Talk:Coffee Crater

Coffee Crater is currently a Geography good article nominee. Nominated by Volcanoguy at 02:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Short description: Cinder cone in British Columbia, Canada

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Volcanoes: Canada Low‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Volcanism of Canada task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: British Columbia / Geography / The 10,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.
	This article was created or improved during The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada, which started in November 2016 and is ongoing. You can help!!

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coffee Crater/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Volcanoguy (talk · contribs) 02:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 22:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. It is close to GA quality, with the except of one section that needs to be largely removed. Please use {{done}}, {{not done}} etc to respond to comments. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lede

The description in the file page for the photo says "Cocoa Crater". Can you verify that the image does indeed show Coffee Crater?
Corrected. Volcanoguy 00:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add alt text for the image
Alt text isn't required for GA. Volcanoguy 00:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I review articles, I make recommendations based on what is best for the reader, though I ultimately pass/fail based solely on the GA criteria. Alt text is a basic accessibility measure that I suggest in all reviews. If you aren't willing to do this simply because it's not absolutely required for GA, I can't prevent that, but I would encourage you to ask yourself why you are objecting to this. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Higher precision is needed for the coordinates - currently they miss the feature entirely.
Not necessarily - they are placed at base of the cone. Volcanoguy 00:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinates should be centered on a feature. Per WP:OPCOORD, precision should be approximately one-tenth of the feature size, so a ~500m feature like this peak should use three decimal digits. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinates used in the article are the most accurate ones I've been to find. Volcanoguy 23:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
57°37′59″N 130°40′16″W / 57.633°N 130.671°W / 57.633; -130.671 should work. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Volcanoguy 15:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two sentences about the climate are not needed in the lede.
I don't see why they aren't. Volcanoguy 00:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See below - they are about the park and not this peak. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The peak is still in the park. Volcanoguy 23:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is any information available about the crater size and depth, and/or the topographic prominence of the cone?
No. Volcanoguy 00:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name and etymology

No need to name the exact maps.
I don't see why not if the source does. Volcanoguy 23:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a summary of the information available in other sources. That's a trivial detail that is not relevant here. Additionally, the source does not establish that the 1929 map was the very first record of the peak, merely that it was recorded on that map. That needs to be corrected. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is considered trivial is subjective in my opinion. Volcanoguy 16:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the first sentence in this section but I still think the map name should be mentioned. Not mentioning what map brings up the following question: What British Columbia map? Volcanoguy 17:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reference just indicates that the feature was shown on the 1929 map, not that it was named then (I think it was named in 1954 - see below.) I would suggest The cone appeared on a 1929 British Columbia map. The name was adopted on a National Topographic System map dated May 6, 1954. "5C" and "104G" are contextless numbers of maps in a series - to me, it's like saying "It appeared on page 47 of a 1929 atlas". (In that case, naming the atlas in the prose might be worthwhile, but the page number is only needed in the citation.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to remove the first sentence since it has nothing to do with the name of the cone, but there is a problem with the wording of your second sentence. January 2, 1980, refers to when Coffee Crater was adopted on 104G, not when 104G was published; the same topographic map could have been published several times before and after the name was adopted on that map. This is evident on this map of 104J from 1977; Level Mountain Range was adopted on 104J in 1952 per BC Geographical Names. Volcanoguy 23:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"5C" and "104G" are contextless numbers of maps in a series - to me, it's like saying "It appeared on page 47 of a 1929 atlas" Lots of things can be in a series, including books and films. Are they on Wikipedia? Yes they are. Years are also expressed in numbers. Are they on Wikipedia? Yes they are. 104G and 104J are not contextless numbers since they refer to specific maps of the National Topographic System, just like 2025 refers to a specific year. Volcanoguy 00:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:ELNO, the map should not be linked to in the prose. It should either be converted to a reference or removed.
Removed. Volcanoguy 23:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is any information available about who actually named the crater and when?
No. Volcanoguy 23:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you at least provide a range (or upper limit) based on maps? The name appears on the 1989 map. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the name used on the 1989 map you've mentioned and on Souther's 1988 map. How should the range be structured? Volcanoguy 17:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second read, I interpret the BC Geographic Names source to indicate that the name was adopted with the 1954 map. Am I interpreting that correctly? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I interpret as well. Volcanoguy 19:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial park

This section is not about the article subject - it should be moved to Mount Edziza Provincial Park. The first and last sentences can also be moved to the geography section of this article.
I don't agree unfortunately; describing the surroundings of a geographic feature or what it's a part of isn't off topic. Volcanoguy 23:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except for those two sentences, none of that section is actually about Coffee Crater. Describing the surroundings is fine, but only insomuch as they actually matter to the article subject. I could be convinced to keep the entire first paragraph if moved to the geography section, but the second paragraph is entirely irrelevant. Additionally, the generally information about wildlife and climate for a thousand-square-mile park may not be accurate for this specific peak. Criteria 3b is the relevant criterion here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the first paragraph into geography section and deleted the second paragraph. Volcanoguy 16:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

All freely available online references pass verification.