Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Cleveland (Alaska)/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 15:10, 26 March 2011 [1].

Mount Cleveland (Alaska)[edit]

Featured article candidates/Mount Cleveland (Alaska)/archive1

Nominator(s): ResMar 03:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, Mount Cleveland. An remote on-and-off active Alaskan volcano with a tendency to scramble flight plans. Now, I know that this is a short-ish article. The Alaska Volcano Observatory have done an amazing job compiling all of the relevant sources online; I contacted them in the writing of the article, and they basically said that, "if it's not there, it probably doesn't exist." Being a remote stratovolcano, Cleveland doesn't exact get a lot of attention from the authorities; but the source digging that took place in the writing of the article covers pretty much all there is to say on the volcano. Cheers! ResMar 03:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I like the approach taken here (in fairness, I should mention that I'm mentally comparing this to another volcano article I reviewed recently). I particularly liked that an ASTER image of the volcano is used here, as well as an ISS picture. The article is definitely well-illustrated with the obvious pictures. I also like the etymology section and the description of the surroundings and the topographic prominence information. It really helps build a picture of the area in the mind's eye.

Thanks. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the explanatory introduction about tectonic plates, but possibly you have over-simplified this. I also think there are some errors there as well. You say "The Earth's crust is covered by several large tectonic plates, which slowly move towards and collide with one another" - this ignores plates that move apart from each other, or move alongside each other. Also, it is not correct to say that tectonic plates cover the crust, the tectonic plates are the crust (technically the crust and the upper mantle - i.e. the lithosphere). Also, you say "As the plate moves deeper into the earth and begins to melt, some of the magma is ejected back up, and erupts out of boundary in the form of a volcano." - the phrase "ejected back up" comes across as a bit colloquial. You also need a "the" before "boundary", though even there, the term "boundary" is probably imprecise. "Erupts upwards from the subduction zone" might be better. You also put "backwash" in quotes - is this an original phrase you have come up with here? If so, the tone comes across an unencyclopedic.

This was written just before the FAC was submitted, so will probably have the largest body of errors. It's night here and I'm tired, so I'll take it on tomorrow. ResMar 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ResMar 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll handle what Aw has below and it should be ready. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my comment, but noting that Awickert will have much more useful things to say. Carcharoth (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~You say "variably vegetated", but nothing more than that. Does anyone say anywhere what the vegetation is, or whether there is any fauna?~~

Well, nothing more is said. I'm guessing it's just standard fare moss and the like. From pre-hand experience, you can judge the age of a flow by how much primary and secondary growth is on it; it takes about 100 years or so for plants to start growing on an old lava flow. I don't have first-hand experience with Cleveland of course, so I can't say much. I am certain however that the conditions are too volatile for sustained animal life, however. So, in summary, there are not enough sources to tell us that. ResMar 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which source does the Aleut oral tradition come from? It's not entirely clear, and it would be nice to read more on that.

The source doesn't say: "Aleut lore maintains that the two ends of Chuginadak were separate islands and that a volcanic eruption joined them by creating the intervening ismuth." The source is Baker (1906), Geographic Dictionary of Alaska. Judging by the nature of the title, the original source, besides being very difficult to get to, would probably not have any more information then Myers stated in his manuscript. ResMar 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Have any studies been done on the rock types produced by the volcano?~~

No one has really traveled there for any memorable length of time. Except for that one crazy college student...his paper probably has something in it, probably in the "straitography" section. ResMar 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all the comments I have for now. Carcharoth (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the MoS has a policy of using your cited source, not the sources your cited source cites; so unless someone can get their hands on a copy of that old book, we can't reference it directly as a source...Res Mar 05:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a Wikipedia verifibility or citing policy, not a MoS policy. Last I looked, MoS was still a guideline. Anyway, the point I am making here is that I'm not clear which source you are saying has cited Baker (1906). It is perfectly acceptable to be more specific and say that source X (published in 2009) has cited source Y (published in 1906). Currently, all I see used as a reference for that sentence is "Integrated satellite observations of the 2001 eruption of Mt. Cleveland, Alaska", in which I would be surprised to find a reference to the volcano being an Aleut fire goddess. Maybe it is in one of the other sources you use in that section? Essentially, what I'm saying here is that you have three sources for the "Etymology" section, and I can't work out which facts have come from which source. You may need to break down the citations in more detail. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you mean here...the first source refers to something in the introduction, the second one is bulk body of the section, and is the one interesting thing Myers says, and the last one is a tiny tidbit off of an Alaskan geological survey. ResMar 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the reader supposed to know which reference is "bulk body of the section"? Carcharoth (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to this review to strike one point, but to reiterate my concerns that the sourcing is not clear. I've read page 41 of the unpublished manuscript (which consists of 203 pages mostly on other stuff) and I see nothing there on the Aleut fire goddess reference. Is it somewhere else in that manuscript? Given the concerns about using this source, you need to be clear what is being sourced from it. I can order a copy of Baker (1906) to consult if that will help. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the info box, the following confused me: "Topo map USGS Samalga Island". Why is the name of a different island in there? I eventually worked out what was going on here by reading the infobox documentation, but I think many readers will get horribly confused here. Also, the reference there is not what I expected - I would have expected a link to where a reader can obtain the topographic map if they want to do that. You appear to have linked to a fact sheet. Please feel free to raise this at the template talk page or anywhere else needed.

I don't honestly know too much about that. The map is not currently available online. ResMar 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can like to the not available page, but that would be antagonistic to the readers. I may add a note however explaining what it is, if you want. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best handled at the template level. What I'd be looking for is something that helps the reader to understand what they are looking at when they read this. Carcharoth (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also in the infobox, under "Climbing", you have: "Easiest route: By boat from Nikolsk". I think you have misunderstood what that parameter is for. I suspect it is a parameter for mountain climbers to specify the easiest route to the summit from the base of the mountain. Not sure if you want to encourage that here(!), but in any case, it is almost certainly not intended as a place to say how to get to the mountain. Indeed, the template documentation here confirms my suspicions. You will need to change this or drop this parameter altogether if (as is likely) it is not a 'climbing' mountain (due to its remoteness).

Done. ResMar 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've cooled a bit on my enthusiasm for the "Geological setting" section. There is an argument that going too far back along the explanation process is condescending to the readers. The whole first paragraph of this section risks losing the interest of readers as they wonder what this all has to do with this mountain. Of course, all will become clear, but I think you need to start the first sentence of the first section, with a direct reference to the mountain in question - something like: "Mount Cleveland's geological setting is...". This warns the reader that you are going to spend a bit of article-space giving the setting and context, and allows other readers to skim ahead if they want to do that. An alternative is:
"Mount Cleveland is part of the Aleutian Arc, a long volcanic chain extending off the coast of Alaska. The Aleutian Arc has formed at a boundary between two of the Earth's tectonic plates. [paragraph explaining tectonic plates and volcanoes forming at subduction zones] North American plate activity is personified by..."
But in general, if a section like this is introduced that might be useful (or objected to) in lots of other articles, it may be best to get some wider consensus first, both for using it and for how it should be written.

Ok, I tried to rearrange it as best I could. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That helps, but did you try and get wider consensus for how such "geological setting" sections should be written? If this catches on, it will affect a lot of articles. Do other articles currently use this sort of section? Carcharoth (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three new comments above, from a second reading of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Struck some objections as dealt with. Will have a look at others later. Carcharoth (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

I live half a mile from the University of Alaska. If you want me to take a look at the library, drop me a note. You might also try contacting User talk:Adasiak, because he works at the UAF library. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's really neccessary. If something comes up I might, though. We will see. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review:-

Ref 2: Peaklist. The site's home page says: "Peaklist is a free site available to all interested parties ... It is a labor of love (and madness) prepared by dozens of contributors". Fine, but do we know anything about the credentials of these contributors or the degree of editorial control? Has the site been acknowledged by learned organisations, been quoted in articles, etc?

As I understand it the general concensus among the mountain-article writers is that that site is good for elevation/prominence data, but not for anything else. ResMar 23:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is some positive confirmation; it is mentioned again here, where the editor says he uses it a lot/it is based on their own analysis of satellite data. It's listed on the WP:MOUNTAINS sources, and skimmed over in a couple of FACs. ResMar 00:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the debate to which you refer here lends much support to the case for reliability of the Peaklist site. Rather the contrary; as is stated, the convenience of a source should not be confused with reliability. I will leave this open for others to decide. Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 8 is the citation for the sentence: "The west coast of North America is the site of plate margins between the large Pacific and North American plates, and also between the smaller Juan de Fuca and Cocos plates." The source does not actually say this; there is no mention of Juan de Fuca, and Cocos is mentioned in a different context.

I couldn't find a proper map; I'll look again :/. The Juan de Fuca is mentioned under a synonymous, but less often used, name. ResMar 23:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, switched to another reference. ResMar 23:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 11: Do we know the status of the unpublished manuscript? The download time is so long that I was unable to examine it, but we need to know its level (PhD thesis, Masters' thesis, scholarly article etc), and the degree of scholarly vetting it received.

The author of the paper has a page on the UWYO site. He's got a PhD in the area, so I'll go with saying that the manuscript is reliable. It's unpublished, so no vetting, although it isn't a thesis (he got his degrees 20 years beforehand). It's reliable enough; there isn't anything else for entomology, so getting rid of the source gets rid of that whole section pretty much. ResMar 23:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean etymology not entomology. :-) But on that topic, could you add in the Aleut legend source you mentioned? The Baker (1906) one you mentioned earlier. That is not actually in the article at present. Going back to the naming of the volcano after Cleveland, surely that must be mentioned elsewhere? More pedantically, I'm not 100% sure that the legends giving rise to the native name, and the person the voclano was named after, are strictly etymology (which is more changes in the linguistic formation of a word), but I can't think of a more precise section title. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not mentioned anywhere else, as a matter of fact, finding it was a big accomplishment for me. The article is stitched togethor, so many of the sources stand alone as the only ones for what little extra tidbit they may say. ResMar 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this (PDF) from the Alaska state legislature where (at the end of an inordinately long list of things named after Ronald Reagan) they name other things named after former presidents, including Cleveland, and cite the USGS as the source of their information. Though worryingly they say Mount Cleveland is "near" Skagway! Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to my initial point; the fact that the author of an unpublished paper has a PhD in a related field doesn't mean that the paper itself can be taken, automatically, to be reliable. Unpublished, unvetted papers are in general not accepted by WP as reliable scholarly sources. I realise this is awkward if there is no alternative source readily available, but I would urge that you look for an alternate confirmatory source. Brianboulton (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see why it is less accurate then any other web-hosted document. It's posted on the AVO site; you want me to contact them again about the reliability of it? ResMar

Doesn't seem to be a problem. I don't think the AVO geologists would blindly put up something that wasn't accurate. If it was good enough material for them, it's good enough material for Wikipedia. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Spotchecks carried out; apart from the issue in Ref 8 above, all is well here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

~~"Astronauts were the first to observe the eruption, and alerted the Alaska Volcano Observatory." - source?~~

Explicitly linked in the image description. Putting it in the cap seems redundant. ResMar 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean it's supported by the image source link? That doesn't particularly matter, especially given that the image description page doesn't contain this information. Even if it seems redundant to you, I would recommend you source it in the caption and/or include it in the article and source it there. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:MountCleveland.jpg - I'm not sure that this image is PD. The USGS disclaimer generally applies only to photos created by USGS employees, and this one was not. Furthermore, the statement from the source page that you quote ("this photograph is "for use by the interested public, multimedia producers, desktop publishers, and the high-end printing industry") does not explicitly invoke public domain.

Elaborate. The AVO works by the lowest common denominator, meaning, the USGS usually works public, so AVO usually works public (domain). The AVO is the USGS and two Universities in Alaska. I sent an e-mail; usually they give a green light on these things. ResMar 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide evidence of your assertion that "AVO works by the lowest common denominator"? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's just something I know. Still waiting on the email. ResMar 21:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I got positive conformation. I can foward you the email if you would like. ResMar 23:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to forward it, but can you confirm what exactly it's confirming - that AVO works by lowest common denominator, that the image is PD, something else...? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"these are all public domain so feel free to use as you wish. They may be reproduced with no further permission. If possible to credit the photographer and their affiliation and/or USGS, that is terrific."ResMar 04:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)(Condensed by Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, that's fine then, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:USA_Alaska_location_map.svg - what data source was used to create this map?

Ugh, I think this popped up in the GAC. I have no clue. I have no involvement whatsoever with the creation of a basic SVG map of Alaska. It could have been taken off of the layout in NASA Worldwind for all I know! Contact the people in charge of that group of templates; I can't say anything for the map. ResMar 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~File:Alaska's_Aleutian_Island_(ASTER).jpg - description is copy-pasted from source page and should be noted as such~~

Done. ResMar 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag_of_Alaska.svg - source links are dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to a new link, although it may not have been uploaded by the same person. The Flag of Alaska is cut and dry stuff, so it doesn't matter much. ResMar 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main homepage link is still dead, although that's less of an issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate this part...Res Mar 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the new "Geological setting" section: there are no refs for the subduction dynamics, which is probably why it is wrong. The slab does not melt; rather, certain mineral phases dewater as they enter an unstable temperature-pressure regime, and this water causes the local mantle to melt; looking up "flux melting" could be useful. Awickert (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awickert, stop making everything look complicated and me look like an idiot =) Will do... ResMar 21:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, sorry, that was unnecessarily blunt. I found a press release here about this relatively recent paper on it. Awickert (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, so busy, sorry guys =( ResMar 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize; this is my first time on in days. Good luck with it, Awickert (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this will be the last thing I will handle, probably tommorow. ResMar 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now combed over the section again, what do you think? Stress that some more? Other source...? ResMar 03:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just revised it and shortened it. You might want to find a generic ref or two on the Aleutian arc to slap in there; shouldn't be hard with the interwebs. I think that the air travel part could be put in another section, but I'll leave that to you. Awickert (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, its in the dangers section, but I felt one sentence would be good there. ResMar 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is beyond the scope of that section, but it's ultimately your call. Awickert (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NortyNort

"The island was abandoned for the remainder of the war" - Although the easy assumption can be made, World War II should be specified.

Don't really see why; kick to the flow. ResMar 03:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I w/l'd war to WWII which suffices.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolski is 75km east of the volcano, not 40km.
Rhyolite. I know it is a volcanic rock but I was curious why its discovery was mentioned.

Because it the only rock I can find that was recovered off the volcano. ResMar 03:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the picture caption of the Tana complex, I had to view the picture's caption on the file page before I understood that the dark lines were on the cone. Specifying that would be more helpful.
Off hand, the last paragraph in the Geography and setting section seems like it would be better placed in the Eruptive history section.

I enjoyed the read and learned what "breadcrust bombs" are. I just have minor comments on the review. The article is "short-ish" and after poking through the sources in the AVO library along with some searches, I am not sure much more could be added, aside from a great amount of undue detail. I submitted the article for a CorenBot search but results haven't come back and I couldn't check dead-links. Both are probably due to the whole Toolserver being down now. I will comment on that later.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, almost all of the sources mentioned in the article mention Cleveland only in passing detail. ResMar 03:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will hopefully get to this on the weekend. ResMar 21:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, CorenBot and a dead link check came back negative.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.