Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tennena Cone/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 promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 2 February 2025 [1].

Tennena Cone

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 04:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a small subglacial volcano on the southwestern flank of Mount Edziza in British Columbia, Canada, and is a part of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex series of articles, three of which I have brought to FA class (Mount Edziza, Mount Edziza volcanic complex and Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex) so far. Unlike other volcano articles I have brought to FA, there appears to be no information about volcanic hazards for Tennena Cone. This may be because it's a minor volcanic feature or because the cone is monogenetic (the Wood & Kienle source describes the Mount Edziza volcanic complex as a "group of overlapping basaltic shields, felsic stratovolcanoes, domes, small calderas and monogenetic cones"). Monogenetic volcanoes are typically considered to erupt only once and to be short-lived. Pinging Generalissima since they claimed to have admired my dedication to the Mount Edziza volcanic complex in the last FAC. Volcanoguy 04:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (passed) and support from Crisco 1492

I reviewed this at GA and was impressed already. Happy to support this for FAC on prose. As for media:

File:Tennena Cone.jpg - Correctly licensed. Not a fan of bare URLs, as those are prone to link rot, so I know I personally would put a bit more detail.
File:Mt. Edziza - 4037245997.jpg - Correctly licensed. Not a fan of bare URLs, as those are prone to link rot, so I know I personally would put a bit more detail.
File:Mt. Edziza - 4037996194.jpg - Correctly licensed. Not a fan of bare URLs, as those are prone to link rot, so I know I personally would put a bit more detail.
None of the ALT text uses a full sentence, so no period is needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all periods from the alt texts but I'm not sure what details to add for the urls. Volcanoguy 18:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd generally add "Flickr, accessed xxxx-xx-xx" just so that there is evidence of when the link was still active. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Volcanoguy 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks muchly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History6042's comments

"Mount Edziza's ice cap" -> "Mount Edziza's ice cap,"
Done. Volcanoguy 22:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"crudely bedded tuff breccia exposed" This has two link next to each other which looks like one link. This should be fixed.
This is only required when it's possible to avoid two links next to each other per WP:SEAOFBLUE. Volcanoguy 22:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"lava flows which are exposed" -> "lava flows that are exposed"
I think the current wording is correct. Volcanoguy 22:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Armadillo Formation underlies the Nido Formation" -> "Armadillo Formation underlie the Nido Formation"
Done. Volcanoguy 22:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when done and I'll support unless I find more issues. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@History6042: I've responded to all of your comments. Volcanoguy 22:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

"ages as old as 0.011 ± 0.033 million years": just checking that this is intentional: is this missing a zero in the second number? The error bars are bigger than the measurement. Same comment for "950 CE ± 6,000 years ago".
Those numbers are used in the cited sources. Volcanoguy 21:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I've simplified these two ages. Volcanoguy 23:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- I think that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any chance of a map showing the cone in relation to the other local topographic features named in the article? E.g. Sezill Creek, Tencho Glacier, Ornostay Bluff, Koosick Bluff. Not required for FA but would be very helpful if it can be created.
I'm not aware of there being a useable map of these features, although they are labeled in the Souther 1988 geologic map cited in the article. Volcanoguy 21:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see to comment on. I have no geological expertise, and I can't say I fully understand some of the technical language, but everything that I think needs to be linked for clarity is linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a major caveat

Up-front note to coordinators and other reviewers: I was linked to this page on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Licancabur/archive1, which is being reviewed. So it's a bit of a quid-pro-quo review and should be evaluated with this caveat in mind:

"Prominent" in the lead, is it simply an adjective or a technical term?
It's referring to topographic prominence so I've linked it to that article. You've also used it in the lead of the Licancabur article. Volcanoguy 17:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are the hyphens or dashes between the values in the first paragraph of Geography correct? I honestly don't recall what the correct formatting is here.
Yes. Volcanoguy 16:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"less than 1 metre (3.3 feet) to more than 1 metre (3.3 feet)" could that be turned into a single statement?
Changed to "less than to more than 1 metre (3.3 feet)". Volcanoguy 17:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"has been modified by glacial erosion" would it flow better as "eroded by the glaciers"?
I think it's fine how it is. Volcanoguy 19:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Image licence, ALT and use seem OK to me.
Source formatting seems OK to me, nothing that jumps out to me as inappropriate.
Structure and length are fine.

@Mike Christie: Sometimes radiometric dating yields dates so inexact that the error bar exceeds the date. I believe that nowadays they are often discarded, but they are technically speaking valid output (and often mean "really young"). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checked some more things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And did some spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

Source review - spotchecks not done.

Further reading entries should use |ref=none
Done. Volcanoguy 01:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ash Fall should include number. Ditto Holland
Why? Volcanoguy 01:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's part of the metadata that identifies these sources. Why not? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess because I don't understand why those sources should have page numbers while others shouldn't. Volcanoguy 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not page number - issue/report numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I added the issue number for the Ash Fall source, but {{cite report}} doesn't seem to have |issue= so I used |volume=. I'm not sure if that's correct. Volcanoguy 17:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imam: what edition is being cited here? The date seems to correspond to the second edition, but I'm not finding that author attribution associated with that edition
It's indeed the 2nd edition. What is the author attribution for this source? Volcanoguy 02:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've reformatted this source as "McGraw Hill (2003). Dictionary of Geology and Mineralogy (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill Education. ISBN 0-07-141044-9". Is this correct? Volcanoguy 03:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No - if there is no author named then that parameter should be omitted (and the short cites updated). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 16:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Korteniemi ref is missing editor
I don't know who the editor is. Volcanoguy 02:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's indicated at the link provided? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Added Henrik Hargitai and Ákos Kereszturi as editors. Volcanoguy 17:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wood and Kienle appear to be editors rather than authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 01:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

I'll do a prose check.

Lede is good.
Did Souther coin the name or did he have someone else coin this term? (or is this unknown)
The name was probably coined by Souther, but I couldn't find a source to back that. Volcanoguy 14:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the southern end of the Big Raven Plateau is the Snowshoe Lava Field, of which Tennena Cone is a part I think you can reverse the clauses to make this more clear - "Tennena Cone is a part of the Snowshoe Lava Field, which lies at the southern end of the Big Raven Plateau"
Yes, but shouldn't the Big Raven Plateau be mentioned first since that part of the article is describing the plateau? Volcanoguy 15:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fair point! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have, great job. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And support. :) Good job, as always! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

To follow in a couple of days. - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make consistent your capitalisation into one format. At present it's a mix of sentence case and title case. It doesn't matter which one you choose, but it needs to be the same throughout.
Huh? Volcanoguy 20:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of what the sources use. I'm not aware of a guideline stating all sources should use a single format. Volcanoguy 20:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WIAFA 2c. Consistently formatted citations is covered there. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see single formating in WP:CITE. Volcanoguy 20:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your call, but I’ve been asked to make them consistent in many of the 80+ articles I’ve taken through FAC and I won’t pass a source review unless they are. Nikkimaria, you’ve probably done more source reviews than any other editor on the project: are we supposed to make the capitalisation of sources consistent? - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What sources should be converted to use capitalization? Volcanoguy 21:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all sources were to use capitalization format, how is that consistent with the sources being cited if they use sentence format? Volcanoguy 21:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TITLECAPS is the guidance on capitalization format for work titles, but it does include an allowance for predefined citation styles that prescribe a different format. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: So are you saying the use of different title formats in the Tennena Cone article is okay for FA? If so, I won't change anything. Volcanoguy 21:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it should be consistent but doesn't need to the way that TITLECAPS recommends. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy, it's up to you which style you want to use (whether sentence case or title case), as long as they are consistent. Generally I've seen books taking title case and chapters with sentence case; journals with title case and their articles with sentence case and news articles with either. - SchroCat (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought several articles to FA and I don't recall having to do this consistency BS. With that being said, I'm not doing anything about it since I'm not familiar with this and I find it nonsensical. I might as well just stop participating in FAC. Volcanoguy 00:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it nonsensical? We have an MoS that says to be consistent - and that makes sense. At the moment the titles are “consistent with the sources being cited” which means they follow the style guides of multiple different publishers, which really is nonsensical. It’s your call if you don’t want to spend ten minutes changing a small number of titles. - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then tell me what "small number of titles" you're referring to. Volcanoguy 16:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell you that as I don't know what formatting you want to use (I can't say 'change Smith from title to sentence case' if you're going to use title case). You'll have to look at each of them to ensure they follow a set pattern. Your websites, for example, seem to be in title case, but "Souther, J. G. (1988). Diagrammatic cross-sections" and "Stikine volcanic belt: Mount Edziza" both aren't. You've probably spent more time pushing back on something that's in the MOS than it will take you to check and alter the ones that aren't consistent. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: I've applied title case to all of the sources, not sure if I missed anything. Volcanoguy 14:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No other formatting issues. No problems with reliability or coverage. - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pass source review - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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