Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Volcano (British Columbia)/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 promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 6 July 2010.

The Volcano (British Columbia)

 * Nominator(s): BT (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have spent some time searching for material to improve this article since early this month. The small size of The Volcano and a lack of a large amount of information avabilable makes it easier to complete this article than more complex volcanological articles I have been working on. So I am nominating this one because I feel it is complete. BT (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 08:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment-argh, I may or may not be able to get to this depending on how tenatively sketchy my internet at Monti is...Res Mar 03:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. It seems like this article only has a few minor issues. BT (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Nitpicks:-
 * Ref 1: retrieval date missing
 * Ref 3: I am not sure that "Geological Survey of Canada" is the publisher here; should it be National Resources Canada?
 * Ref 4: ditto, also 6, 10, 15, 18, 20. Compare with 8 and 23, which seem to be correct.
 * Ref 13: for consistency with other book refs, should show publisher location
 * Ref 16: retrieval date missing
 * Since Atlas of Canada is a cited source it shouldn't be in External links

Otherwise sources look OK, no other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Refs 1 and 16 use templates that do not have retrieval date fields as far as I'm aware of. The Geological Survey of Canada is part of the Earth Sciences Sector of Natural Resources Canada. Its name is shown in refs 4, 6, 10, 15, 18 and 20. Did not see any locations given for those books. And Atlas of Canada is not a cited a source. If you are saying its a source for the map in the infobox it isn't. It's a feature made for the infobox that uses the coordinates given for the feature. BT (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's easy enough to find out that Douglas and McIntyre are located in Vancouver and Toronto. As to Atlas of Canada, I am looking at Ref 8. Doesn't that come from the Atlas? Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the location of Douglas & McIntyre. As to Atlas of Canada, yes but it is not the same part of the website given as the source. The external link shows the location of The Volcano on a map and has no real meaning in the article. The website is currently undergoing some connection problems so it is not easily assessable right now. I have also changed the publisher of the nrcan links from Geological Survey of Canada to Natural Resources Canada. If the GSC is the publisher of those webpages, Natural Resources Canada would probably still count as the publisher anyway because the GSC is part of Natural Resources Canada. BT (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, all sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Well written, well organized, and well researched. Be sure to eradicate the use of "currently" per WP:MOSNUM. Other than that, bravo! —Eustress talk 01:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I changed "Currently, The Volcano is not monitored closely enough by the Geological Survey of Canada to ascertain how active its magma system is." to "Like other Iskut-Unuk River Cones, The Volcano is not monitored closely enough by the Geological Survey of Canada to ascertain how active its magma system is." if that is better. BT (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments  the prose seems a bit slack in places, a quick skim picked up these  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * presently dormant = "dormant"
 * If one were to pronounce it, it would not necessarily be obvious whether an individual would mean The Volcano or the volcano, making it tough to tell what volcano an individual is discussing. &mdash; wordy, and "tough" is informal; perhaps in speech it may not be obvious whether The Volcano or the volcano is intended, leading to confusion or similar.
 * are protected in Lava Forks Provincial Park, as well as a large mineral spring. &mdash; how can they be protected in a spring? Presumably the spring should be earlier in the sentence as one of the protected things?
 * a group of two = "two"
 * volcanic activity is relatively young &mdash; I think you mean "recent"
 * The name of the peak was submitted &mdash; to whom?
 * The peak was named by an explorer named Chris Dickinson during the Cambridge Coast Mountains Expedition in 1979.[16] It was adopted on November 24, 1980, and has been its official name since then. &mdash; still a problem here, "It" in sentence two refers back to "the peak", not the name and you have "named" twice in the first sentence. What about something like The peak's current name was coined by explorer Chris Dickinson during the Cambridge Coast Mountains Expedition in 1979,[16] and was adopted as its official title on November 24, 1980 Also, do we know Dickinson's nationality (if he's not Canadian)?  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  16:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the problem is using submitted in The name of the peak was submitted by an explorer named Chris Dickinson during the Cambridge Coast Mountains Expedition in 1979.? Submit is a synonym for offer, argue for, or request. I do not know why it would matter if he was Canadian or not. The source does not mention his nationality, probably because he is not notable. BT (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with "submitted" (and the synonyms you suggest) is that they need something to be submitted to, argued with, requested from etc. However, your rephrasing solves that problem. His nationality doesn't matter, it just fleshes it out a bit &mdash; "Australian explorer" says more than "explorer". If you don't know, that's fine  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * would likely be basaltic in nature due to the composition of its lavas produced during past volcanic activity &mdash; "based on" rather than "due", it's a deduction, not cause and effect
 * There is frequent use of "likely", which reads very informally to me. However, I'm a Brit, so can you assure me that this usage is acceptable in formal US English?
 * I believe I fixed all of these issues. BT (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Provisional Support - looks great, pending three things... once these are taken care of, my full support can be safely assumed. Awickert (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC) [I'm absolutely satisfied - congrats on another great article, BT. Changing to full support. Awickert (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)]
 * Only thing that I see that needs to be taken care of is finding some way to change "17,000 acres" into "17,000 acre", as it's describing the park... I don't know much about the conversion template though. Awickert (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to fix that. BT (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I have no idea how to that problem, I just reworded the paragraph containing that sentence. BT (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Passive fluid eruption": could you define this? Awickert (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. BT (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "A repeat of bushfires in the Lava Fork valley is", do you mean, "Brushfires in the Lava Fork Valley [should valley be capitalized as part of the proper name?] are"... previous occurances of brushfires haven't been established. Awickert (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not capitalize the "v" in Lava Fork valley because Lava Fork Valley is not a name for the valley. As for fires, there have been in the past. It is stated in the article that a series of large trees were engulfed by lava flows during eruption and their bases were burned and their upper trunks and branches collapsed into the solidifing lava. BT (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - A very concise and engaging read. Excellent work!  ceran  thor 17:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.