Talk:Cima volcanic field

Cima volcanic field has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 11, 2018. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Cima volcanic field appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 October 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that humans carved petroglyphs into the cooled lava flows of the Cima volcanic field (pictured)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cima volcanic field.

Wikipedia

Volcanoes Low‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cima volcanic field/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ceranthor (talk · contribs) 19:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. ceranthor 19:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"continued into the latest Pleistocene." - the "latest" Pleistocene?

Geography and geology

You should reintroduce that it's in California
"The Cima volcanoes are part of the Mojave National Preserve and since 1973 they make up the Cinder Cones National Natural Landmark.[11][7]" - if there's more about this landmark, you should write a brief human history section on that
link petroglyph?
"In more modern time" - too vague; have a timeline from the source?
" to obtain material for road construction" - think it should be "materials"
"finally volcanoes in the western Basin and Range " - I'd add "Province" after "Basin and Range"
Add a parenthetical for felsic to explain briefly what it means?
"The Cima volcanic field is part of the Mojave Desert, which in turn belongs to the Basin and Range province and features both mountains exceeding 2,000 metres (6,600 ft) height which trend in southeast-northwest direction, with broad valleys between the mountains.[24]" - think this is redundant since you already mentioned the Mojave and Basin/Range and linked them both. I'd cut that part out and expand on the mountains of 6,600ft+ height; or perhaps move this to another part of the section, or the original introduction of the Mojave desert?
"The youngest cone (35°10′53″N 115°49′1″W) in the southwestern part of the field is called Black Tank cone,[30] an older vent lies just south-southwest of it.[31]" - run-on
Ranges should use an endash, rather than a hyphen

More to come after. ceranthor 23:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Latest" Pleistocene basically means "shortly before the Holocene". For some reason, there is little discussion out there about the history of the Cinder Cones National Natural Landmark. That paragraph about mountains and valleys is supposed to explain the Mojave Desert a little. I think I got the rest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"covered by blocks with sizes of up to 0.5 metres (1 ft 8 in).[42]" - sizes? which dimension are you referring to here? length? width?
Some repetitive linking in the lower half of this section

Got the links, I don't think that "blocks" usually have a preferred shape that requires one to specify "length" or "width". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Climate and vegetation

" average temperatures of 16–18 °C (61–64 °F) and average precipitation amounting to 150–250 millimetres per year (5.9–9.8 in/year).[38]"- elsewhere you used ranges from max-min, don't switch here - keep consistent throughout
Think you've already linked Holocene in the body
brief description of what "playas" are
"Vegetation in the area includes brittle bush, creosote bush and Mormon tea, and is classified as a scrub community" - second half of this sentence reads awkwardly
"Vegetation grows in clusters separated by soil covered by desert pavement,[58] the youngest cone is unvegetated[59] and little vegetation has developed on other recent volcanic vents and lava flows.[60]" - run-on sentence

Resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eruptive history

Pleistocene has surely already been linked in the body text, same with Holocene and Miocene
"Activity has been subdivided into five phases" - why "subdivided" rather than just "divided"?

I think that subdivision is the more normal term for time periods, it's not the "split" ("division") that is being discussed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References and Images

Refs seem reliable and look properly formatted
Citations should be in ascending order - [1][2][3] rather than [3][2][1]
Earwig's tool checks out
Images seem to be used properly and appropriately licensed

I think the order is set automatically? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and changed them - do you see what I was referring to now? A nitpick for sure, but distracting IMO for people reading closely who pay attention to formatting things like that. ceranthor 16:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I get it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Once these are addressed, I'll be happy to pass. ceranthor 12:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passing, but I still think there's more to write about the Landmark and human history of the area. See, for example: [1]. ceranthor 18:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]