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 promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

---

Self nom. I've been working on this article off and on since I first visited the area in late 2003. So - what else needs to be done to bring this to FA standards? I'm especially interested to see if I got the balance right. For example, it would have been tempting to add a lot more detail about the 1915 eruption of Lassen Peak or that mountain's geology. However, this article is about all the geology on the lava plateau, which includes dozens of separate volcanoes. Note: I plan to create a separate article on the 1915 eruption and to also bring Lassen Peak to FA standard (with a multi-subsection Geology section itself). --mav 01:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion- ummhhh... the page is attached with well stuff but i think you should have a peer review for the page. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 06:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PR is not a prerequisite to FAC. Any feedback generated from a PR can just as easily be done here through Objects with reasons given and through Comments. I am very responsive to all valid feedback. --mav 14:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    

Do you maveric149, same was my thinking when i nominated Himachal Pradesh for fac. i also used to thought when wikipedians can pin point the errors why can't they simply edit the page and correct it. glad to know about you. thank god there is somebody like me here on WP. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of triggering a diversion, Sushant - there is a huge debate over whether the role of editors, contributors should be kept seperate during FAC voting. I, for one tend to err on the side of caution. The reason why i am giving you a justification is that i believe my comments in the HP article would have caused a lot of grief to you. We can take that discussion outside this page. --Kalyan 22:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Re- suggestion- In the glacial action section replace 1600ft by this template ((convert|1600|ft|m|0|lk=on)).

it would result into- 1,600 feet (488 m). Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 05:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no need, i have done it. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 06:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support! Looks great: inline citations, pictures. I think the breadth is good. If I were forced to make a suggestion, I would say: more material about the Klamath/Sierra separation. But, it's not necessary for FA, I think. hike395 14:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - good point about the Lassen Strait issue. More detail needed indeed. I'll look for some good references and see what I can do. --mav 13:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It seems very even and comprehensive to me, too, and I think you are right in not overwhelming this broader article with details of the 1915 eruption. It is nicely interlinked with other articles (e.g., Lassen Peak, Lassen Volcanic National Park) with complimentary and supplementary information. Nice work. Cheers - Geologyguy 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! :) --mav 13:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Oppose
  • The intro needs work. Right now it drops you right into the history of the area. Where and what is the lassen volcanic area? What are it's major features? The "current setting" section is completely missing from the intro.
  • I would reduce using periods and instead focus more on MYA. Ex: The Pleistocene covers 1.8 MYs can the rise of Mount Tehama be pin-ponted a little more than that? It is also jarring when the text switches between periods and exact dates.
  • How are the "Lassen volcanic area" and "Lassen volcanic park" related? Are they the same? Is one a subset of the other?
  • Overall it needs to be more specific about things for people unfamilar with the topic
    • Mention it is in North America
    • Cascade Range -> Cascade Mountain Range
    • It refers to "plates" rather than tectonic plates
  • "Lassen Volcanic National Park lies at the southern extremity of the Cascade Range, which extends northward some 500 miles (800 km) through Oregon and Washington and into British Columbia." extends northward from where? would a "from blah to blah" be more appropriate.
  • "the 16 other major volcanoes of the Cascades" have a link about them?
  • Image:Cascade_Range-related_plate_tectonics.png should have a caption
  • Why is the 2nd image crammed into the intro?
  • "had undergone " -> "underwent" ?
  • "the oldest distinctive formation" formation of what?

I'll be back with more later -Ravedave 01:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you for your detailed feedback. I will address each point after work today. --mav 13:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I'll try and finish reviewing the article today. -Ravedave 15:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixes enacted - First stab at addressing your concerns is complete. Time for bed. I'll take a look at your below points after work on Thursday. --mav 03:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also missing from the intro - info about current volcanic activity
• "during the last glacial period of the current ice age." -> did you mean the Wisconsin glaciation?
• The volcanic hazards section I think needs an intro sentence. Something like this maybe? "The volcanic hazards in lassen today are moderate and mostly consist of..."
• The volcanic hazards section is sort of all over the place, what is it trying to convey/accomplish? hazards that have ever existed there? hazards today? it seems like it is repeating stuff from above.
• "The most common volcanic activity in the Lassen volcanic area consists of...." the other text makes it sound dormant, is this referring the the last few hundred years?

Done for now, good luck! -Ravedave 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixes enacted - Yep, some of the material in the hazards section was misplaced. Moved. I think is better now. Please check. --mav 01:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I have struck through stuff I believe is complete, can you respond to the other stuff?
    • The intro still does not give enough context as to what the heck the "lassen volcanic area" is (Lassen volcanic area doesn't exist...) and the article still does not say how this "volcanic area" relates to the park. This makes the article not able to stand on it's own. See Geology of the Capitol Reef area for a good intro sentance.
    • I didn't mention this earlier but the intro sentence should be a summary of what the article is about. Check out the other "Geology of ..." article at Wikipedia:Featured_articles
    • Can you expand upon the good "The only activity..." area of the intro in the body of the article?
  • Oops forgot to sign, also I didnt realize you were the author of the Capitol reef article :P -Ravedave 02:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've since addressed the lead image issue, the lack of spatial context issue for the first sentence, stating how the Lassen volcanic area relates to the park, Cascade Range -> Cascade Mountain Range, and a mention that the plates we are talking about are tectonic plates. As for the current activity - I'll have to see what I can get from Geothermal areas in Lassen Volcanic National Park and add a para to the hazards section. --mav 06:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please recheck - Two paras on current activity added. Now, all your feedback has been incorporated into the article. Please take a look and strike-out those parts of your comments that have been adequately addressed and consider changing your vote. --mav 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just read through it and I might do a small word tweak here and there, but this is decently referenced, authoritative and has plenty of images to document the subject matter. I might change the one heading from "Post glacial but pre-20th century activity" to "Post glacial to the end of the 19th century"...having "but" in there doesn't seem right to me.--MONGO 19:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with observation: Good article and well written. There are a couple of observations - at some point, this article needs to be revisited for copyedit check. while i am unable to put my finger on a particular thing, sometimes i was lost in the article and had to re-read a couple of times to ensure that i understood it. Also, i think that the references are just about adequate. I am sure that it has be noted that references are mostly to one major book. --Kalyan 22:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you had to re-read stuff doesn't that mean its fails 1a?-Ravedave 04:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Under no circumstances should this article as it now stands be promoted to FA. This doesn't really start out strongly. If you're discussing the geology of a mountain, you should start out by putting it in its orogeny--namely the Cascades range. I don't mean first paragraph, sorta, but the first sentence definately. You also have a problem with the first paragraph, far too major for this to be a FA, namely that Cascadia subduction is not 140 million years old, and you've placed this volcanic area that old, in addition to the Klamath Mountains not having existed 140 mya, and the tilting of the Sierra Nevada being only Oligocene in age--you've jumped about 115 million years from the early Cretaceous ot the tilting of the Sierra:
  • "The geology of the Lassen volcanic area can be traced as far back as the early Cretaceous some 140 million years ago when the Klamath Mountains broke away from the Sierra Nevada, forming the flooded Lassen Strait. Subsequent tilting of the Sierra Nevada along with extensive volcanism affected the Pacific Northwest region of what is now the United States and Canada. Oceanic plates have plunged below the North American Plate in this region for hundreds of millions of years. This force has compressed that part of North America into various mountain ranges, including the Cascade Range which contains the Lassen volcanic area. Heat from these subducting tectonic plates has fed scores of volcanoes in California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia over at least the past 70 million years (see plate tectonics)."
• Under no circumstances should this article as it now stands be promoted to FA. KP Botany 15:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, this is not an article about the geology of a mountain. It is an article about the geology of an entire volcanic area that contains dozens of volcanic peaks and features (that said, other comments aimed at fixing the first para's context - adding a mention that this area is part of the Cascades in the first sentence would be a good idea). Second, the article does not at all say that the Cascadia subduction started 140 million years ago (although there was subduction farther off the coast back then); It only says that that is when the Klamaths broke away from the Sierras and thus left a new space where all the Lassen volcanics could happen. This USGS cite appears to back up the 140 million year age of the start of the breakup between the Klamaths (or more correctly, the Klamath block - 'mountain range' may not be technically correct in this context - better wording needed, I agree) and the Sierra block (look for the Separation section and figure). I was planing on expanding/clarifying that bit anyway per Hike's feedback. Third, the fact that the article jumps from the Klamath/Sierra separation to the tilting of the Sierras is a matter of necessarily focusing on just the part of the regional geology that is most relevant to the Lassen volcanic area. If you could provide the cites you referenced in your critique, then I can check those against the references I used in order to come up with better wording. Until then I will look over that part of the article again to see if I can make any changes later tonight (unfortunately, I'm away from the book references I used). Thank you. --mav 00:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The problem is you're mixing up the age of the rocks of with the age of the orogenies of the current mountain ranges because you've selectively picked information from various articles written for a general audience. I assure you that you are way far off from an article about the Lassen volcanic area with your opening paragraph--so far off as to seriously warrant a warning about the factual accuracy of the article. If you removed everything from the Mesozoic you might be okay, but because your understanding of the relationships between the existing volcanic area and the ancient Nevadan and Sevier orogenies is so misconstrued you've created a mountain range where the reports are discussing the age of rocks during the plutonic emplacement of the batholith which was uplifted in the Cenozoic to create the mountain range that exists now. This is seriously problematic. This cannot be at this stage a FA. I have pictures of Tehama, it may take me a while to get them out of storage, but I have an extensive collection of geological pictures from field mapping the Modoc Plateau including Lassen. I will see what I can find, even though they're old. KP Botany 04:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm just a motivated writer with a minor in geology. You appear to have a more advanced understanding of the relationships and technical aspects of this. Could you spend a few minutes trying to clean-up my attempt to address your concerns vs spending that much more time here during the next round? It sure would be better for the encyclopedia if you did. :) --mav 04:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixes attempted - Mentioned that the rocks that make-up the mountains were broke, not the mountains per se. Other issues worked. Please check and WP:BE BOLD by editing the article directly. --mav 06:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been a few days - please check. Your objection is the last one but I would like to make sure you are OK with the fixes before this article gets promoted. However, I don't want to wait much longer. --mav 01:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been a few weeks - please check. --mav 13:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Comment, considering the factual accuracy tag on the article, I guess KP Botany is an oppose :-) I went looking for info about Mount Tehama and found this awkward prose: Starting its activity after Mount Yana but before Mount Maidu started its, Tehama reached an elevation of about 11,000 feet (3,400 m)[8] and was 11 to 15 miles (18 to 24 km) wide at its base. I was disappointed not to find any of the images that illustrate what Tehama was in relation to the existing Lassen Peak. The best visual for this is not from pictures taken within the Park, but from the southeast, taken from Route 36 towards Susanville near Lake Almanor, where the former impressive outline can be deduced from the sides that remain. It would be good if you could get your hands on some of those shots; I've searched the internet and can't find any. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah - a profile of Tehama would be nice to have. However, the only images I could find were not free. As for the wording, yeah, that could be improved. I'll fix that. --mav 00:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Run-on awkward sentence split into two hopefully less awkward sentences. --mav 06:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concerns met, lead issues seems stalemated, but I know Mav will address anything that needs fixing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No, my concerns have not been met, the tag was simply removed by someone without any discussion, and it has not been returned, although my concerns have not been met. My concern is that articles on the front page should have a minimal level of quality and this article does not meet that. Yes, the issue is stalemated, and certainly Mav will address these issues. In the meantime, should this article be marked as a FA with these issues unmet? No! The geology of the Lassen area is complex, and parts of the article (and edit history, frankly it has a lot to do with the geology of at least 2/3 of Nevada) and the method of research have removed the complexity from the geology without dealing with why. The introductory paragraph is a disaster--it simply is all over the place on a time scale, with no apparent concept of when plate tectonics relating to this area took place, and what the relationships a among the plate tectonics, the continental basement, and the overlying sedimentation and volcanism are in time and space. In other words, it's an article about geology that is missing the geology. This is a result of relying upon limited types of resources for a complex problem--if you're going to write about physical chemistry you have to do math at some point in time. I can't see any way around this without a lot of time put into reviewing at least a couple of major technical papers on the Lassen Volcanic Center, the various formations, anything. And this isn't light reading. Anyway, it's apparent my concerns will be ignored and dismissed. I don't have time to do the level and type of research this article needs to be a decent, accurate, and organized article for the layman on the Geology of the Lassen volcanic area, and it appears that this push for this being a FA is in conflict with its quality as a FA, so I bow out. KP Botany 04:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is everything resolved now? Can the tag come off? Raul654 16:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not resolved, the introduction still is very difficult, and doesn't reflect the article in its entirety, nor define the subject well. I suggest to Maverick that he use a shorter time frame, but the introduction doesn't do that well--I don't know that it's changed since I last looked. I'm preparing for a show, and simply won't have time to edit anything that requires me to think for the next few weeks. KP Botany 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think the lead section has changed since last time you checked. It starts with the uplift and tilting of the Sierras and all mention of the Sierra/Klamath split has been commented out of the article. We don't need you to edit, but to read the three current paragraphs of the article's lead section. Also, to be actionable, you need to state what parts of the article should be reflected in the lead that aren't currently. I can't think of anything significant (per WP:LEAD) that isn't already in the lead. --mav 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I'll print it out and look at it again. KP Botany 04:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—Seems well-written. Tony 14:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...The article has not been edited in 2 weeks. I'll ask again - can that tag come off? Raul654 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been waiting for KP's comments about his reading of the new lead section. I've addressed each of his points but he has not commented on whether or not my fixes are sufficient and what else needs to be done. --mav 13:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no problem with the intro as far as how it summarizes the major points in the article. The points made here seem to have been satisfied, so I see no reason the tag should remain.--MONGO 14:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i disagree that the lead section is good to go. I want the tag to be retained till the below comments of mine are addressed. --Kalyan 14:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag. I think it's good to go. -Ravedave 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-review of the lead section at the request of mav

Please re-format the first sentence as "The geology of the Lassen volcanic area presents the sedimentation and volcanic activity in the region around Lassen Volcanic National Park. The park is located in the southernmost part of the Cascade Mountain Range in the Northwest region of USA."

This needs to be followed by chronological order of events (70 million years ago - " Farallon Plate sliding under the North American plate."; 30 million years ago - "pressure relieved with volcanic activity across the region"; 2-3 million years ago - "Sierra Nevada uplifted and tilted westward."; 600K years ago - "formation of Mount Tehema volcano"; 31,000 years ago - "lassen peak formed"; 19th and 20th century activities). Please note that i have taken this material from the body of the article. Also, remember to date each of the events

I see that the data is presented as i said but lacks date reference in most places

Also, uplifting and tilting of Sierra Nevada took place only 2-3 million years ago. why is this event mentioned before tectonic activities?

avoid generic terms/phrases like "this part of the world"

avoid jumping across dates like "This formation of rocks is not exposed anywhere in park but it is just below the surface in many areas within it" which i believe refers to the current date whereas the data is present in the section refering to events atleast 30 million years old

Please make these corrections and let me know and i shall sign-off on the FAC. --Kalyan 14:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Great feedback - I'll get right on implementing your suggestions. --mav 21:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to address your and other concerns with these edits. In addition to your suggestions, I've also taken out mention of the Sierra uplift since that is only indirectly related to the area's geology (being that it is not located on that range). In general, I'm trying to keep the lead as focused as possible on the area's exposed geology and the directly underlying Tuscan Formation; any info about related regional events need to be directly related to that. Please check. --mav 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT FA: I think that the lead section is much better now and there were a couple of minor things that caught my eye. I went ahead and made those modifications rather than leaving comments here. --Kalyan 04:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still STRONGLY OPPOSE FA (Repeat comment:Under no circumstances) I object to the tag being removed, the issues have NOT been settled.

The introduction remains vague, and the tag should stay until the introduction is all that it should be:

"Oceanic tectonic plates have plunged below the North American Plate in this part of North America for hundreds of millions of years. Heat from these subducting plates has fed scores of volcanoes in California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia over at least the past 30 million years (see Geology of the Pacific Northwest) and is also responsible for activities in the Lassen volcanic area.

Between 2 and 4 million years ago, volcanic-derived mud flows called lahars streamed down several major sources that included nearby but now extinct Mount Yana and Mount Maidu to become the Tuscan Formation."

We have three things going on here right from square one, we have hundreds of millions of years of tectonic plates, then the article discusses the current subduction complex, the Laramide Orogeny and younger events--well, what the heck is this hundreds of millions of years of subduction about, then? You start at the bottom in the intro, then move to the current setting and move back in time in the article, then call the Sierran uplift the "basement rocks?"

No, the introduction is vague, almost entirely unrelated to the article, and the tag should remain as long as this is an issue.

This article still needs major work to be an article about this geology, it's all over the place where it goes, it is not a cohesive description of the geology of the Lassen volcanic area, and the introduction is vague and largely unrelated to the entire article, and the article itself is confusing. KP Botany 21:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You previously suggested removing all info about Cretaceous events. I did so. I also removed mention of the Sierra uplift from the intro because it is not directly related to the geology of this particular volcanic area. Should that go back? Also, what other parts of the geology of this area need to be in the intro? Recall that intros need to be concise encyclopedia articles in their own right. So we can't include everything there; just the most relevant and important info. As for the tag; everybody else who has commented on that issue has agreed that none is needed. I also voluntarily had this article un-FACed in spite of it having more than enough support to pass so I could incorporate your feedback into improving it. That said, I very much want to address your concerns, but that is a bit difficult if more of a specific critique is not forthcoming. In the meantime, I'll search the academic literature for relevant papers and try to find time to visit a nearby university that has the journals. If you have any ideas on papers I should look at, then please provide them. :) --mav 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.