Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Fee/archive3
- 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:37, 16 January 2011 [1].
Mount Fee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Volcanoguy (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here it goes again. I fixed every issue in the last peer review and found a copyeditor to check the article's prose. Volcanoguy 23:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments – I noticed a comment about the use of sources at the last FAC, so I decided to do some spot-checks.
Article: "a sequence of lavas and breccias on the eastern flank of the main ridge." Reference 1: "a series of lavas and volcanic breccias on the east side of the main ridge." That's pretty close; only a few words are different.
- Reworded. Volcanoguy 16:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article: "a viscous series of lava flows forming its narrow, flat-topped, steep-sided northern limit and the northern end of the main ridge." Reference 1: "a thick sequence of lava flows that makes up the narrow, flat-topped, steep-sided northern limb of Mount Fee and the northern end of the main ridge." Pretty much all of the wording is the same.
- Reworded. Volcanoguy 00:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article: "The volcanic belt has formed as a result of ongoing subduction of the Juan de Fuca Plate under the North American Plate...". Reference 3: "These volcanic belts are the result of subduction of the Juan de Fuca tectonic plate beneath the North American tectonic plate". Structure is identical, and much of the wording is as well.
- This is part of a larger sentence that is not largely copyied. In addition, it is not that easy to reword this portion of the quoted sentence because it will still include the terms like "subduction", "Juan de Fuca Plate", "North American Plate". Volcanoguy 22:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article: "and consist of alternating layers of lava flows, volcanic ash, cinders, blocks and bombs." Reference 5: "constructed of alternating layers of lava flows, ash, and other volcanic debris." Structure is similar to the source here as well.
- Reference 5 is public domain material. Volcanoguy 16:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article: "Black Tusk, a pinnacle of volcanic rock near the northern shore of Garibaldi Lake to the southeast, is also interpreted to be the remains of a deeply eroded cinder-rich volcano." Reference 7: "Black Tusk, a spire of volcanic rock over two hundred metres high, is interpreted as the remnant of a small volcano, perhaps the conduit for lava within a cinder-rich volcano." Not as clear a problem as the others, but their are still distinct structural similarities, which as a pattern are troubling.
- Reworded. Volcanoguy 21:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check all of the references, but what I saw is enough to concern me. In particular, I see a pattern of substituting words while leaving the structure of a sentence intact, with key words unchanged or only tweaked. This is close paraphrasing, and I urge you to make sure that nothing else like the above issues exists in the article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox references The infobox is missing references for elevation, prominence and coordinates. All three values match that of bivouac.com although the same elevation is given on the GSC page. The GSC coordinates (50°4'59" N 123°15'0" W) are different than bivouac's; who is correct? Is one referring to the north tower and the other the south tower? Since south is highest, the infobox should reflect that. I would recommend using the GSC for elevation and coordinates (change them to match) and use bivouac for the prominence. RedWolf (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added sources for elevation and coordinates, but I am not too sure for the prominence. According to one of the FACs I was associated with before, bivouac is not really a reliable source. So if there is no reliable source that gives Fee's prominence I think it should just be deleted. Volcanoguy 00:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Multiple instances of close paraphrasing. Examples: "is also interpreted to be the remains" vs "is interpreted as the remnant"; "the only exposed remnant of Fee's earliest volcanic activity is a minor outcrop of pyroclastic rock" vs "The oldest volcanic rocks at Mount Fee are represented by only a small outcrop of pyroclastic material" ; "no major eruptions have taken place in Canada for over a hundred years and the volcano is located in a remote region" vs "Because no large eruptions have occurred in Canada in the last few hundred years and most of our volcanoes are currently in remote locations"; a significant portion of "Monitoring" is closely paraphrased from this source
- I believe you are being a bit extreme here. "The only exposed remnant of Fee's earliest volcanic activity is a minor outcrop of pyroclastic rock" vs "The oldest volcanic rocks at Mount Fee are represented by only a small outcrop of pyroclastic material" do not have the same wording and are completely reworded, same for the "Monitoring" section. Volcanoguy 11:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "contain 70% brown volcanic glass and 15% vesicles" vs "containing up to 70% brown glass and up to 15% vesicles" - article doesn't match source
- "Volcanic activity at Mount Fee is among the oldest in the Mount Cayley volcanic field" - source?
- This is something that is a bit hard to source. The way I found this out was from doing research, not from written information. Mount Fee and Mount Cayley are the only two volcanoes in the Cayley field that predate the last glacial period as far as I amare of. Every else formed during or after the last glacial period. Volcanoguy 10:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"%" should be spelled out
- No they shouldn't. According to WP:PERCENT "the percentage symbol (%) is preferred in scientific or technical articles, in complex listings, and in articles where many percentages are reported". This is a scientific article. Volcanoguy 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "A portion of the southwestern flank of Mount Fee comprises no volcanic glass, but rather composed of an abnormal cryptocrystalline matrix" - grammar
- "It likely represents a dissected stratovolcano...that was larger in area and higher in elevation than its current form" - source?
- Sourced. Volcanoguy 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the volcano is located in a remote region...A significant eruption at Mount Fee would probably have considerable effects, particularly in a region like southwestern British Columbia where the Garibaldi Belt is located in a highly populated area" - seems contradictory.Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it dosen't. Just because it is located in a remote region dosen't mean it can't have effects on the surrounding area. Volcanoguy 23:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But the latter part of the sentence says that it is not in a remote region, but rather a highly populated one. Is that not the case, or is that not what is meant? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The GVB is in BC's populated southwest corner yes, but not all of it. Fee is situated in mountainous terrain where people do not normally live. Same for volcanoes like Silverthrone Caldera and Franklin Glacier Volcano; it's pretty much nothing other than ice and rock. Towns and cities are not normally located on top of mountain ranges or in areas with little space. But a significant eruption from Fee can still have effects because ash and gas can travel far away from its source, mostly from wind blowing it around. Volcanoguy 01:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I see. It might be worth expanding on this slightly in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The GVB is in BC's populated southwest corner yes, but not all of it. Fee is situated in mountainous terrain where people do not normally live. Same for volcanoes like Silverthrone Caldera and Franklin Glacier Volcano; it's pretty much nothing other than ice and rock. Towns and cities are not normally located on top of mountain ranges or in areas with little space. But a significant eruption from Fee can still have effects because ash and gas can travel far away from its source, mostly from wind blowing it around. Volcanoguy 01:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But the latter part of the sentence says that it is not in a remote region, but rather a highly populated one. Is that not the case, or is that not what is meant? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning oppose. I will add comments here as I go through the article. Please excuse my ignorance of the field; I have some questions about terminology that may be obvious to someone who knows this topic.
- "The summits are separated by a U-shaped crevice that gives them a prominent appearance": is "prominent" the word you want? Seems like it should be something like "distinctive". In addition, this information isn't in the body -- generally everything in the lead should be in the body. As a result this sentence is unsourced -- it's not the physical description that needs sourcing, but the fact that it is prominent, or distinctive, or whatever. If the statement is self-evident it won't need a source, of course.
- "a narrow north-south trending ridge of fine-grained volcanic rock": what does "trending" mean here? Does it just mean that the ridge runs north-south? If so, I'd suggest cutting it unless this is the usual terminology in geology texts.
- "edifice" seems an odd word to use to describe the physical form of the mountain. How about "Mount Fee is what remains of", or "The present form of Mount Fee is what remains of"?
- I'd suggest linking "stratovolcano" at first use; and "dissected stratovolcano" is a bit of jargon -- is there either another way to say this or a link that could be added?
- "forms the narrow north-south trending ridge of Mount Fee" -- this is the fourth time "north-south trending" has been used; is it really necessary to add this? Could this be cut to just "forms Mount Fee's ridge", or "makes up the ridge of which Mount Fee is formed"?
- The first paragraph of eruptive history baffles me. I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't see how knowing that it formed before the Wisconsinan Glaciation implies that: "the rocks comprising Mount Fee do not display evidence of interaction with glacial ice; the duration of volcanic events is unknown, and the exact timing of eruptive events is unknown". Why are these results of the age of the volcano?
- "ancestral Mount Fee": "ancestral seems an odd term here; is this normal usage in the field? Something like "original" would be better, or even a paraphrase such as "original form [or version?] of".
- I'm also not clear about the topology. The view from the south makes it seem that the peaks are to the east and west of each other, but then the text says "Following extensive dissection, renewed volcanism produced a viscous series of lavas on its northern flank. The U-shaped crevice separating the two main summits of Mount Fee separates this lava flow from the main volcanic ridge." That doesn't seem to make sense of the crevice separates east from west.
-- I'm going to stop there for now and wait for your responses; I'm finding the article a bit hard to follow, though that may be my ignorance. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus to promote after more than two weeks; please work on outstanding issues and come back in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.