Talk:Boring Lava Field

comments
How could I pass over a title like this, and it was anything but. If I wasn't so stretched I would give a closer read, so just take this as a couple of passing comments, Hope these comments are useful, cygnis insignis 04:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Who was Treasher, if we care, and did he just name the townsite and the volcanic field acquired that later. Sometimes there is an interplay in nomenclature, which is otherwise well addressed.
 * Do the names of the volcanologists who surveyed the site need mentioning? The information seems uncontentious, and authority beyond the survey seems superfluous.
 * The first para of *Physical geography* is about the river systems in the surrounding area, the rest seems to be directly related to the local hydrology (if that is the word I'm looking for).
 * Para 1 of *Human history* is backgrounding? I'm unsure of the relevance to the article and imagine this also discussed and maintained in other articles, perhaps some caution to redundancy.
 * Regarding biota, lists of taxa can be unwieldy and the inclusion systematic names with the local common name is not something I would push, however, the ecological communities (as they are called in Australia) and protected areas may have those definitive and extensive lists in the relevant articles.
 * If high and low-K is mentioned, can a short explanation of whatever that be mentioned.

I just wanna say …
The USGS is mentioned fifteen times, would contracting to that acronym be warranted? cygnis insignis 17:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean to contract United States Geological Survey to USGS?  ceran  thor 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * United States Geological Survey (USGS) and thereafter just USGS.
 * I read the article again, its so cool, go for FA! cygnis insignis 19:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouraging words. I'm hoping to take it there eventually, though I'll want it to go thru PR, and I still have a few future-looking comments from the GAN to address first.  ceran  thor 13:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Per the request on my talk page...
...this article seems like in a pretty good shape. Is there no pre-1845 history of the region? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll see if I can find a little bit more on the Portland area, as there were certainly indigenous people living nearby.  ceran  thor 15:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How does the paragraph I added look?  ceran  thor 22:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems pretty good. I think it's ready for one of the formal content review processes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

History subsection should be removed
The subsection titled "History", while not without interest, has essentially no relevance to the article's subject (to wit, the Boring Lava Field, who's history is covered in the subsection titled "Eruptive History"). The "History" subsection does not provide any relevant context to the lava field. In the interest of retaining focus on the actual subject of the article, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:CA70:F8E3:8A67:E3E:F837 (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Nah, the article isn't just about the volcanological aspects. I'd say it's pertinent information, putting the topic in a regional context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)