Talk:Three Sisters (Oregon)

Untitled

Moved from Talk:Three Sisters

External Links

The link to the CNN article seems invalid. :/

Move

I don't think I did the move request right, but there it is. I don't see these three sisters in Oregon as being more notable than the other mountain ranges or other meanings of the word so I suggest the first page be disambig. Mithridates 01:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree Pollinator 02:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree --- Google test: 196K results for "Three Sisters" Oregon, 1.78M for "Three Sisters". Doesn't dominate. -- hike395 04:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Tried to move it just now but I wasn't able to move the disambig page into the main one so I just put it back for the moment. Now that I think about it I should be asleep now. Maybe someone else can help. Mithridates 21:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorting out the move now (I came to this page looking for a Chekhov play!). The Singing Badger 18:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Renaming disambiguation page

Please note that there has been a proposal to make the default for "Three Sisters" the Chekhov play rather than the disambiguation page. Please refer here to express your view. Somno (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes on my edit

First: I tried to improve the appearance of the article. To fix the line spacing, between the three elevations, prominences and coordinates, I ran everything together on one line for each field. Look at the prior version to see the problem this fixed.

Second: I used PeakBagger as the source for elevation and prominence data for all three mountains. The prior version used NGS as the source for the elevation of the South Sister. The elevation on the NGS datasheet uses NAVD 88 while Peakbagger and the on current topo maps uses NGVD 29. I think its better to use the same datum for all three. –droll [chat] 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Three Sisters (Oregon)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Neonblak (talk · contribs) 17:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I should have a review posted within a day or two. I look forward to assisting you in promoting this interesting article ! Neonblak ^talk - 17:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Comments below have been reviewed, and corrected as needed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Layout is correct, and all sections are properly constructed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All references are properly, and consistently, formatted.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All photos have proper licencing.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All photos are valuable in illustrating the topic.
	7. Overall assessment.	A finely written article, great job.

Lead

• "The Three Sisters form a complex volcano comprised by three volcanic peaks of the Cascade Volcanic Arc and the Cascade Range in the U.S. state of Oregon, each exceeding 10,000 feet (3,000 m) in elevation. They are the third, fourth, and fifth highest peaks in the state of Oregon, and are located in the Three Sisters Wilderness, about 10 miles (16 km) south of the nearest town of Sisters." - Volcano used three times in one sentence. This might flow better, "The Three Sisters form a complex volcano comprised of three named peaks in the U. S. State of Oregon. It is inside of the Cascade Volcanic Arc, and located in the Three Sisters Wilderness, about 10 miles (16 km) south of it's nearest town of Sisters. Each peak exceeds 10,000 feet (3,000 m) in elevation, and they are the third, fourth, and fifth highest peaks in the state."

  Should look better now. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Geography and geology

• " The region was active in the Pleistocene epoch, with eruptions between 700,000 and 170,000 years ago from an explosively active complex known as the Tumalo volcanic center. Basaltic lava flows from North Sister overlay the newest Tumalo pyroclastic deposits, placing the age of North Sister, the eldest, at less than 170,000 years." - Is the 700,000 a typo? If North Sister is the oldest at about 170,000 years old, and the South Sister's last eruption was about 2,000 years ago, shouldn't the eruption range be from 2,000 to 170,000 years?

  I don't have the Harris book, but I think that the 700,000 refers to when the Tumalo volcanic center began erupting, before the formation of the North Sister volcano. I imagine that these age estimates vary quite a bit depending on what exact rocks/deposits are measured and how, so there's not likely to be full agreement among sources. But I will ask the nominator, Ceranthor, if he can find the answer in that book. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  Just want to confirm that the sentence does refer to the activity timespan for the Tumalo volcanic center. I think that the current text conveys that fairly well. Do you have suggestions for clarifying that idea? ceranthor 17:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Just the answer was enough for this layman to understand. During the review, I constantly had to remind myself of the area as a single entity, other than just the time period of the individual mountains. That should conclude my concerns on this article, and will pass this now. Thank you for your time and effort.Neonblak ^talk - 19:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Flora and fauna

• "... and they feature the flowers lupine, red Indian paintbrush, ..." - I think this sounds better, "... and they feature the following flowers: lupine, red Indian paintbrush, ..."

  Done. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• "In addition to predator bobcats, cougars, and coyotes, raccoons, martens, weasels, and American minks can be found throughout the Three Sisters area." - Instead of "can be", you should use active wording like "are" or "are also". I think American mink sounds better, but it can be pluralized mink or minks, so no need to change.

  Changed to "American minks live throughout" Jsayre64 (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review, Neonblak. You happened to pass the article while I was at the Three Sisters, believe it or not. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome, my pleasure. Lucky you, bet the weather was great, everywhere else in the state was.Neonblak ^talk - 21:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Like Congrats on the GA! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent history and potential hazards

@Ceranthor: what do you think of making this section a sub-section under Geography and geology? This would create a very long beginning section, but currently all of the last section's content falls under those categories. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I've always preferred keeping potential hazards at the end of volcano articles, since it's the most contemporarily relevant information. ceranthor 01:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jsayre64 and Ceranthor: Agree with Jsayre64, see below. —hike395 (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Hi, Ceranthor. Geography is off my beaten track, but the article which is looking good from a layman's point of view. Just some minor comments from me, mostly technical.

• Maybe wiki-link Oregon? It is not a very well-known US state like California, Nevada etc.
• The final paragraph has three consecutive sentences with two clauses. This is nothing concerning but it looks sort of repetitive to me.
• Images need WP:ALT.
  • Working on this. Thanks for the reminder.
• North Sister, also known as "Faith," - I think comma after quotation mark. It might be a MoS thing but as it currently is, it seems the comma is part of Faith's title.
• Middle Sister also known as "Hope,", South Sister, also known as "Charity," - same as above.
• The smallest and least studied of the trio, it is the youngest of the three, having been primarily built by eruptions between 25,000 and 18,000 years ago,[36] though its most recent lava flows date to 14,000 years ago, making them slightly older than South Sister's. Too long; needs to be split.
• Despite its relatively young age, besides its peak South Sister has undergone significant erosion due to Pleistocene and Holocene glaciation This needs some rearranging. Despite ... besides.
  • Changed to "Despite its relatively young age, every part of South Sister other than its peak has undergone significant erosion due to Pleistocene and Holocene glaciation."

I have read till Climbing and recreation section. FrB.TG (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: All addressed I think except the alt text, which I'm going to work on shortly. ceranthor 20:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Update - alt text has been added, though I'm happy to take suggestions for making it better. ceranthor 21:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Three Sisters vicinity with tilt-leveling networks and electro-optical distance meters (EDMs) - why do we need the initial when there is no subsequent use of it?
• In 2004 an earthquake swarm occurred with.. a comma after 2004.
• Might be worth wiki-linking global positioning system.
• No comments on the references, not familiar with most of them.

And that's it. FrB.TG (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC) @Ceranthor: ping me once you get this to FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Will do - have to add a little more content I think, but hopefully it'll be there soon! ceranthor 16:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the review! I've started an FAC. ceranthor 23:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

For geology, one topic that's missing is the hazards posed by the volcanoes. One source is here: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/three_sisters/three_sisters_hazard_98.html , which talks about lahars down the local drainage rivers.

The whole geology/geography section might benefit from subsections.

The text on the topographic map is probably too small to be a useful image: perhaps you could wikilink to the topographic map somewhere? The USGS hazards map has larger text, but may be too specialized. How about something like File:Cascade Range map.png ? That shows the location of the Three Sisters relative to other volcanoes. Maybe cropping it to just Oregon?

Happy to do any of these edits, but didn't want to do them unilaterally during FAC. —hike395 (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hike395: Hazards is covered in the article's very last section. I agree that subsections might help in geology/geography. I can work on the other suggestions tomorrow when I wake up. ceranthor 04:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Thanks for pointing out the last section. I was expecting all of the information about geology to be contained within the Geography and Geology section. If other readers are like myself, I would suggest splitting Geology out of Geography, and combining with hazards (perhaps as a subsection of Geology?). The USGS hazards map could be appropriate in the hazards subsection. —hike395 (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Later: Cropped the tall USGS Cascades volcanoes image to just Oregon, available on Commons here. We can replace the local topo map with this one, if editors agree. One natural place for this map is in the infobox. What do others think? —hike395 (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to just add this image to the geography and geology section. I'm open to the idea of moving the hazards section. ceranthor 15:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hike395: @Jsayre64: Any other changes we should implement? ceranthor 23:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: It's looking excellent. I've found an image of Teardrop Pool here that I wanted to upload to Commons and add to the South Sister section, but the OAuth tool seems broken for me. I'll try a manual upload. —hike395 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the rearranging of sections that has been done. I noticed the format now mirrors the Featured Article Trout Creek Mountains (geography, geology, ecology, then human uses/recreation). Jsayre64 (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the standard over at WP:WikiProject Mountains. I found a picture of Carver Lake (one of the moraine-dammed lakes), I can add it to the Geography section. —hike395 (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks for all your additions over the past couple days. Your combined input has been invaluable, and I'm thrilled with the article's current status. ceranthor 00:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I'm going through the geology more carefully now: there's some contradictory information (like the introductory section saying North Sister is younger than 170,000 years but the North Sister section saying it's as old as 311,000 years). I'm digging up the sources, so may do a bit of geology polish. I'm not a real geologist -- if you want a real geologist, I would suggest pinging Vsmith. —hike395 (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Fiddled a bit - more time later (maybe). Vsmith (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Ecology section

I just expanded the ecology section. According to the USGS ecoregion maps, the area around the Three Sisters lie in 4 different ecoregions (depending on elevation and location). I took some material from Cascades (ecoregion) and Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills (ecoregion), condensed it, and built a short new ecology section around that. (Found an interesting thesis about the ecology of the area, also --- we could further expand this section with information from that thesis). The new material was partially taken from PD USGS sources.

The feature article criteria don't address PD material --- I believe it should be OK. If other editors think it's unaesthetic, we can either back out the edits or attempt to rewrite. It may be difficult to rewrite enough to remove the PD tag, because the material includes lists of species. —hike395 (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hike395: I don't have much free time today, but perhaps tonight I'll try to get around to copyediting it a bit. I'd rather not incorporate direct text from another source if that's okay. And it's not a ton of material, so it shouldn't be too big a deal to paraphrase in our own words. ceranthor 20:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Just got a chance to look over it - it looks good. I asked with Brian at the FAC to see if that's acceptable or not, since I don't actually know. ceranthor 23:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Some possible sources for fire info

See here and here. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jsayre64: I added some material to this section. What do you think? ceranthor 18:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I really like how it looks now. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Many hands

I thought the level of cooperation on getting this to FA was especially impressive. Kudos to Ceranthor and all the other editors who pitched in. Finetooth (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Finetooth: A special thanks to you, FrB.TG, Cas Liber, Ceoil, Wehwalt, and of course Jsayre and Hike395 for your thorough prose/comprehensiveness suggestions, and to Brian and Nikkimaria for their image and source reviews. I too was thoroughly impressed and incredibly grateful for all the help you provided! ceranthor 17:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

And Vsmith, who knows a lot more about geology than I. Finetooth (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Congrats! It was an excellent read. I’m glad I could help in any way. FrB.TG (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Like Great work, all! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Join the choir, love collaboration and the result! Proud to have a little DYK on this feast day, talking (in a 1653 song) about the offer of spirit and mind, heart, soul and courage. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)