Wikipedia:Peer review/Mount Edziza volcanic complex/archive1

Mount Edziza volcanic complex[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article about a volcano group in British Columbia, Canada, for peer review because I plan on bringing it to FA class. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Volcanoguy 17:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SG Review[edit]

Will get here as soon as I'm able. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Volcanoguy: It has been over a month since the last comment. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? If so, I would suggest asking for feedback on the Wikiprojects attached to this article and asking Sandy if they still want to review this. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've already pinged Sandy on their talk page. Volcanoguy 17:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I will try to get to it this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to remember this after I've finished Candlemas Island Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just wondering if you're going to review this article. Volcanoguy 00:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Took a gander and didn't notice anything untoward. I can do a more detailed review over in FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two background sections; find a way to re-name one of them so there are unique sub-headings? (I suggest removing the first "background" sub-heading under the geography section-- it is implied by leaving it off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or change the first Background to Location. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Volcanoguy 15:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to shorten each of these sub-sections:

2.3 Eruptive history
- 2.3.1 Raspberry, Little Iskut and Armadillo eruptive periods
- 2.3.2 Nido, Spectrum and Pyramid eruptive periods
- 2.3.3 Ice Peak, Pillow Ridge and Edziza eruptive periods
- 2.3.4 Arctic Lake, Klastline and Kakiddi eruptive periods
- 2.3.5 Big Raven eruptive period

... to:

2.3 Eruptive history
- 2.3.1 Raspberry, Little Iskut and Armadillo
- 2.3.2 Nido, Spectrum and Pyramid
- 2.3.3 Ice Peak, Pillow Ridge and Edziza
- 2.3.4 Arctic Lake, Klastline and Kakiddi
- 2.3.5 Big Raven

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe replace "eruptive periods" with "stages"? Volcanoguy 01:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to completely retitle those sections to first, second, third, fourth and fifth magmatic cycles. Also retitled their subsections about the eruptive periods. Volcanoguy 21:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ACK with footnote 10; I know it would be a ton of work, but can those be converted to sfn or some such, so that one would know where to find each piece ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similar with:

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Edwards, Benjamin R.; Russell, James K. (2000). "Distribution, nature, and origin of Neogene–Quaternary magmatism in the northern Cordilleran volcanic province, Canada". Geological Society of America Bulletin. Geological Society of America. 112 (8): 1280, 1281, 1283, 1284, 1286, 1287, 1291, 1292, 1293. doi:10.1130/0016-7606(2000)112<1280:dnaoon>2.0.co

Should those be converted to sfns for identification of individual page numbers? Also 1280–1284, 1286–1287, 1291–1293 ? Work is lessened by using section headings as I did at Dementia with Lewy bodies#References. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another at:

Demarchi, Dennis A. (2011). An Introduction to the Ecoregions of British Columbia. Government of British Columbia. pp. 140, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 153. OCLC 613357103.</ref>

Could sfns be used to better specify which info is on which page? Also 140, 143–150, 153. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I will look into converting these sources to sfns, especially footnote 10 since that is the one with the most page numbers. It should take less work now since roughly half of the page numbers in footnote 10 were for content in the "Eruptive history" section, which has mostly been moved to Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex. Volcanoguy 10:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIZE: 14,600 words of readable prose! (So far, everything is looking excellent, but now I start reading-- will be watching for where you might create a sub-article as I read). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: The readable prose has been reduced to 6698 words after moving most of the eruptive history into Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex which has roughly the same amount of readable prose as this article. I'm thinking maybe the subdivisions table should be replaced with content about each geological formation since there's still room for 2000+ words before reaching 9000 words of readable prose. Volcanoguy 11:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is quite competent and a pleasure to read; please feel free to revert anything I change. I have just started and may not get through the rest quickly, as I am getting on a plane shortly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

Because this is the first occurrence within the body of the article, should MEVC be spelled out? 15:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. Volcanoguy 15:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a geologist, but don't understand why Central volcanoes is Geography rather than Geology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After giving it some thought I think the sections about central volcanoes, satellitic cones and subglacial volcanoes might not be necessary. Most of the features described in these sections are already mentioned in "Lava fields and plateaus" and any information about them could be moved into their respective articles which would help trim the article size. Since two of the central volcanoes (Spectrum Range and Armadillo Peak) are not on any named lava field or plateau it would probably be okay to add a paragraph in the structure section about central volcanoes along with satellitic cones. Volcanoguy 20:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Include"? Are there others? How about just "are"? If not, name the alternates? Alternative names for the Spectrum Range include the Spectrum Mountains and the Rainbow Mountains.[9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Volcanoguy 15:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll stop here for now because the writing is quite competent-- my changes are mostly personal preference. I'm more interested in how the size can be cut down; I see potential here for three FAs: Geography of Mount Edziza volcanic complex, Geology of Mount Edziza volcanic complex, and Mount Edziza volcanic complex, using summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I've cut the article size down from 147 kB to 127 kB by removing most of the information about central volcanoes, but I don't see anything in WP:SIZE claiming that all articles over 100 kB should be cut down in size. Even the article you brought to FA (Dementia with Lewy bodies) is larger at 136 kB. It's actually difficult to make the MEVC article smaller now because all of the information presented there is crucial to the subject. I don't think separate geology and geography articles would be necessary since the MEVC article already has several sub-articles about individual landforms (e.g. stratovolcanoes, cinder cones, lava domes, lava plateaus, streams) where additional information can be added. Is there anything else to improve? Volcanoguy 15:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have another look at WP:SIZE and how readable prose size is measured-- KB is irrelevant, as it includes citations. Dementia with Lewy bodies has 9,000 words of readable prose (I object when articles approach 10). At the time of my review, this article had 15,000 words of readable prose. Today, it still has 13,000. Less is more, deciding what to leave out is part of the art of good writing, and you may have a hard time getting reviewers to slog through that much, and even more, you may be able to get three FAs (or a Featured topic), if you consider structuring the content differently. One of the biggest favors ever done to me at WP:PR was when another editor went through and moved a bunch of Tourette syndrome content to sub-articles, and I'm grateful to this day for that, as the maintenance nightmare of maintaining that much content at FA level would have been insurmountable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Another idea would be to split the "Eruptive history" section into its own article since that is the largest subsection in the entire MEVC article. Splitting it would bring the readable prose size down to well below 9,000 words which would give room for some reorganization of that section. I will have to give this a closer look whenever my computer is back up and running. I'm not even sure what the title of such an article should be, maybe Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex? Volcanoguy 12:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're the content expert on how best to accomplish a split. In medical content, where to split is made fairly clear by the suggested WP:MEDSECTIONs, but I can't opine in volcanology. Since you've written the content at the FA level, one thing to think about is splitting it in a way that will result in two comprehensive and interesting FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I've completed the split. Volcanoguy 22:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I've been uncertain about the article title since I created this article in 2008. I know the Wikipedia convention is to use the more commonly-used name per WP:COMMONNAME but sources variously spell the name of this feature as the Mount Edziza volcanic complex or the Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex and I'm not sure which one is more appropriate. I checked to see if Wikipedia has a naming convention for geologic names but there doesn't seem to be one; the closest I could find was one for geographic names. Wikipedia articles are also inconsistent. For example, Topo Volcanic Complex, Dieng Volcanic Complex, Ancud Volcanic Complex, Newbury Volcanic Complex, Akan Volcanic Complex, Doña Juana-Cascabel Volcanic Complex, Lynn Volcanic Complex and Mattapan Volcanic Complex are fully capitalized while Altiplano–Puna volcanic complex, Apacheta-Aguilucho volcanic complex, Pairique volcanic complex, Pinos volcanic complex, Paipa-Iza volcanic complex, Ujlān volcanic complex and Rincon volcanic complex aren't fully capitalized. Most Google Scholar sources for the Mount Edziza volcanic complex seem to use Mount Edziza volcanic complex but a good portion of them also use Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex. The Lexicon of Canadian Geologic Units also uses Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex. What should be done here? Volcanoguy 19:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that most of the noncapitalized ones were written by one person (me). I am not sure what the English language rules are for this situation so I usually go with the capitalization used by the employed sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]