Talk:Mount Cayley/GA1

GA Review

This looks like a great article. I am noticing one main problem, however. Per WP:CITE, books should have page numbers. The fact that the Etkin book is referenced 38 times reinforces this fact. The book should really be separated out and Author, page # citations should be provided instead. I will look over the rest of the article soon, but just wanted to mention this so that the editors could take care of this problem. Best, epicAdam (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

General

• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), traveled (A) (British: travelled), program (A) (British: programme).
• Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “it is thought”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. Go through and make sure that these are replaces with actually facts and statistics.
• Do not hard size the pictures in the article. Instead, just leave them as general thumbs; this way, readers can set the size of the photographs in their user preferences, and not have them predetermined.
• Be careful when whipping out very specific terms like these that are meaningless to 99.9% of readers. Instead of "erupting plagioclase-hypersthene-hornblende-phyric dacite flows, tephra, and pyroclastic breccia," It would be better to say "erupting rocks and ash such as, ..." so that users aren't left wondering what all those terms mean. It would be helpful to go back through and either reduce or explain the scientific jargon.

Lead

• Try to avoid citations in the lead per WP:LEAD. Any information presented there should also be presented, with a citation in the main article text.

Geology

• "Many residents of Whistler and other nearby communities are therefore not aware that there is a volcano closer to the communities than the more well-known Mount Baker in Washington State." Unless there was a poll or study that tells us this, it is very much speculation.
• "Like all of the Cascade volcanoes," The Cascade isn't mentioned before this, except in the infobox
• "such as the Silverthrone Caldera, which is a circular 20 km (12 mi) wide," what is "a circular"?
• "most long-lived volcanic complex" awkward. how about oldest?
• "Mount Cayley was born in" too poetic for an encyclopedia. Just say "developed" or "formed"
• Why are "Growth" and "Origin" two separate subheadings??

Area around Cayley

• This section diverges too far off topic. This is information that should be present in the article about the range itself, not this particular volcano.

Volcanic hazards

• I believe this section violates WP:CRYSTAL. The information that could be present here is A) when the next eruption could occur, B) how likely it is for an eruption to occur, and C) how far of an area could be affected. Anything more than that, about what roads would be hit, if the volcano would swell and burst, landslides possibly damming the river, etc. is all largely speculative and not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Needs and gaps

• This section reads like policy paper. Wikipedia is about providing facts, not recommendations such as "These do not exist for volcanoes in British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada in the detail required." From what I can tell, this information is all the opinion of authors from a single book, and that has to be stated as such.

Etkin book

• I am dubious as to the claims supposedly sourced to the Etkin book. First, for the number of claims sourced to this book, the page numbers should be more specific, (i.e. cite the page numbers directly, not a range). Further, 14 pages seems rather short for the amount of data cited. I would highly recommend that the editors go back through the source and find the appropriate page numbers for each citation provided. Also, I would make sure that the appropriate edition/revision is cited of the book because the ISBN provided in the reference appears to have only [http://www.amazon.com/Assessment-Natural-Hazards-Disasters-Canada/dp/1402011792/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1219425271&sr=11-1 392 pages].

The article is generally written in a style better suited for an academic paper than an encyclopedia. Remember who the audience is for a Wikipedia entry: lay users who are often unfamiliar with the topic. The Wikipedia article should therefore avoid scientific jargon wherever possible, or at the very least explain it in a way that is easily understood by readers. I would recommend a peer review first to try make the article more accessible to readers, and second to condense redundant text. The article will fail for now. Best, epicAdam (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Epicadam, I am a general reader. When I saw your Fail classification, I took a look at the article just in order to see what a reviewer required. I think your review is very good. However, I believe it is too harsh, and I would prefer to see a Hold rather, thus giving the editors some time to make corrections for your suggestions. Hag2 (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Reopened, placed on hold. -epicAdam (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it seems fine. I agree some of the wording is awkward etc but some of the other topics are related to the volcano (i.e. Area around Cayley). I find explaining the area is a good thing because the volcanic field is called the Mount Cayley volcanic field and all of the other volcanic formations are related to the mountain. This mountain is not just a standard mountain, it contains several peaks and ridges. As for the volcanic hazards and needs and gaps sections they are indeed a fact. No volcanoes in Canada are studied or monitored like other countries with active volcanoes because they are mostly in remote locations. Black Tusk (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. So the facts are that the mountains in Canada are not monitored like other active volcanoes elsewhere in the world. However, everything about what a supposed eruption would do and what would happen afterward is the view of the authors of a single book, but it is presented as a universal truth despite the fact that the event hasn't happened. An encyclopedia cannot provide readers with future information on what might happen unless that material is correctly labeled as conjecture by a certain group of people, namely the authors of that book.

As for the area around Cayley, it's peaks and ridges can certainly be discussed but the article makes it sound as if those other mountains in the range are simply other mountains. For example, in the Rocky Mountains, each mount or peak has its own article. This article is about Mount Cayley, not the "Mount Cayley volcanic field"; if you would like to make that into a separate article, then you are certainly welcome to do so. -epicAdam (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not the authors suggestion. If you look through the book you will see it's material from scientists that have done work in these areas (e.g. Souther, Sparks, Stasiuk, Stewart). The eruption scenario etc was made by those scientists, not the author. I also know about this because I have access to some of those scientists that studied these areas and they based the scenario on past volcanic activity in the area (i.e. Garibaldi Volcanic Belt). If it's peaks and ridges makes it sound like they are separate mountains then I guess it can be reworded to make it sound less confusing. This article is about a mountain massif. The term Mount Cayley volcanic field is a volcanological term for the same thing. See here which is further proof; Catherine Hickson is the volcanologist I have access to which she is mentioned on that page as one of the authors. Black Tusk (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok. How about we put these particular issues on the back burner until the other issues with the actual prose and sourcing are worked out? I think I'll be able to get a better idea of what really should be included on this page after the rest is reworked. Best, epicAdam (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully no one minds, but I have used a strike-though of the above text to indicate what I have fixed. I decreased the photo sizes but I left the map size because it would be too small to see whatever the map says. I kept and retitled the growth section because its eruptive history is not necessarily part of its origins, given the fact the volcano already existed during its first phase of activity. Black Tusk (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How is the infomation in the lead supposed to be presented in the article? There's not a lot of history about this mountain other than what is presented. Black Tusk (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

An toponymy section would probably take care of most of that. -epicAdam (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The history was originally a separate section but I merged it because I found the introduction was too small. BTW do any of the general issues above seem better? Black Tusk (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There's only four pages being used in the Etkin book: 569, 579, 582, 583. The reason why there's lots of citations to the book is because almost every sentence is sourced in the article. Black Tusk (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the Needs and gaps and Volcanic hazards sections I still don't see a problem with them. It's good to have this infomation about the volcano because there's several problems with Canadian volcano research and monitoring. Articles should publish the opinions of reliable authors and many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers, which is what the Etkin book infomation is from since the book mentions scientists. It also appears to be a referenced book. See WP:RS. Black Tusk (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Remaining issues:

• Pictures: All the pictures should have their hard-sizing removed, even the map. Whether or not it is too difficult to see as a thumbnail on your computer is irrelevant. Each user has different settings and resolutions that are overridden if the images are hard-sized.
• Vagueness: There are still vague terms that are used instead of actual facts. When terms such as "most", "some", "several", "few", are used, they make it sound like the author isn't really sure or is just making information up.
  • "are considered by some geologists to be the northernmost member of the arc" who? which ones?
  • "these observations are further indications that some of Canada's volcanoes are potentially active" and "some of Canada's most youthful volcanoes" Like which ones? or how many? What percentage?
  • "forming the largest of a number of small pinnacles" Again, about how many?
  • "The majority of information has been collected" How is it possible to know if there's a majority of information?
  • "the Vancouver section of the Alpine Club for several years." Any approximation?
  • "Several volcanoes in the arc are potentially active." Number?
  • "It contains several spines reaching heights of 100 m (328 ft) to 150 m (492 ft)"
  • "each individual volcano erupts for a few million years"
  • "A few isolated volcanic centers northwest of Mount Meager"
  • "Many towns and cities near Mount Cayley"
  • "Unlike many of the other volcanoes further south,"
  • Every instance of "small" and "large", which is completely relative. Saying that an eruption would be "large" means nothing to casual readers.
• The article is still written with too much technical detail for the average reader. A number of "readability" tools that measure the average education level necessary to understand the text indicate that this article is written at a collegiate to post-graduate level; Wikipedia aims for articles written so that the average person with a high school education can understand them. That isn't to say they should read as if they were written 'by' kids in high school, however.
• As for the Volcanic Hazards and Needs and gaps sections, I would want another editor to take a look at those to see if they're appropriate for this article. Really, this has nothing to do with the validity, verifiability, or reliability of the sources or their authors, but rather the appropriateness of including much of this information in this article. To me, the lack of monitoring by the Canadian government is not specific to Mount Cayley, and I therefore question whether or not it should be included here or just be a separate section about the Geological Survey of Canada. I'd like to get another editor's opinion on this. However, there are still plenty of other things to work on in the meantime. Best, epicAdam (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The vague terms are partly because there's still not much known about Canadian volcanoes, especially if volcano monitoring and research is limited. In addition, not much is known about the frequency of eruptions to predict which volcanoes are most likely to erupt next, and what their likely impact will be. If the text is still written with too much techical detail then that reader should click on the link to see what it means; that's one of the reasons why articles have links. Black Tusk (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• If information is unknown, then the article should say that the information is not known, or not mentioned at all, not presented in vague terms.
• Telling users to just "click on the link" is the absolute wrong approach. Wikilinks exist to provide users with more information about a subject, not as a dictionary (see WP:What Wikipedia is Not). Articles should be written in a way to make them the most accessible to readers (see Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible and WP:Explain jargon), not what is most convenient for editors and experts; in fact, it is a Good Article and WP:Manual of Style requirement to do so. No article will pass GA without meeting those criteria. Best, epicAdam (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't say the infomation is unknown. What I was trying to get to is the subjects knowledge is fairly poor, and not particually "unknown". Saying something like "a few", "many" etc is better than making up an excuse saying, for example, "there's 100 potentially active volcanoes in Canada". Most of the vague terms are used in sources so I don't know how many potentially active volcanoes there are in Canada or how many spines/pinnacles.
• As for the "click on the link" thing, I didn't mean it as "you should click the link to see what it means" like what you would do with a dictionary. What I ment was to provide users with more infomation about the subject (like you said). I mean, wouldn't explaning the jargon make the article misleading since the subject is about Cayley and not about the rock or mineral? Black Tusk (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Some of those examples above are just that, examples. The key here is to avoid the use of vague terminology as much as possible. Of course, sometimes we will never be able to give definitive statements, like the case of the number of active volcanoes.You can, however, indicate that the number is unknown or provide a generalized statement such "these observations indicate that volcanoes in the Cascade Volcanic Arc are potentially active". I do note, however, that the article Cascade Volcanoes manages to provide at least approximate dates and figures where the exact number is unknown. In certain cases, however, it may be best to say nothing at all. If the information isn't provided in the materials sourced in the article, then it may be necessary to find additional materials. If the information really is unknown, this may be just as important for readers to know that than be left guessing.
• Typically you can get away with simply introducing terms once so that they can be referred to later in the article. Simple appositives, such as this one, typically do not divert too much from the main topic. If possible, it would be best to simply limit the amount of technical jargon. There are areas where I think it can be a little excessive and seems to be more technical than Silverthrone Caldera, but maybe that's just me. We'll see what a second reviewer has to say. Best, epicAdam (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion

I agree with much of what Epicadam says, in particular the point about the scientific language used without explanation. For instance, "two small satellitic plagioclase-hypersthene-biotite-phyric dacite lava domes" is just gobbledy-gook. The language needs to be accessible to a general reader. I have a few other points as well:

• I do not agree with Epicadam's comment that image sizes can't be fixed. What the MoS says is that they shouldn't be fixed at less than the maximum a user can set via their preferences, 300px.

• I do not agree that vague terms like "many" are always inappropriate and need to be quantified.

• I see many elementary errors of grammar and poorly written text. Here are some examples:

• "Many towns and cities near Mount Cayley are home to well over half of British Columbia's human population ...". So each of these towns and cities is home to well over half of British Columbia's population?
• "The first recorded ascent of Mount Cayley were made ..."
• "There are significant hazards from Canadian volcanoes that require hazard maps and emergency plains." What's an emergency plain?
• "The continued presence of unimaginably hot magma near the surface ...". Trust me, I've got a very good imagination; so why not tell me how hot? Or just leave out the hyperbole?

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would limmit the vague and technical terminology, but how are you supposed to explain, for example, "two small satellitic plagioclase-biotite-phyric lava domes" without it being technical? Most of those terms are mineral names and are probably not replaceable. I know the terms can be discussed in the article but where would it be discussed? Black Tusk (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I am unsure how exactly what that phrase means, I can't suggest a useful rewrite. However, I'm sure these issues have come up before. It may be helpful to request assistance at WP:WikiProject Volcanoes, as I am sure they have found ways in previous articles to make them more accessible to readers. However, as this nomination has been on hold for over a week, and given the additional comments from Malleus Fatuorum, I think it is clear that the article still needs a bit of work before it can be promoted. Therefore the article will fail for now, but please renominate when you have found a way to make it less technical and make necessary revisions to the prose. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)