Talk:Lunar Crater volcanic field

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lunar Crater volcanic field/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 20:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I’ll get this started shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - got home Tuesday from being out on the road with hubby and promptly got sick. Am feeling better today should be able to pick this back up tomorrow. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Heavy heavy heavy on the jargon

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A few spots where information is given but it's unclear how it relates to the subject of the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation - the two flagged sites are showing up because of the titles of journal articles.
• General:
  • Footnote 29 (Benoit) .. why is the title here not italicized like other titles? And it lacks a publisher.
  • Same for footnote 70 (Perry)
    • (Referring to these two queries above) Remind me, for a technical report written by a contractor, what would the publisher be? I believe that the italics thing might be an artifact of {{cite report}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Should be whoever put the report out - the agency/etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
        • So the contractor? The platform is "Office of Scientific and Technical Information" but I am not sure if that should be the "publisher". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "kilometres" "metres" - this is an US topic, should use US spellings. Also - wouldn't it make more sense in an ENGRAVR way to have imperial measurements first?
  • Why is there a footnote ("Younger, Valentine & Gregg") below the external links?
  • Overall - there is a lot of jargon in the article. While they are (mostly) linked ... it could help the reader if some of it could be quickly explained in the text here so the reader doesn't have to leave and come back to understand things.
    • I see. I am thinking that "aa", "maar", "dyke", "mesa", "lapilli", "tephra", "fault", "upwelling", "porphyritic" "downwelling", "extensional tectonics", "basement", "alluvium", "caldera", "normal fault" and "effusive eruption" need definition. Question, how should such explanations be sourced, if at all? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Yeah, those would be good. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I've put up the parentheticals, although the source question is still outstanding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
          • Urf. Sorry! Geology textbook? Does the Geographic Survey have a good online glossary? this doesn't need to be sourced to anything but something simple, I think ... textbooks would be perfect. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
            • Hrm. Ealdgyth, do you think that this is a good enough source for this job? It seems like it covers many of these terms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
              • For a GA and for this uncontentious level of facts, yeah, that'll work fine. It would probably work okay at FA too. Facts On File isn't exactly chopped liver... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
                • @Ealdgyth: Added some material from there (different edition, though) but for some statements I needed different sources. I'll remember these sources for FA ... although judging by Talk:Coropuna#Progress discussion other aspects of the prose will be bigger points of contention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Some overlinking - both duplicate links (I eliminated the second fissure vents and lava flows I found, but I'm sure I missed some) as well as links to things that really don't need links ("dirt road" or "soil" are examples). Suggest double and triple checking links to make sure they are high value and not duplicated in the body of the article.
  • dislike the overuse of the circa template. There are plenty of synonyms for "about" that can be used instead - "almost" "nearly" "roughly" "approximately" "nearby" "adjacent"
  • Can we find a synonym for "volcanism"? it's very repetitious. (An example from "Eruption history" - "As a consequence of the long duration of volcanism, the various volcanic centres have been eroded at varying degrees[20] while volcanism moved to the north..."
    • I've cut some mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Lead:
  • "mostly small volcanic cones with associated lava flows but also several maars and Lunar Crater" This is clunky and unclear - we haven't been introduced to Lunar Crater yet, so it's very confusing to the reader - who may think "lunar craters" instead of a formation actually named "Lunar Crater".
    • Attempted to reword this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Etymology:
  • "Owing to its diverse geology and accessibility, Lunar Crater volcanic field was used to test prototype Mars rovers[5] and as a training ground for astronauts[6] for the Moon landings,[4] and a number of references to remote sensing of the volcanic field appear in the scientific literature." The last phrase doesn't really fit in with the rest of the sentence.. and it's lacking context of why this is important. Also, a quickie description of "remote sensing" might help readers understand why this is an important factoid.
    • I figure that sentence could just be cut. It might be something important for people who work in this area, but I am not sure if that detail is important for Wikipedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Yeah, cut it if its borderline. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Geography:
  • Do we really need the redlink to "parking place"?
  • "The volcanic field covers an 80 kilometres" ... is there an "area" missing here between "an" and "80"?
    • No, the "area" comes later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "two hundred vents" per MOS - "over 200 vents"
  • "is within 18 kilometres (11 mi) from Lunar Crater volcanic field" ... I think it'll read better as "is within 18 kilometres (11 mi) from the Lunar Crater volcanic field" - Americans love our articles.
  • "and collects water from local drainages.[36] Drainages in the area only ephemerally contain water." Repetitive - try "and collects water from local drainages,[36] which only ephemerally contain water."
• Individual:
  • "The tephra ring defines" link and definition?
    • "Defines" here is supposed to mean "the crater is outlined by a tephra ring" - would "outlines" work better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Yeah, probably... but I was really looking for something to tell me what a tephra ring IS. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Specified that, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Regional:
  • "and since 20 million years" very very clunky. Suggest "in the last 20 million years"
  • "it is known as the "Death Valley-Pancake Range basalt zone".[61] The Death Valley-Pancake Range volcanic zone" ... repetitious - suggest "it is known as the "Death Valley-Pancake Range basalt zone".[61] This volcanic zone.."
• Local:
  • "and since 11 million years basaltic volcanism" again, clunky and not common in American English. Suggest "in the last 11 million years"
  • "The faults have also influenced the older volcanism[65] Vand the older volcanism in turn the Lunar Crater volcanic field." Do you mean "and" instead of "Vand"? and this last phrase (even if using "and") is utterly opaque to me what it means.
    • Yes, "and". The sentence is meant to say that the structures left by the older volcanism have influenced the development of the more recent one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Composition:
  • The first paragraph is entirely jargon and thus loses the non-specialist completely. It really needs to be rewritten, but I can't even begin to tease out enough meaning to make a stab at it. (It's also full of duplicated links)
    • I've stripped out the duplicate links, but I don't think that a paragraph on the composition of volcanism can be made jargon free. At best, I could shuffle some of the mineral names into a footnote so that they are out of the way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
      • that might help, but I'm not sure it'll fix it totally... lets see what you come up with and then I can see what's still missing for the non-specialist. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Took a first stab at it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Each volcano was nourished by one batch of magma" suggest "supplied" or similar in place of "nourished"
• Eruption:
  • "Between 4.4 and 4.2 million years ago trachyte was emplaced" WTF is this supposed to MEAN? And it's in a list of locations, so I'm not clear why it's here.
    • Oy. That was a bad one. Yanked it and wrote a better sentence from same in the preceding paragraph. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "have been emplaced 600,000 ± 30,000 - 224,000 ± 43,000 years ago" suggest "have been emplaced 600,000 ± 30,000 to 224,000 ± 43,000 years ago"
• Most recent:
  • "Scoria cone forming eruptions can be hazardous owing to the ejection of ballistic blocks, generation on lava flows and tephra which can disrupt air traffic, even though such eruptions are usually of small volume." Totally not clear what this has to do with the preceding information.
    • The reason why it's there is because the preceding sentence establishes the present status of the field, after several sections all dedicated to its past, and now we begin talking of future scenarios. I am not sure if that is the ideal structure but for Pleistocene volcanoes hazard assessments are often hard to come by. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Is it really needed? I guess I didn't get that we were moving on to future scenarios here... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I am inclined to say yes, when there is an active volcano an obvious question is going to be "is it dangerous?". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
          • The problem is that it is not really developed ... we just have this tacked on sentence that doesn't really connect it to the actual area. "Scoria cone forming eruptions can be hazardous owing to the ejection of ballistic blocks, generation on lava flows and tephra which can disrupt air traffic, even though such eruptions are usually of small volume." (also - "generation on lava flows"? do you mean "generation OF lava flows"?) Maybe a linking sentence such as "Past eruptions in this field have included some forms that have dangers such as ..."? That's not really a great sentence, but it's a start. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
            • @Ealdgyth:I am not sure if that would work with the source used. It's kind of a weak source, really, but the only one that discusses the hazard aspect beyond mentioning it in passing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Thanks for the review. Don't sweat the delay, I am not exactly overactive at working on GAN backlogs either. I've struck out the points I've processed, left comments after some when I need some feedback. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth:Replied to replies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: (We need a {{pong}} template for replies to pings...) Just one last suggestion... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks good. Sorry for the delay - I had to get my once-a-year-bout-of-the-crud out of the way... --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)