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 by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 16 November 2021 [1].

Hoodoo Mountain[edit]

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 15:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in northwestern British Columbia, Canada. I am nominating this for FA because it's a comprehensive account of this relatively obscure volcano. Hoodoo Mountain is one of the four volcanoes comprising the Stikine Subprovince which forms part of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province in northwestern North America. Volcanoguy 15:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Support by Eewilson[edit]

Support. I no longer Oppose moving this article to FA. All issues I have brought up have been resolved by the nominator. See my comments at the bottom of this section. Eewilson (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OLD - This article is too technical for the average reader to understand. The nominator has admitted such and has refused to simplify even the Lead. I do not have faith that those and related changes will be addressed and am stopping my review here (see the end of my comments) with an Oppose. Eewilson (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Don't be a hypocrite. I could say the same for your FAC. It uses a lot of terms I'm not even familiar with. Volcanoguy 11:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments welcomed FAC here or on the article Talk page. Eewilson (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It looks like this had a good GA pass recently, so hopefully this review won't take too long. I'll see what I can find that has been missed.

Not finished. Just stopping for now. Eewilson (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC[reply]
Bottom line with the lead is it's a struggle for a lay-reader to get through paragraphs one and two, but paragraph three is a breeze and still gives good information. Perhaps the first two can be simplified with some of the suggestions I've made and and likely others you can think of. That's all for now. Eewilson (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say this but geology isn't for everyone. The simplicity of Wikipedia is one of the reasons why I have been thinking about retiring as it's "unfriendly" those who write about technical subjects. With that said I'm not making any major changes to this article. It seems as if Simple English Wikipedia has been forgotten about. Volcanoguy 01:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate as this could be a great article given a bit of attention in this area. This article may qualify for Template:Technical. Wikipedia is not a textbook repository nor is it a technical manual. Articles do need to be understandable to the average reader, and the Lead needs to be a step down from that. I Oppose this becoming a Featured Article. Eewilson (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic your FAC may also qualify for Template:Technical. If you take a look at other FA volcano articles you'll see they all pretty much use geological terms non-geologists aren't familiar with. Its a geologic article and therefore uses geological terms. That's pretty ordinary. Volcanoguy 11:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technical terms are expected to be kept for later in the article. The Lead needs to be in layman's terms followed by an easing-in to technical terms, with short explanations of their meaning. See Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. Eewilson (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the "stages" and "icefield" a problem - the layman's understanding of the term is good enough for the former, and your explanation of "icefield" is too long and would probably make experts scratch their head. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, I'm trying to avoid the reader having to struggle past technical terms, including clicking on them. I have no attachment to my suggestions, and if certain ones won't work, then of course there could be alternatives. The idea is not to blow the reader away. I think some lead cleanup in this area could do some good, then easing into other prose so as not to be obscure to the average reader. It's not an easy thing to do, and I am willing to keep going. The problem is that Volcanoguy said they were not making any major changes to the article. I understand that, nor would I want to make them if it were in the same situation. It doesn't seem realistic, though, not to expect changes to have to be made in order to take a good article to great. So with Volcanoguy's absolute statement, it seemed no progress could be made. Jo-Jo Eumerus, what do you suggest? Eewilson (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The solution I use for jargon is to add footnotes, like on Antofalla. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: I'm sorry for my earlier comments. I thought you meant technical terms shouldn't be used in the article at all (which is nearly impossible) but it seems you were just referring to the lead. After thinking about it for a bit I'm gonna try and fix the problems you have brought up. Lots of them are actually quite simple to improve. Volcanoguy 03:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Volcanoguy: Thank you for that. Ping me here when you get it changed. This is a very interesting article and subject. I had no idea there were so many volcanos in Canada, and your dedication to them does us all a great service. Wikipedia can seem like a thankless place, especially during reviews when it seems like all things are criticisms. Eewilson (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: I've gone through all the points you have brought up. Volcanoguy 06:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. I think the lead is welcoming and will make the average reader want to go further now. I had already read the rest of the prose and found no issues with it, nor did I see any POV. I read and skimmed it just now and haven't changed my opinion on that. Thank you for your willingness to step back and take a look at the suggestions I made. I Support based on my review of technical, Lead, prose, and POV. Eewilson (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson: Thanks! Since you seem to have an interest in this subject, I can notify you of more FACs if you like. Volcanoguy 16:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. Thanks! Eewilson (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Nearly three weeks in and this nomination has garnered only one general support. Unless considerable further progress is made towards a consensus to support over the next three or four days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get a more thorough review, but it may take a few days. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow I'll do this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified some users to see if they can comment. Volcanoguy 19:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may take a couple days for them to be able to take a look through the article. I hope that's not a problem GTM. Volcanoguy 05:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

What an interesting volcano! This is a very informative article, even for an advanced layperson. My only suggestion is to replace "phonolite and trachyte" in the lede with "highly silicic and alkaline igneous rock", but only in the lede. I can never remember the TAS diagram, and I imagine most other readers don't either. — hike395 (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hike! Wouldn't "highly silicic and alkaline igneous rock" a bit vague since there are several types of highly silicic and alkaline igneous rocks not found at Hoodoo Mountain? Volcanoguy 09:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, but not specific, right? I think that true but unspecific statements are fine in the lede, because people can always find more details in the main body of the article, i.e., exactly what kind of silicic and alkaline extrusive igneous rock is found there. — hike395 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except "silicic" and "alkaline" are not used in the main body of the article. "Peralkaline" is mentioned in the geology section, although that isn't the same as "alkaline". Many people probably don't know what those words mean and the lede is supposed to be as simple as possible. Most people probably aren't familiar with the TAS diagram anyway so I don't see why that's relevant. Volcanoguy 20:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GeoWriter[edit]

Overall, I think this is a well-written and well-sourced article. Here are my detailed comments:

Geography

Biogeography

"Forests grow on the lower slopes of Hoodoo Mountain except for its northeastern flank where rock and ice are dominant. Much of this forest cover lies at elevations below 900 metres (3,000 feet)."

I suggest these two sentences should be moved/merged into the preceding paragraph which mentions the forests, rock, ice and valley bottoms.

I've reworded to "Forests of this ecosection grow on the lower slopes of Hoodoo Mountain..." Volcanoguy 02:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

"Hoodoo Mountain has a maritime glacial climate".

Is “maritime glacial climate” a recognized valid climate type? Or is it actually a maritime climate but glaciers also happen to be in the region (as a coincidence)?

The latter. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

Background

"Other volcanic formations, notably subglacial volcanoes, take their shape from ...". A subglacial volcano is a landform not a formation.

Fixed. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relationship/hierarchy of Stikine subprovince and Iskut volcanic field?

I'm not sure what you mean. They're two different things. Volcanoguy 01:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my question because it should instead be discussed at the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province and/or Iskut volcanic field articles. GeoWriter (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iskut Volcanic Field has 8 centres (Hoodoo Mountain being one of those centres), but it seems that of these 8 centres, only Hoodoo Mountain is a NCVP centre? Are the other 7 centres of Iskut not regarded as NCVP centres?

Clarified. The entire field is part of the NCVP. Volcanoguy 01:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stikine subprovince "consists of three other volcanic centres" should be changed to "includes three other volcanic centres" or "has three other volcanic centres".

Done. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful to clarify the meaning of "volcanic centre" compared to "volcanic field".

I've removed "volcanic centre" from the same paragraph to avoid confusion. Volcanoguy 01:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

"It has a basal diameter of around 6 kilometres (3.7 miles), a maximum volume of 17.3 cubic kilometres (4.2 cubic miles)" – what is the significance of "maximum"? Why not only "volume"?

Deleted "maximum". Volcanoguy 23:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Hoodoos, needle-like rock formations after which the volcano is named" – I suggest that "spire" or "pillar" would be better than "needle-like".

Done. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The lower set of cliffs delimit the base of the volcano except for its southeastern margin where they have been partially overrun by younger lava flows. They are 100 to 200 metres (330 to 660 feet) high and form a broad bench" – I think the "they" in "They are 100 to 200 metres ..." should be clarified – I think this refers to the cliffs not the younger lava flows?

Clarified. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the glassy chemical composition of the lava" – glassy is not a chemical composition - "glassy chemical composition" should be changed to "glassy texture".

Done. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Southwest Flow is a large composite lava flow" - "composite lava flow” should be defined.

Removed "composite". Volcanoguy 01:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanic history

"Some tephra layers in northern British Columbia may have been deposited by Hoodoo Mountain." Is this summarising the later paragraph about tephra at Dease Lake, Finlay River and Bob Quinn Lake? Without mentioning those locations in this summary paragraph, it reads oddly because Hoodoo Mountain is itself in northern British Columbia. I think it could be improved by adding a mention of how far away (in kilometres) from Hoodoo Mountain this tephra may have reached.

Yes I agree. Clarified. Volcanoguy 03:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Hoodoo has also been designated as a subglacial volcano due to much of the mountain having formed subglacially in the last 100,000 years." Did anything geologically or volcanically significant happen 100,000 to 85,000 years ago? If not, why mention 100,000 years? Elsewhere in the text, 85,000 years is mentioned: "The first eruptive period 85,000 years ago" and "The primary rock types comprising the volcano are phonolite and trachyte, which were deposited during six periods of eruptive activity beginning about 85,000 years ago".

Fixed. Volcanoguy 01:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eruptive periods

Image of eruptive periods (File:Hoodoo Mountain eruptive periods.png): I suggest that ice is changed from blue (the traditional colour of liquid water in diagrams) to white (the traditional colour of ice in diagrams). Hoodoo Mountain is, after all, a subglacial volcano not submarine volcano.

Done, although it may take a while for the image to display white instead of blue. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"These volcanic deposits are mainly exposed on Hoodoo's southwestern and northwestern flanks": "Hoodoo’s" is too informal. I suggest it should be changed to "“Hoodoo Mountain's".

I've deleted it because I don't think it's needed. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"devitrified glass with heterolithic clasts": Heterolithic should be defined.

Since this isn't important I've decided to just delete it. I also wasn't able to find a definition for "heterolithic clasts". Volcanoguy 04:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Lava flows on the north–central flank display radially-oriented cooling joints" – perhaps explain the significance of radial joints (as has been done with the horizontal joints in an earlier paragraph).

The source doesn't explain the significance of radial joints. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tephra layers

I think it would be helpful to give some indication of the distances from Hoodoo Mountain to Dease Lake, Finlay River and Bob Quinn Lake.

The source gives the distance from Hoodoo Mountain to Bob Quinn Lake but I don't see any for Dease Lake or the Finlay River. Volcanoguy 02:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring and volcanic hazards

These are geological subjects and should become a subsection of the Geology section.

Done. Volcanoguy 23:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Several terms are both wikilinked in the main text and defined in the Notes section. Why? Wikilinks (and/or very brief inline definitions in parentheses) are usually sufficient. Why are only these several terms and not every wikilinked word defined in the Notes section? I suggest these notes should be removed.

The notes are there to bring explanations within the article to the readers, and that's a WP:MOS issue. Several similar FACs have stalled/failed due to their inability to bring explanations for technical terms, even if they are wikilinked. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the notes are kept, note 1 mentions "silicium" (which is copied from the cited source). In English, silicium seems to be an obsolete name for silicon (according to e.g. Collins English Dictionary). Perhaps the author/publisher of the source book forgot to translate the word from another language e.g. French or German, where it is the current correct term). "silicium" should be replaced by "silicon". I suppose the same cited source reference could be used but a better source using “silicon” can be found easily.

— GeoWriter (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "silicon". Volcanoguy 02:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that my questions have been answered and changes/fixes have been done. GeoWriter (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

Going criteria-by-criteria:

Apropos of nothing, I wonder if Tseax Cone could be a future Canadian FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, support. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have thought about bringing the Tseax Cone article up to FA class in the past. It should be doable, although it would probably not be as large as the Hoodoo Mountain and Level Mountain articles given the fact that Tseax is just a small cinder cone. I will look into it eventually. Volcanoguy 05:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, there would be some material about historical activity to cover. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Historical activity doesn't matter to me much. One of the reasons why I prefer to write about Canadian volcanoes is that none of them are very active, which is ideal for FA because then their articles don't have to be updated every few years or so (e.g. Nevado del Ruiz and Ubinas). Volcanoguy 03:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

I feel like I'm expected to list things to change but honestly it seems fine to me as is. I'm not a geologist or volcanologist but understand everything better than I expected. There are a few terms I didn't know, but they are well linked, even with footnotes to give a quick overview of a jargony term (like aphanitic in the section Geology->Volcanic history->Eruptive periods—the term is linked but there's also a footnote providing a quick definition). And, frankly, I expect a page about a volcano and its geology to describe things using terms I'm not fully educated about. It strikes me as far less "difficult" to understand than, for example, Proteasome, Oxidative phosphorylation, or Irish phonology, just to pick three FA pages that get pretty technical. Pfly (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping, Pfly! I possibly could not have brought Hoodoo Mountain up to FA-class without your support. I know mountains and volcanoes are not your fields of expertize, but it's great to get non-experts to take a look at potential FA articles. Lots of things can be overlooked by people who are more knowledgeable in these fields, including jargony terms like "aphanitic" you mentioned or something else a non-expert doesn't quite understand. I hope to see your help on other FACs in the future. Volcanoguy 09:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edziza may take longer to rewrite/expand than I thought it would. Might be better to work on smaller volcanic centres first. Volcanoguy 09:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry[edit]

Support, with three minor quibbles, none of which should hold up promotion. This is excellently written and engaging and flows nicely nicely. The only things I spotted to criticise:

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

The theses cited have been used in literature. The authors are also recognized specialists in the field. Volcanoguy 02:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate? What literature? Recognized how? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites 2 PhD theses and 1 Master's. Although PhD theses are often considered reliable, Masters' not so much per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. (t · c) buidhe 02:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the theses cited in the article have been used in scientific publications. For example, Volcano-ice Interaction on Earth and Mars by the Geological Society of London, and the Quaternary Research journal by the Cambridge University Press). Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature". Volcanoguy 03:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's in reference to doctoral theses, not masters. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria if it's really that big of a deal I can remove the thesis and all information associated with it. Volcanoguy 16:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has this particular thesis met the higher bar of "significant scholarly influence"? If no, that would be the best approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I was able to find an article in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences to replace the Master's thesis. Volcanoguy 17:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More