Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geology of the Lassen volcanic area/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC).

Geology of the Lassen volcanic area

 * Notified: Mav, Hike395, WT:VOLC, WP:CAL, WT:GEOL, April 2021 notice

I am nominating this featured article for review because per Hog Farm's April 2021 notice, there is substantial uncited content in the article, failing 1c. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I may be able to find some time to resolve the uncited content issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What is "Rockland Ash"? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This ash layer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s mentioned in image captions but never in the article … Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, if you plan to work on this, I suggest switching it to sfns to help resolve the awkward notes in the source sections. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the current citation style isn't really good. Mostly because it's not really consistently applied, mix of citation templates and not, different name sorting and such. I personally like and use sfn, but I would support any change that makes it consistent. RoseCherry64 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * since you are doing the heavy lifting, I would be willing to do the sfn conversion, if that’s the way you want to go. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So far I have only added references to all paragraphs, so currently the uncited text issue is IMO resolved. Nothing about updating, source formatting etc., though; geology in this specific region isn't something I am particularly well-versed with. I think a change to sfn would be warranted only if we began to use paginated sources, but that would imply a root-and-branch rewrite of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Like many (most?) of the National Park articles, this article uses very old, archived versions of NPS/USGS pages (that have probably been updated and need to be checked). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC) I've begun doing some of the work and I have to ask, what's our stance on using text from USGS verbatim? I know they aren't copyrighted but they are ancient and a of the article relies on them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is quite typical for the older National Park articles. It is similar to what we see in the Cyclone articles. In the very earliest years of FAC and FAR, when the emphasis was on building the ‘pedia, it was not unusual for FAs to mimic public domain sources.  I am not aware of any consensus discussion regarding WP:WIAFA that allows us to demand that public domain text not be used, but we must make sure it is attributed.  (Of course, there could have been a discussion that I either missed or have forgotten. I have a vague memory of a FAC discussion about whether FAs should be represent Wikipedia’s “own work” getting bogged down and going nowhere at FAC.) Although I suspect articles that were mostly public domain text would be rejected at FAC today, I don’t believe we have a criteria-based argument for doing that.  The problem here, though, is that the public domain sources (NPS, USGS) have been updated, while our article has not kept up. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I've done a huge citation cleanup, and converted to SFNs. I noticed that we are using a 1997 version of Harris, Tuttle & Tuttle, which is now on its 7th edition. Rockland Ash is still mentioned but not defined. I cannot judge whether the article is outdated or comprehensive: ?? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the article is reasonably comprehensive, but as said above this isn't a part of the world where I am well versed with geology. I'll see if some editors who have written volcanoes in the region know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Update? this is your nomination; how does it look to you now?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - I've seen a 2019 USGS report (should be public domain) titled "California's Exposure to Volcanic Hazards" from 2019 that has information about hazard assessments for Lassen in there. Would that document potentially be useful? Hog Farm Talk 20:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it might, will need to check tomorrow. I suspect that it talks more about Lassen Peak than Geology of the Lassen volcanic area though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, checked, it's all about volcano not the geology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have much to say on this subject as I'm not an expert on geology in this part of the world. But from looking at the article I will also say it's reasonably comprehensive. Volcanoguy 20:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's comprehensive, then we still need to check whether it's current, as it is mostly cited to versions of public domain sources that are over a decade old. you and  would know which type of content is more likely to have changed here; I don't know how to do a spot check, as I don't know what areas of this article might need updating from the old sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a newer source here and here another one. Geology of National Parks is up to a 6th or 7th edition so far. One problem I see is that it's a bit unclear whether the US government sources in the article are archives or not, and that the general geological history of the area - the one part most likely to change - is exactly the thing I am least familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Some more sources, with the first implying that many of the USGS sources are treated by the NPS as still usable. I am not sure I will be doing a lot more work here, however; that's about 1250 sources to go through and I am not sure that I can muster the time and energy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, upon reconsideration I'll do some work here. I've updated some of the chronology section with newer text from the USGS and am now going through more recent sources. I'll see if I can squeeze some time in to go to the library for the most recent version of Geology of National Parks. I still welcome opinions on verbatim copies from USGS, though - I've used them right now but I feel a little uneasy with them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Did go through more recent sources, as expected there hasn't been much new material published since then - typical for inactive volcanoes that aren't the focus of recent research. This contains information on volcanic hazards but I don't think it breaks new ground, discuss neighbouring volcanoes and unsettled-on geology but I don't think that much of them is within the scope of this article, as it is closely focused on Lassen Peak itself. Lastly, someone might want to check my additions for writing quality. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Did some updates from the 5th to 6th edition but now I don't know how to fix the sfn errors. There isn't an edition later than 5th for Geology of U.S. parklands, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I found it, here; will look at rest tomorrow. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, I am finding needs for updating and clarification; I'll add my review to a talk page section once I get off iPad, on real computer. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC (which does not preclude that someone may still be interested in updating the sourcing). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strike. With Jo-Jo working on this, it can be a save.  Since this article gets 10 page views per day, I am not fussed if it isn't the most stellar FA out there.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied to Close without FARC, but would feel better if and  did a final read through to make sure I didn't introduce anything wonky. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I only found one edit by you that could be changed, which I've done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Close without FARC - looks pretty solid; I don't see anything in there that would warrant delisting. Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.