Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mount St. Helens/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | Mount St. Helens

Mount St. Helens

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left at Blankfaze, Mav, Geography, and Mountains. Sandy (Talk) 03:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to make a comparison of a featured article about a volcanoe with an article that I've been working on. Reading this article, there are some issues for being an FA:

  1. There are no inline citations.
  2. Many redlinks.
  3. Several boldfaces, not an article title, in the lead section.

I think it is just a matter of technical issues. Somebody interested to fix that? — Indon (reply) — 03:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I took care of the bolding issue, it was too simple an issue to not just get it out of the way. Jay32183 05:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have begun addressing point 1 above, but as Jay32183 pointed out, this will take some effort to resolve. RedWolf 19:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll help adding cites as well. As for red links, that is not valid reason for defeaturing. It is not the fault of this article that subtopics are not covered well. --mav 20:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A bunch added to geology section. History section needs a lot of help in that dept. I'll add more cites later. --mav
    • The redlinks are a concern. Either stubs should be made or there should be no link. Jay32183 23:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A concern that we don't have coverage in those topics. But that does not bear on this article and thus is not a valid reason to de-FA. --mav
        • But is that a valid reason to refuse to deal with them? Jay32183 14:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What does the number of redlinks have to do with FA status? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Redlinks have almost no purpose, why link to a page that isn't there. It's not unreasonable to ask that either stubs are made or the links removed. That won't be a pressing issue in keeping the FA status, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. Jay32183 02:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • They serve a lot more purpose than a sub-stub that pretends to tell the reader that there is info behind that link. At least with red links, the reader knows there is nothing useful there yet. It also invites them to help. --mav
              • I strongly disagree with the statement that redlinks serve no purpose. They are probably the most important feature of Wiki: Ward Cunningham pointed out that HyperCard doesn't have a nice way to represent a useful concept that hasn't been written yet, but Wiki does. Mav is exactly right: redlinks invite readers to help, it's vital to WP. I strongly oppose de-FA due to redlinks hike395 01:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • So you're refusing to make a stub because it won't encourage other people to contribute? Jay32183 02:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I would far rather leave a redlink for someone who is knowledgable in an area, rather than having me write a bad sub-stub. If there are redlinks that you feel confident about filling in, please go ahead. But, I agree with Mav that is it unfair to ding this article due to redlinks. hike395 17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • But right now we are only raising concerns with the article, not deciding whether it should remain featured or not. Please also note I did not raise the concern, and my personal feeling is that a small number of redlinks in an article is acceptable even when featured. I just don't want people disregarding a complaint that there were too many, which seems to no longer be the case. My last check showed only one redlink, which is not an issue, if there were 100, it would be. Jay32183 18:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm attempting to rescue this article: it's had a first-pass copy-edit, been reformatted, and I've added a few references. I hope others will join in on the citations. –Outriggr § 05:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also helping. --mav 16:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get some opinions on article organization? I had moved paragraphs on the "human impact" of the 1980 eruption into a new high-level section on the event, given that this event is what distinguishes the mountain for most readers. Mav has moved the paragraphs back to "Human history". (Mav, I don't mean to not address you directly, but I thought the discussion might as well be here.) This also requires him to use inline comments like "(see geology section for more detail)". I'd prefer to dispense with those. In my view, the "Human history" section is valid, as is the "Geology" section, and while the 1980 eruption has facets of both of those, it deserves its own main section. I don't think this is a case of "recentism": to quote from the article, "the eruption was the most deadly and economically destructive volcanic event in the history of the United States". Thanks! –Outriggr § 04:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geology is geology and human interactions with that geology are history. Neither the history section or the geology section would be complete without some mention of the most recent geology (the way it was after you worked on it, looked as if the history of the mountain stopped in the mid 19th century; same for the geology). Each section needs to stand on its own within its area of coverage; pulling out important parts from both of those sections to make a third cripples those two sections. The current organization is very clean in that respect and should stay. Note that this is the organization that has existed as a result of the original FAC. --mav 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But now the article has almost context-less paragraphs about some guys who died because of the 1980 eruption. They are, in a sense, anecdotes, and need the meat of the hard facts about the 1980 eruption to precede them. Additionally, geology is long-term, and I don't think anyone is going to despair the fact that an event that occurred in 1980 is not listed under "geology". Yes, the way I left it leaves a gap in the history, one that could be filled out appropriately, with a transition paragraph or more research. –Outriggr § 01:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is why I added a transition paragraph to the history section that talked - in general - about the eruption itself. That is all that is appropriate for an section about the human history of the volcano. If somebody is interested in the geologic details of the eruption, then they can easily navigate to that section (an jump link is even there). -- mav
  • I agree with Mav here. Keeping high-level sections on geology and history have nice parallel structure with other mountains and Cascade volcanoes. Separating out the 1980 eruption seems odd to me. hike395 03:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regarding the discussion I started on Oct. 30 on Mount St. Helens article sectioning: the new volcano FA Mount Tambora has a top-level section devoted to the "1815 eruption", in addition to a section on "Geology". For posterity. –Outriggr § 00:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO FAR ADMINS: Work is still being done on this article. Many cites have been added and more are being added. --mav 17:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Comment No progress since November 1. Not all concerns have been addressed. Time to consider FARC? Joelito (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are inline citations (1c) and style issues (2). Marskell 12:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see some people are happy with this one now. No harm moving it down for the extra period. Marskell 12:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Only one red link now and almost 40 refs. On top of that, the article layout has been improved with subsectioning of long sections and the addition of images. Also, a minor expansion (not to mention a few copyedits). --mav
  • Keep - It's far better now. — Indon (reply) — 09:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as FA: I agree with Outriggr --- the article has received a great facelift. hike395 04:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
S/he was suggesting moving it to the FARC period that allows for at least another two weeks of work and discussion before the final decision is made. I agree if that will keep things on pace. Jay32183 04:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC) That comment no longer makes sense, since the above was moved to the FARC commentary. Jay32183 19:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Not satisfied with the low level of referencing. The "Human history" especially is obviously under-cited and needs much more work.--Yannismarou 18:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Would rather not vote on a FAR I contributed to, but this needs support in light of the above removal vote[?]. –Outriggr § 01:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Strike vote then, if supporting carries no weight. Huh. –Outriggr § 02:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not how it works. The fact that Yannismarou has an actionable concern needs to be addressed regardless of people thinking the article is already finished. Jay32183 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well supporting means something if you have a "this is a featured article" reason. But "keep" and "remove" comments do not cancel each other out, it isn't actually a vote. It appeared you were saying "keep" only to cancel out a "remove". Jay32183 02:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In combination with my earlier comments and my participation in the article upgrade, I considered my "keep" to be implicitly saying that this article is well-enough referenced and well-enough written to maintain FA status. So that's why I would vote keep, if I were voting. But yes, I do think that Y's vote needs "cancelling out", because if the work that has gone into this FAR is insufficient to save it (and I'm not referring to anything I've done; it's been mostly mav I think), then the FAR process seems almost entirely ceremonial to me. (Sorry, I can't help with the occasional rhetoric.) Cheers, –Outriggr § 03:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no one-to-one "cancelling", as they are not in fact votes. However, the comments are considered in sum with consensus in mind (as with any Wiki process, the more considered and specific the comment, the more it will be noticed). By all means you should note "keep", Outriggr, if that's you're appraisal. Marskell 16:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All votes are respectable and there is no one-to-one "cancelling". If somebody want to vote "keep", that is OK. And then we see where consensus go. To the point now. I beieve that these assessments should be cited (I've also added these ugly [citation needed], in order to help the editors to locate them easier):
  1. "It was formed only within the last 40,000 years, and the pre-1980 summit cone started to grow only about 2,200 years ago. The volcano is also known to have been the most active in the Cascades within the last 10,000 years." Sources for these historical information? The whole paragraph is uncited.
  2. In "Importance to Native Americans" there are two uncited paragraphs.
  3. "By 1911, it was clear that there were no veins of precious minerals rich enough to offset the high transportation costs." Clear to whom?
  4. "The lack of a significant ash layer associated with this event indicates that it was a small eruption, which may have been nothing more than billowing clouds of steam and dust.""This was the first reported volcanic activity since 1854. Between the 1857 and 1980 eruptions, there were reliable reports of small eruptions in April 1898, September 1903, and March 1921." "Before the 1980 eruption, Spirit Lake offered year-round recreational activities. In the summer there was boating, swimming, and camping, while in the winter there was skiing." Sources for this infos? Who says that this event indicates that it was a small eruption? Who assesses? What reports? Who reported?
  5. "James Dwight Dana of Yale University, while sailing with the United States Exploring Expedition, saw the then-quiescent peak from off the mouth of the Columbia River in 1841. Another member of the expedition later described "cellular basaltic lavas" at the mountain's base." Unsourced information.
  6. "The Reverend Josiah Parrish in Champoeg, Oregon witnessed Mount St. Helens in eruption on November 22, 1842. Ash from this eruption may have reached The Dalles, Oregon, 48 miles (80 km) southeast of the volcano." Sources that the Reverend witnessed the eruption? Who says that the eruption "may have reached" the Dalles etc.
  7. "During the lead-up to the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, 84-year-old innkeeper Harry Truman, who had lived near the mountain for about 54 years, became nationally famous when he decided not to evacuate before the impending eruption, despite repeated pleas by local authorities. His body was never found after the eruption, which left a huge crater open to the north. Fifty-seven people were killed or never found. Had the eruption occurred one day later, when loggers would have been at work, rather than on a Sunday, the death toll would almost certainly have been much higher." Uncited paragraph.
  8. "Following the 1980 eruption, the area was left to gradually return to its natural state preceding the devastation. In 1987, the National Forest Service reopened the mountain to climbing. It remained open until 2004 when renewed activity caused the closure of the area around the mountain. (Mount St. Helens was the most climbed mountain in the United States and the second-most climbed mountain in the world after Japan's Mount Fuji.)" Uncited paragraph with historical information.
  9. "Close to the year 400, the Sugar Bowl eruptive period began, with small quantities of ash and lava erupting from St. Helens' northern flank. This period ended with the emplacement of dacite domes, including Sugar Bowl, around the year 800." Source here?
  10. "Roughly 700 years of dormancy were broken about 1480, when large amounts of pale gray dacite pumice and ash started to erupt, beginning the Kalama cycle. The eruption in 1480 was several times larger than the May 18, 1980 eruption. In 1482, another large eruption rivaling the 1980 eruption in volume is known to have occurred. Ash and pumice piled six miles (9.5 km) northeast of the volcano to a thickness of three feet (1 m); 50 miles (80 km) away, the ash was two inches (5 cm) deep. Large pyroclastic flows and mudflows subsequently rushed down St. Helens' west flanks and into the Kalama River drainage system. The source for at least some of these debris flows may have been the explosion of a dacite dome near or at the summit." Another uncited paragraph.
  11. "Between 1980 and 1986, activity continued at Mount St. Helens, with a new lava dome forming in the crater. Numerous small explosions and dome-building eruptions occurred. With the winter snow of 1980-1981, a still-unnamed horse-shoe-shaped glacier began to evolve in the shadow of the crater. As of 2004, it covered about 0.36 square mile (0.93 km²). Until 2004's volcanic activity, it was considered the only growing glacier in the lower 48 United States. The growth of the new lava dome has almost split this horseshoe glacier into northern and southern parts, as confirmed by aerial photographs." "From December 7, 1989 to January 6, 1990, and from November 5, 1990 to February 14, 1991, the mountain erupted with sometimes huge clouds of ash. In 1995, 1998, and 2001, earthquake swarms were recorded beneath the crater, though without explosive activity." Who provides all these data? Two uncited paragraphs.
  12. "While geologists have warned that an eruption similar to the May 1980 eruption is still possible, they say that the chances are low." What geologists? Nobody mentioned and no source mentioned! As a result we have an uncited assessment and weasel words!
  13. "This was not considered a large eruption, but merely a minor release of pressure consistent with ongoing dome building. The release was accompanied by a magnitude 2.5 earthquake." This was not considered by whom?
  14. "Geologists are unsure if the earthquake caused the collapse of the lava dome, or if the collapse of the lava dome caused the earthquake." Once again uncited assessments→weasel words.
All these about the citations, but this article has also some other problems (basically minor), which indicate that some details are not worked as well as they should be. For instance:
  • Weasel words I mentioned, which, in most cases, is the result of the lack of adequate citations.
  • In "See also" section I see once again articles already linked in the main article. But this is not correct. In "See also" we include only articles not linked in the prose. There is no reason to double-click the same links. The "see also" section needs at least cleaning (if not deletion).
  • Why the categories at the end of the article aren't they alphabetized?
  • Why in note 29 there is just an external link and nothing more explaining the specific citation (source? Title? Description? What is this?!)?
  • Are you satisfied with the way the external links are written. I see no alphabetical or other order there.--Yannismarou 20:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could post to Mav on his talk if you haven't already? Marskell 21:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All but 5 or so above-noted cite issues fixed. Minor issues addressed. The remaining cite issues need book cites ; I'm away from my books right now and may not get back to them for a week and a half. --mav 04:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So that would be about a 3 to 4 day extention of the normal procedure and I can support that since you have been making every effort you can to address the concerns. Jay32183 05:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also appreciate mav's efforts and turn my vote to Weak remove.--Yannismarou 09:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --mav 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Mount_St._Helens/archive1&oldid=1138477476"