Climate Change, all the mountain ice in British Columbia could be gone by the 2080s ϢereSpielChequers 05:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That source has nothing to do with Garibaldi but rather BC's interior mountains (Selkirk Mountains, Purcell Mountains, Monashee Mountains, Cariboo Mountains) which are nowhere near this mountain. The 2009 source I used in the article is the most recent one I have been able to find. The melting of glaciers at Garibaldi since 1900 appears to be more than just some sort of fluctuation from heavy or light snowfall or hot or mild summers. The 2009 source makes it clear that glaciers have been retreating there every decade with much fewer glacial advances and stable periods since 1900. So anything different since 2009 is unlikely. Volcanoguy 01:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Some models predict a BC landscape with no glaciers at all as early as the 2080s." doesn't limit itself to the interior mountains. ϢereSpielChequers 09:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it doesn't specify what models or how old the models are. Volcanoguy 16:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it quite questionable that all the mountain ice in British Columbia could be gone by the 2080s. Earth's ice caps were supposed to be gone by now but that isn't the case. Volcanoguy 08:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any serious scientific study that predicted the Earth's Ice Caps would melt by now, and I live at an altitude that would struggle if either Greenland or West Antarctica went. Let alone East Antarctica. It isn't our role to discard studies simply because we find them questionable. Though I'd agree that a study spelling out a worst case scenario such as the world failing to act on HCFCs is now less important because the world has agreed to act on HCFCs and taken a lot of other steps to address the problem. ϢereSpielChequers 09:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Volcanic sandstones seems like an oxymoron to me, especially with sandstone linked. I did find a link to a site that discusses it and says it is derived from ash, so I suspect it is a form of tuff. But unless we can find a source that better describes what it is, I suggest delinking it and putting volcanic sandstone in quotes.
"When volcanoes erupt, they may emit a variety of materials, such as lava, gases, and pyroclastic rocks, which may vary greatly in size from sand-like particles to sizable boulders. If accumulations of the sand-sized grains become lithified over time, the material that results is often referred to as volcanic sandstone." [2] So "volcanic sandstone" is a used phrase. Volcanoguy 19:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked "volcanic sandstone" and redirected that to tuff where I added a description for it. Volcanoguy 20:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that works. ϢereSpielChequers 14:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ϢereSpielChequers 05:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi WereSpielChequers, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Gog, at the moment I'm leaning oppose, but happy to still engage. I'm uncomfortable re sourcing and balance between the different things that such an article should cover to be at FA standard. ϢereSpielChequers 09:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not much can be done about that if there are no sources. Nevertheless, the article is still comprehensive. Given the lack of post-2009 sources for the glaciers at Mount Garibaldi I question whether or not climate change is an important subject there. Volcanoguy 12:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Volcanoguy, might you be able to find something in here that would help? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit more about glaciers in the article. The 2015 estimate may be an underestimation according to a 2022 Vancouver Sun source. Volcanoguy 17:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to eview.

  • "Both summits were volcanically active at different times throughout Mount Garibaldi's eruptive history." Active throughout the eruptive history? Really? And what is an eruptive history?
  • "from which a lengthy lava flow descends." "lava flow" is linked to lava, reinforcing the impression given by the prose that this flow is currently active.
  • "This activity produced mostly dacite". Which of the two periods mentioned in the previous sentence does "This activity" refer to?
  • "a story of the mountain and the great flood." → 'a story of the mountain and a great flood.'
  • The lead seems over detailed in places. Eg "some of whom were members of the British Columbia Mountaineering Club and the Alpine Club of Canada"; " If this were to happen, relief efforts could be organized by teams such as the Interagency Volcanic Event Notification Plan who are prepared to notify people threatened by volcanic eruptions in Canada."
  • "A plane operated by Pacific Western Airlines disappeared". Disappeared? Amazing. It would seem that it didn't.
  • "A ski resort was begun". I assume this means that 'The construction of a ski resort was begun'.

My reading of the lead is not encouraging and smacks of an article not yet ready for FAC. This despite a lot of activity since it was nominated. Nb, this is not all of the comments or queries I have on the lead, just those which I would broadly expect to have been resolved prior to nomination. I shall pick a random section to review to see if the lead is an unfortunate outlier.

Volcanic hazards

  • "The hazard rankings of both volcanoes are nearly identical to those of Lassen Peak in California and Augustine Volcano in Alaska." Is there a reason why this comparison is made. Is it anticipated that a reader will be familiar with the hazard rankings of these?
  • "Although Plinian eruptions have not been identified at Mount Garibaldi, Peléan eruptions can also produce large amounts of volcanic ash". This is impenetrable to a non-expert without chasing links, contrary to MOS:FORCELINK: "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so." and "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."
  • I see over close paraphrasing on the only cite I checked.
Article: "cause short and long term water supply problems for the city of Vancouver and most of the Lower Mainland. The catchment area for the Greater Vancouver watershed is downwind from Mount Garibaldi".
Source: "cause short- and long-term water-supply problems for Vancouver and much of the lower mainland. The catchment area for the Greater Vancouver watershed is downwind from the Garibaldi area."
  • "which is one of Canada's most rapidly changing ecoregions." This seems irrelevant. How does it tie to either the volcano or the paragraph? I assume this means the ecology is rapidly changing, but if it is kept it would be helpful if this were made clear
  • "At the head of the Cheekye River are several fractures and anti-slope scarps. These features, referred to as the Cheekye linears, occur in pyroclastic rocks and interbedded andesitic and dacitic flows on the slopes of Brohm and Alice ridges. They may have formed as a result of sliding of this volcanic sequence along its contact with the underlying basement rocks." This is an encyclopaedia. We are supposed to explain things. Little of this will be comprehensible to a non-expert.
  • "Dacite is felsic in composition". ?
  • "This increases the viscosity of dacitic melts relative to that of andesite or basalt, generally resulting in the formation of steep-sided lava domes and stubby lava flows. An exception is the 15-kilometre-long (9.3-mile) Ring Creek dacite flow from Opal Cone, a length that is normally attained by basaltic lava flows." No doubt these are fascinating facts, but they seem to be dropped into the "Volcanic hazards" section almost randomly, with little explanation or contextulisation.

Overall I am afraid that this seems to need considerable further work to get it to FA standard, which would best be done off-FAC. I oppose and recommend withdrawal. Gog the Mild (talk)

I hate to do it, but with WereSpeilChequers leaning oppose and Gog opposed, it doesn't look like this one will be getting to a consensus to promote this time around, especially as it's two months in. I'd recommend working with the opposers outside of the FAC, which will hopefully get this into shape to renominate. Hog Farm Talk 22:15, 9 October 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/Mount_Garibaldi/archive2&oldid=1115130519"