Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Newberry Volcano/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 April 2019 [1].

Newberry Volcano

Nominator(s): ceranthor 16:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the largest volcano in the Cascade arc. It's been a long time coming, but I think this is a comprehensive and well-written account of a major volcano. ceranthor 16:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by JJE

My peer review comments here were meant to be the equivalent of a FAC review, including point by point review against FAC criteria. They are resolved, so I'll support right away. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jo-Jo Eumerus. ceranthor 16:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In passing, I notice two words that look like BrE in anotherwise AmE article: "amphitheatre" and "centimetre". I'm not sure the mention of Rhode Island in the lead is especially helpful to an international readership. The ISBNs are inconsistently hyphenated. And I think it is usual to indicate among the online sources which ones are subscription only. But these are exceedingly minor points, and the article is readable and clear. It looks, to my inexpert eye, to be comprehensive, and is thoroughly and widely referenced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks for these detailed comments. I changed the BrE spellings and dropped the RI mention from the lead (but kept in the main body). Is there a systematic way to check to see if the articles are subscription only (perhaps incognito mode in Chrome would be useful for that)? Likewise, is there a source that lists ISBNs for all book sources that I could use, since Google Books / Amazon don't seem to include the hyphens for ISBNs. ceranthor 13:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any systematic way of checking which sites are free and which need a subscription. Presumably you had to log in somewhere to view the latter? For those sites the {{subscription}} template can be added to the citation. If you are going to follow up the point about ISBNs (and I'm not entirely sure I'd be so thorough in your position, but don't say I said so) the way I get hyphens in 13-digit ISBNs is to go to https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter, input the un- or part-hyphenated ISBN to get the 10-digit version and then copy and paste the 10-digit number into the converter and lo - the 13 digit number appears, complete with hyphens. It's something of a fiddle-faddle, and there may be a better method if I only knew it. Tim riley talk 13:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. I'll use that for the ISBNs, and I'll let you know when I figure out the subscription issue. Thanks. ceranthor 13:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Think I got all the ones that weren't public/open access. Thanks! ceranthor 14:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All looking admirable now, in my view. Looking forward to seeing the article on the front page. Tim riley talk 22:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:John_Strong_Newberry.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Sorry, can you clarify the 70 years ago bit of your comment? Per Commons:Hirtle_chart, I would think that this being published prior to 1924 would make it fall under PD. I changed to the standard US-PD template. ceranthor 13:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because you were using the {{PD-old}} template which refers to authors who died over 70 years ago. Now it's using the correct template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, understood. Thanks for clarifying. ceranthor 17:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Spotchecks not carried out
The sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability
All links to sources have been tested and are working
Formatting. There is a small inconsistency relating to the locations of publishers of book sources. In a couple of cases (Harris, Kienle & Wood) you give the location, in other cases you don't. Otherwise sources are presented uniformly and consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thanks, Brian, for noticing the location discrepancy. Is it generally better to include location for all book sources in your estimation? ceranthor 19:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to do it, but I don't insist if you feel otherwise. It's a very small point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Went ahead and removed the locations for consistency. Thanks for the review. ceranthor 20:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

Great stuff, just a few niggles, may be more when I finish reading Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

its northernmost to southernmost point;— why not from north to south?
known as Newberry Caldera— I'm not sure this needs saying twice, certainly shouldn't be bolded twice
12,000 acre feet in volume —needs conversion to metric

I wasn't able to find an acre-foot conversion. Is there an equivalent in metric? ceranthor 17:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most straightforward is to km3. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Animals near Newberry Volcano consist of burrowing owls...— flesh and bones is more likely, include is better
0.0012 to 0.4363 square miles (0.3 to 113 ha) — elsewhere you have used acres for small areas, inconsistent to use fractional sq mi here

@Jimfbleak: Thanks, these were helpful. Think I've addressed them all, except for the acre-foot one, which I've replied to above. ceranthor 17:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the acre-foot, I guess you would have to manually convert to cubic metres, but I'll leave that with you. Otherwise all looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for the support, Jim! ceranthor 18:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Sarastro1: Wanted to check in and see if this nomination was missing any elements necessary for review? I think it's had a thorough source review and image review, though I suppose it might still need spotchecks. ceranthor 14:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: We just haven't gotten to this one yet in our recent passes through the list. I'll be checking it out soon! --Laser brain (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2019 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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