Wikipedia:Peer review/Boring Lava Field/archive1

Boring Lava Field
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC in the next few weeks. I think it's nearly there, but it might need some more content. I also want to raise attention to the concern about my use of three masters thesis projects (Lite Jr 1992; Swanson 1986; Werner 1991) at the good article review here. I look forward to any and all feedback!

Thanks,  ceran  thor 16:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the theses, have the people participating in their writing a reputation for expertise and accuracy? I see that Lite Jr 1992 is cited twice in academic papers, Swanson 1986 is cited 17 times. Werner 1991 I can't find, but Werner 1990 is cited here 4 times. Otherwise, sure that it should say "extinct"? To me it looks like this volcanic field is similar to the Honolulu Volcanics which are not defined "extinct". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed reply; thanks for your comments. Swanson has become a very respected figure in field volcanology; see . Lite Jr still co-authors reports on hydrology for the USGS (see ) but unclear what his position is; might just be on USGS Staff. Less certain about Werner. I will address the extinct issue once these reference concerns are addressed; Squeamish Ossifrage, if you have any additional thoughts since your GA review, I would appreciate any and all feedback.  ceran  thor 14:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO when judging the suitability of an author's work one should consider the reputation they had when they wrote it, not necessarily what came later except for the citation numbers. I'd keep only Swanson per the citation numbers but that's just a feeling. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense! Thanks.  ceran  thor 15:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Working on replacing these this week.  ceran  thor 18:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)