Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex/archive1

Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex

Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 1 August 2024, 08:47 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

• Featured article candidates/Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex/archive1

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 14:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is about volcanic activity at a group of volcanoes in northwestern British Columbia, Canada, that has existed for the last 7.5 million years or more. Volcanoguy 14:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Lean oppose I feel that Souther is cited too much, failing WP:FACR 1c. 750h+ 14:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @750h+: I would say it's well-researched it's just that Souther was the only one who studied the complex in detail. Volcanoguy 14:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

    I think i’ll wait for more reviewers before i change my opinion 750h+ 14:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

    @750h+: Google Scholar results: Raspberry Formation, Little Iskut Formation, Armadillo Formation, Nido Formation, Spectrum Formation, Pyramid Formation, Ice Peak Formation, Pillow Ridge Formation, Edziza Formation, Arctic Lake Formation, Klastline Formation, Kakiddi Formation, Big Raven Formation. As you can see, most of the sources in Google Scholar are used in this article. I left a few of them out because I'm not sure if they are considered reliable for Wikipedia. Canadian volcanoes are not well-studied; the Edziza complex has received little attention since 1992 per this source on page 564. Volcanoguy 16:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

    @750h+: I think your opinion is flawed. You haven't provided any evidence that this article fails 1c you just have a feeling that it does. I'm not aware of anything that claims some sources can't be used more than others. Souther 1992 is a 320 page document so of course it's going to be cited a lot. Volcanoguy 17:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

  Citing an author (or even a source) frequently does not fail 1c. The article not being well researched would do so. @Volcanoguy has written for Wikipedia about this volcanic complex and has said this author is the one who has researched it most. it is logical, then, that this author would be more cited than any others.

  Do you plan to do a source review, or is this high-level comment the extent of your work on this FAC. If you are not intending to do a source review, I will proceed with it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Regarding concerns about 1c of WP:FACR the reason this article cites Souther a lot is because he was the only volcanologist who studied the MEVC in detail. As a result, his publications are significantly more detailed than others published since 1992. I've searched Google Scholar and elsewhere thoroughly for information about volcanism of the MEVC and added the relevant sources. I'd dare anyone to prove me wrong. Volcanoguy 14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Arconning

• File:MEVC map.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:EdzizaTopo.jpg - Public Domain
• File:Raspberry Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Little Iskut Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Armadillo Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Nido Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Spectrum Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Pyramid Formation cross section.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Ice Peak Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Pillow Ridge Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Edziza042909-- 113-16.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Edziza Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Outcast Hill cross section.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Tahltan River mouth.png - Public Domain
• File:Kakiddi Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
• File:Tennena Cone.jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Nahta cone from east june 2006 (Spectrum Range).JPG - CC BY-SA 3.0
• File:Mess Lake Lava Field.jpg - Public Domain
• File:Edziza obsidian.jpg - Public Domain
• All images have good alt-text and are relevant to the article.
• Images have proper licenses, images with links to their sources are live.

Support on image review. I admire the your work ethic into making majority of the images used in the article! Good luck! Arconning (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)