Talk:Itcha Range

Itcha Range 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: January 5, 2015. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Volcanoes: Canada Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Volcanism of Canada task force (assessed as High-importance).

Canada: British Columbia / Geography Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

Mountains Mid‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

A fact from Itcha Range appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 August 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Itcha Range in British Columbia is an inactive shield volcano formed between 3.8 and 0.8 million years ago?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Itcha Range.

Wikipedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 16:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be your GA reviewer for this article. First glance looks pretty good. Give me a little time, and I'll see if there's anything that needs to be done for the green button, and try to provide some feedback in case you're looking to push for the gold star later. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1a (clear and concise): Mostly good, but see below.

1b (MOS compliant): Lead is good. Table inclusion is MOS-compliant. One duplicate link.

2a (references): Mostly good, but see below.

2b (cited statements): Good.

2c (not OR): No problems.

3a (broad coverage): Good.

3b (summary style): No problems.

4 (neutral): No problems.

5 (stable): No problems.

6a (image tagging): Looks good here.

6b (image use/captions): Image choice is very impressive. Captions are good. FAC will want alt text for all of them, but that's not a concern here.

(1a) I'd definitely pipe a link to dissected plateau for dissected.

Where does the article mention a dissected plateau? Volcanoguy 21:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1a) "relief efforts would be quickly organized": This seems a bit informal, and I think you can drop it by combining this sentence with the following one, without any loss of meaning.

Like this: "If volcanic eruptions were to resume at the Itcha Range, teams such as the Interagency Volcanic Event Notification Plan (IVENP) are prepared to notify people threatened by volcanic eruptions in Canada"? Volcanoguy 21:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1a) "Volcanism then shifted eastwards, in displacement contrary with the North American Plate's movement": The use of "contrary" here makes this read as though the volcanism track moved in the opposite direction of what was expected; that's not the case, of course, and I'm pretty sure that's not what you're trying to say.

The North American Plate and volcanism in the Anahim Volcanic Belt move in opposite directions. Volcanoguy 19:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1a) Wouldn't hurt to link Hazelton Group and perhaps redlink Ootsa Lake Group (even if our stratigraphy stubs need a lot of work).

Done. Volcanoguy 20:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1b) One duplicate link: stream, and a piped link from creek, both in Geography / Location and terrain.

Removed duplicate link. Volcanoguy 20:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(2a) What is Summary Technical Report on the Clisbako Property? With no publication information, identifying number, or weblink, I can't judge the reliability of this source.

The web link appears to be this. The information cited in the article is from section 7.0 Geological Setting and Mineralization: "The Clisbako property is located in the northern part of the Chilcotin Plateau (Figure 6). More specifically, it is situated in the south central part of the Anahim Volcanic Belt along an east-west trend defined by three peralkaline shield volcano complexes (Rainbow Range, Ilgachuz Range, Itcha Range) that comprise the western part of the belt." Volcanoguy 21:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced that source with this. Volcanoguy 04:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(2a) Is there any more publication information for "General Assembly of the Chilcotin Nation: A Declaration of Sovereignty"? Not that I doubt the veracity of the source, mind you. Actually, for that matter, is there an alternative source for the name's origins, rather than needing to rely on a political statement?

I have tried to find a better source but with no success. The given source was most likely published by the Chilcotin Nation (Tsilhqot'in). Volcanoguy 20:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a few other notes that I don't think are strictly GA criteria issues:

Is Itcha Lake worth a redlink? It's the source of the Chilcotin River, so it's at least a feasible article topic.

Yes I think so. Linked it. Volcanoguy 20:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I might consider rolling the Volcanic hazards / Effects section into Human history / Protection and monitoring. There isn't all that much to say in the Effects section (as expected for volcanoes in the middle of nowhere), and it would make sense to talk about what those effects might be in the same context as the monitoring and response plans. But that's likely your discretion.

I did some reorganizing to try and make things better. The monitoring bit does not really belong in the history section since it does not really have anything to do with history. So I grouped the monitoring and volcanic hazards information to form a new section. The new "Occupation" section is a bit short but can be expanded with at least two more paragraphs. Volcanoguy 08:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have added two more paragraphs in the "Occupation" section. Volcanoguy 00:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real MOS guidance on the order of links in a See Also section. Here, I might move List of volcanoes in Canada to the bottom (so that the links appear in order of increasing geographic area discussed). But alphabetical is fine, too.

Done. Volcanoguy 21:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazco Cone reference is formatted in an entirely different manner than the rest of the Catalogue of Canadian volcanoes sources. Probably not an issue for GA, but people (like me, actually!) will ding you on reference format inconsistencies at FAC.

Is this a serious issue? If it is I have no problem formatting it like the rest of the Catalogue of Canadian volcanoes sources. Nazko's format is for a paper but the information in the paper is also available as a web source under the same titles so it should not be hard to translate it. Volcanoguy 20:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a GA criterion at all, so wouldn't stand in the way of promotion regardless. I suspect there may be more bibliographic information to add to the reference for a paper version, but I'm not going to quibble, especially at GAN. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very little of this is serious, and I have no doubt that I'll be able to promote this after a few quick tweaks. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

Reviewer Squeamish Ossifrage hasn't edited on Wikipedia since October 2, the day this review was opened. As this review has been abandoned, the nomination is being returned to the reviewing pool, where it will hopefully get some attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Itcha Range/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This does look like a worthy GA article. I'll finish this review within a day or two at the most. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

"It is located 40 km (25 mi)" - should miles (imperial) usually be in front of kilometres (metric)? I've never seen this before. Seeing as that this is used in the whole article, I wouldn't say that this would affect the GAN

No, countries that use metric instead of imperial measurements usually have kilometres in front of miles in their articles, at least in geographical/geological ones anyway. Volcanoguy 19:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand as this is an article about a range, not a specific location ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slight WP:OVERLINKING in the Flora and fauna section

Removed. Volcanoguy 19:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that table necessary in the Parasitic cones section? Its length disrupts the flow of the prose - can it be collapsed or cut back if it is essential to the article?

I tried collapsing it but didn't work out too well. How exactly does it disrupt the flow of the prose? Volcanoguy 19:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I don't think it would derail a GAN so if you prefer we could leave it in ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Occupation section only mention the indigenous people or can it expand more on the more contemporary colonisation?

Indigenous people are the primary group in this part of British Columbia. Volcanoguy 19:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"One particular ranch, the Home Ranch, used the Blackwater Trail" - what is this? A road? Natural causeway?

I have linked "Blackwater Trail" to the Alexander MacKenzie Heritage Trail article. Volcanoguy 19:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

No dead links
Citations are in the correct places so this meets the criteria

On hold

Sorry this took so long. I like the way this article is written; it is broad, comprehensive and easy to read/understand. This is among the most well written articles I have reviewed but as with 90% of my reviews, I put them on hold once the more technical issues are out of the way (in order to perfect the article). It is also a rule in the GA cup which I am currently participating in that straight up passes are not allowed, but under the circumstances I would have put this on hold anyway. Please let me know when everything is addressed, this should have little problems passing ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thanks for clarifying them. As I mentioned above the table shouldn't affect a GAN but I originally thought it left a space too long. Anyway, this article is well written, broad and well referenced. Pure GA material ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]