Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province/archive1


 * 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 19:38, 19 December 2009.

Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province

 * Nominator(s): BT (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article is fairly complete. The article is well referenced, suited with several images, sections, etc. Well covered. BT (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Eubulides' alt text clearance moved to talk page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment No dab links (after a quick edit) or dead external links, and (after another quick edit) ref dates are consistent ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial). Cool. --an odd name 08:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Review here. Great article, nice going :) Res Mar 15:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nice to see you back at FAC after a really long break (since Mt Garibaldi). I'll review this article later; I'm putting it on my watchlist.  ceran  thor 20:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Support Excellent article. Seems to meet FA criteria. Himalayan   21:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: significant 2c errors leading to non-verifiability. Works not cited (cite web used incorrectly, conference titles and journal titles not indicated, volumes, issues not indicated, chapters not cited as chapters books not indicated; consistent misattribution of publishers to university departments). Titles misspelt. Fundamental consistency errors: Mixture of bracket and footnote citation eg from body text: [Ben Edwards and James Russell (2000; Geological Society of America Bulletin)] Minor 2c errors: Author ordering unusual and inconsistent (C.R., Bacon? Initialism last name?); ISSNs missing; Cambridge, UK given as Cambridge, England; missing locations. I fixed the first few but then started to run into more and more mis-use of templates.
 * These kind of error indicates that a broad Full Text on Net search has been conducted, but that some scholarly resources that should have been used may not have been located. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per criterion three:
 * File:Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province map.jpg and File:NCVP seismic volcanoes.png - need verifiable sources per WP:IUP (these are both derivatives of File:Northwest-relief.jpg, whose source - USGS data - is inadequate).
 * File:Tuya Butte.jpg is a derivative of File:Laketuya.jpg, for which Mark C. Beere is indicated as the author. File:Tuya Butte.jpg should not be crediting "Randymaws" as the author, as s/he merely created a derivative.  This may be a moot point, however, as the source of the original (here - note that the original image has a deadlink) says nothing about this image being in the public domain.  What is the basis for that claim?  The source's parent page explicitly claims that all rights are reserved.
 * File:NCVP map.png, File:Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province map.jpg and File:NCVP seismic volcanoes.png - what is the source of activity/size/location/etc. data? Эlcobbola  talk 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All of these images are based on existing volcano maps and the usage of coordinates, most of which are in the article's references. BT (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Black Tusk, Elcobbola knows his image copyrights. I suggest you just deal with his concerns. I'm willing to help if you need more images.
 * I've struck the centre bullet, as the (copyvio) images have been deleted. Please add the necessary data source information ("existing volcano maps and the usage of coordinates, most of which are in the article's references") to the image summaries.  Эlcobbola  talk 22:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright good enough. BT (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I added sources to all three images. BT (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The source issue for File:Northwest-relief.jpg still needs to be sorted out, as File:Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province map.jpg and File:NCVP seismic volcanoes.png are derivatives thereof. Эlcobbola  talk 00:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I let User:Qyd know about this issue because he is the one that uploaded the image. I'll look around to see if I can find the image in any online USGS data. BT (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an issue: Map created with PD GIS data from the USGS, file is PD, please stop inventing problems. --Qyd (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If something is public domain it's public domain and therefore it is fine to use it for whatever reason. If it's not public domain it's not public domain, and that is when problems start booming (e.g. like File:Tuya Butte.jpg). The source description on File:Northwest-relief.jpg says "USGS data" because, like Qyd said, it is a work of the United States Geological Survey. All data that originates from the United States Geological Survey is public domain. There is no problem with USGS images or information and the image is licenced with the proper PD-USGov-USGS template. BT (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read critically. This isn't an issue of whether USGS works are public domain.  This is an issue of providing a verifiable source.  How exactly does this add anything?  How can a third party confirm this is indeed the work of the USGS?  People misidentify authorship all of the time (e.g. "like like File:Tuya Butte.jpg).  Prove that USGS is the author.  The current sourcing is equivalent to sourcing a fact to "The New York Times"; what does that mean?  What date?  What issue?  In this case, from what website did it come?  From what GIS program was it extracted?  Please feel free to ping me when the issue will be addressed maturely ("please stop inventing problems"); I've unwatched the page.  Эlcobbola  talk 13:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you implying i used a false license? do you have any proof or reason for this serious accusation? i invested some of my precious time to create this image (and many other maps), and shared it with the community. now I have to spend more time to prove my work for anyone who's asking? man, you do make wikipedia suck!--Qyd (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Qyd, this is totally inappropriate. Elcobbola is also donating time and effort to this project, to ensure our images meet copyright requirements. I suggest you apologize and work together. Awadewit (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do apologize. I also suggest that he/she assumes good faith and not presume the license is inappropriate. --Qyd (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough. This isn't the place for arguing over the licence/source of the image. I removed all images in the article that are derivatives of Northwest-relief.jpg and replaced them with images I created with given sources. The problem is over. BT (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How about if I just remove the two images from the article? Then the problem would likely be over. BT (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There you go. I created a highlight map for the NCVP to replace the (problematic) USGS-related NCVP map in the geobox and deleted the seismic activity map as well. BT (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Prose review on the way, from reading the lead,


 * At least three large distinctive volcanoes are associated with the province, including Hoodoo Mountain in the Boundary Ranges, the Mount Edziza volcanic complex on the Tahltan Highland, and the Level Mountain Range on the Nahlin Plateau. - any active?  ceran  thor 22:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is mentioned further in the article..... BT (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (USGS isn't going to be known by most folks even in the US)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. BT (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Note to nominator: Per FAC instructions, please do not strike reviewer comments. It is up to the reviewer to decide whether his/her concerns have been satisfied. Please also do not move reviewer commentary to the FAC talk page. Although off-topic discussion can be removed by any editor, it is best if the reviewer comments are not removed by anyone except a delegate or the reviewer. Accordingly, I have undone the move. Karanacs (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not happy with the prose.
 * It's a nuisance, isn't it, the "province" refers to two quite different things in this part of the world. Oh well ...
 * "It extends from northwestern British Columbia and the Alaska Panhandle through Yukon to the Southeast Fairbanks Census Area of far eastern Alaska, a distance of well over 1,000 km (620 mi)." OK, but consider "extends roughly north-northwest in a corridor hundreds of kilometres wide, from ...". Unsure—you know better than I do. It might also help the sight-impaired to visualise it at the start, before getting to the alt text.
 * Fairly long sentences, given the amount of info they hold. For example: "Although taking its name from the Western Cordillera, this term is a geologic grouping rather than a geographic one, and the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province encompasses more than one geographic region, including mountain ranges and plateaus." And is "this term" the WC or the WCVP? I guess you can work it out, but it was a bump in the reading for me.
 * Logic problem: this is presented as though a parallelism, but it's not: "In the south the volcanic province includes a large number of volcanoes. Further north it is less clearly described, creating a large arch that sways westward through central Yukon." Number of volcanoes, then direction.
 * "At least three large distinctive volcanoes are associated with the province"—sounds as though they're not in the Province, but are somehow influenced by what goes on there. Remember, I'm an outsider to this topic.
 * "one of the best studied"? Quality of the research? Impact factors of the journals? Or "most studied"?
 * "... the largest and oldest of which is" would be better.
 * "Exist"—always rings alarm bells in me. ", there are several ...". By "scatter", you mean they scatter stuff when they blow? Or they ''are scattered" in terms of their location?
 * Here's an example of a long snake we could cut up: "Most of these small cones have been sites of only one volcanic eruption in contrast to the larger volcanoes throughout the province, which have had more than one volcanic eruption throughout their history." Try "Most of these small cones have been sites of only one volcanic eruption; this is in contrast to the larger volcanoes throughout the province, which have had more than one volcanic eruption throughout their history.

I'm disappointed in the writing. This deserves to be a classy read—it's such an interesting and dramatic topic. Tony  (talk)  11:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Image issues: several are unnecessarily small, yet the drama and interest is in the details of the composition, the texture. This is larger-than-life stuff. Especially the basaltic lave field, the satellite image, Hoodoo (try 240 or 250 px, and check whether they clutter: all right side can sometimes be better in this respect. The "flanks of Hoodoo"—at that size, I can't tell whether I could walk right over it in boots, or am looking from an aircraft. Perhaps it's in the alt text. The lava fountain is big enough. The Level MR green thing is too dark! Can you brighten it yourself? It's too small, too, and boosting it will be kinder to the longish caption. The LMR scene from the aircraft (?) is hopelessly tiny. Spectral R glaciation: what exactly am I looking for here? It's small and looks like a scene from the ski lift I use. Same throughout. BTW, the colours in the map up top jar, to me, with the lead pic above it. Unusually, this green-orange monster could be smaller (quite a bit). By contrast, the "Minor and major" map is far too small—can you read that text? It COULD be interesting. Twice the size, please, or whatever allows me to see it properly. The caption doesn't explain what the reddish dots are.

Together with the prose, the image issues make me oppose this one; sorry. Tony  (talk)  12:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of these problems can easily be fixed. BT (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with the green Level Mountain Range images? Yes the images are dark, but that is because the region is forested. And the darkness actually helps to expose the volcano; it's the lighter unforested area in the middle of the image. If the surrounding darkness was lighter, the volcano would be harder to recognize. And if I make the green-orange image smaller, it will make it look sloppy with the geobox because the image will not be centered with the geobox. BT (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I got all of your points solved apart from the problems I mentioned in my comment above. BT (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I think it is quite well written and extremely comprehensive. Wonderful job! It's clear that all the work I've seen has paid off.
 * Section: Origins and chemistry: But these faults were in a matter of dispute in 1997 by geologists, stating these faults were last active between 20 and five million years ago.[1] - the were involved or were part of
 * Same section: In 1999, a sequence of north-trending faults were mapped that seem to represent young rifting events parallel with the southwestern boundary of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province.[1] - parallel to?
 * Hot springs: They are formed if water percolates deeply through the crust and heats up from the primal magmatic heat under the surface. - Doesn't seem to flow well.
 * Lava plains: Extensive areas of nearly flat-lying lava flows throughout the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province can cover areas of at least 100 km2 (39 sq mi) and are generally composed of highly-fluid basaltic lava. - fluidic? highly-fluid doesn't work
 * How does "highly-fluid" not work? Not all lava is very fuild; dacite and rhyolite lava is thick. And a reader with no knowledge of the subjuect would not know basaltic lava is very fluid. BT (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Same section: The extent of large lava plains is most readily grasped from the air or in satellite photos where their nearly-black colour contrasts with the rest of the landscape - hmm? Why is that relevant, and if it is, does the source actually say that?
 * Looks really great - outstanding work!  ceran  thor 22:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If it were not for the length and organization issues, I could easily support this article. But in its current form, I must sadly oppose this nomination until these issues are adequately addressed. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 13:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by mav
 * Criteria 4
 * At over 8500 words, I have some criteria 4 (Length) concerns. Many paragraphs are very long, such as, for example, the first one in ===Origins and chemistry== and the subjection-long paragraph in ===Lithosphere thickness===. Snakes and wordy prose as Tony mentions. Daughter articles per WP:SS will help a great deal. Is it really necessary to have whole subsections just about hot springs, lava tubes, xenoliths, megacrysts, and intrusions? Why not a single subjection on geologic features that summarizes those aspects? Mentioning how thick the lithosphere is can easily be done in a single paragraph in a subsection. Overall, I would expect a section on geology to be more clearly/cleanly organized by geologic forces (such as rifting/stretching/thinning or accretion) and then by descriptions of large scale and then small scale features. Since the ==Volcanic history== is the longest, creating a page size message of 54 KB, I suggest the creation of a Volcanic history of Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province article and a summary left at Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province. A more thematic but still temporal organization of subsections in ==Volcanic history== vs the current purely temporal organization, may also help. But I'm not sure if themes can be gleamed from the material. If so, ignore this suggestion.
 * Lede
 * Overuse of "However" in third paragraph.
 * Origins and chemistry
 * Awkward sentence: "The Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province began to form 20 million years ago and it has been a zone of active volcanism since its very formation." I would flip those two phrases. Something like "The Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province has been a zone of active volcanism since it began to form 20 million years ago."
 * Nitpicks
 * Not necessary to always say "Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province"; "the province" and pronouns will suffice most times once context is established (some sentences repeat the full name twice: "This indication is further provided if the geothermal gradient inside the lithosphere under the northern portion of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province is greater than that in the southern portion of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province." Emphasis mine).
 * Just did a major reorganization. BT (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have already archived this nom; the bot will go through later (see WP:FAC/ar). The image oppose will need to be resolved before this is brought back to FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. I will create the Volcanic history of Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province article later. BT (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.