Talk:Twin Buttes (California)

Twin Buttes (California) 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: April 23, 2023. (Reviewed version).

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

Geology Low‑importance Talk:Twin Buttes (California) is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Volcanoes Low‑importance 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 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.

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

Reviewer: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 17:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very pleased to be able to review another very strong article from User:Ceranthor. Here are a few comments – mostly suggestions for minor rephrasings. Mertbiol (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The terms "volcano" or "volcanic" appear at least once in every sentence in the lead section. I suggest trying to rephrase to cut out a few occurrences.
• I suggest replacing "The volcanoes are part of…" with "They are part of…" in the second sentence.
• The term "hotbed" seems a little informal to me. I suggest rephrasing the rest of the second sentence so that it reads "…part of the Bidwell Spring chain, in a region that was active in the Quaternary." or "…part of the Bidwell Spring chain, in a region that was a focus of volcanic activity in the Quaternary." or similar.
• The third sentence is a little long. I suggest rephrasing the third and fourth sentences to read "Formed during the Pleistocene between 25,000 and 15,000 years ago, the volcanoes erupted lava flows that coursed toward the Burney Mountain lava dome. These lava flows cover an area of 3.9 square miles (10.1 km2) and are made of basalt and dacite. The volcanoes also erupted cinder and volcanic ash to the east."
• I would be tempted to start a new paragraph with "The volcanoes were still monitored...", but that would give a single sentence paragraph. There is a definite change of time period at this point and I feel that a more definite break than a period (full stop) is needed.
• I suggest changing the start of the final sentence to "The Twin Buttes were still monitored..."

All should now be fixed. ceranthor 15:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest changing the url for reference [3] (Clynne and Muffler) so that it directs to [1].
• I am not sure that the meaning of "aligned north–northwest" is clear. Ref [3] says "aligned north–south" and it would probably be better to use this description.
• I cannot verify "lie at the center of the Bidwell Spring volcanic chain" from ref [3], which instead says "in northwest part of Bidwell Spring chain" (although this relates to the lava flow and not to the cinder cones).

Fixed the first point. I think you may have referred to the wrong page perhaps? On page 70 of the PDF, see "bdt"; it states "Block lava flows and two large well-preserved northnorthwest-aligned cinder cones of sparsely porphyritic ol basalt (52.8% SiO2) in central part of Bidwell Spring chain." So disagree with the second/third points per that. ceranthor 15:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence of this section is a little long and a little difficult to read on the first attempt. I suggest rephrasing to "The subduction of the oceanic Juan de Fuca tectonic plate under the North American plate produced the Cascade Volcanic Arc, of which the Twin Buttes, and other volcanoes near Lassen Peak, form part." or “The Cascade Volcanic Arc, of which the Twin Buttes, and other volcanoes near Lassen Peak, form part, was produced by the subduction of the oceanic Juan de Fuca tectonic plate under the North American plate." or "The Twin Buttes, and other volcanoes near Lassen Peak, form part of the Cascade Volcanic Arc. The arc is the product of the subduction of the oceanic Juan de Fuca tectonic plate under the North American plate."
• I suggest changing the url for reference [5] (Clynne et al.) so that it directs to [2].
• Should "Volcanic activity is also influenced..." be "Volcanic activity was also influenced..."?
• I am unclear what is meant by "westward expansion of the Basin and Range Province into the Cascades". The Basin and Range Province article does not mention a "westward expansion". Should this sentence read "Volcanic activity was also influenced by the proximity of the Basin and Range Province to the east of the Cascades."? (I do not have access to ref [7].)
• Should "Volcanic activity during the Quaternary has consisted of..." be "Volcanic activity during the Quaternary has produced..."?
• I suggest changing "These determinations…" to "The isotope ratios…"

Think my edits for first comment are ok. Fixed second. Third, westward expansion refers to westward extension of the province into the Cascades, which produces faults and cracks that allow for magma to reach the surface. Fixed the last two comments. ceranthor 15:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The term "hotbed" seems a little informal to me (see comment above).
• Should "Eruptive material consisted of basalt (including picrite basalt) and dacite." be "Erupted material consists of basalt (including picrite basalt) and dacite."?
• Would "with up to 33 feet (10 m) of relief" be better rephrased as "with a depth of up to 33 feet (10 m)."?

Changed to "Located in an area that was highly active during the Quaternary." I have never used the present tense for eruptive material, since the eruption happened back then... I'm not sure present tense makes sense. And no, I think relief and depth are distinct concepts (relief is really just the difference in elevation between two points, whereas depth implies a "bottom"), so I would prefer to keep it as is if that's okay. ceranthor 15:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest removing the * bullet point indicators from this section.

Without the bullet points there will be no spacing between [a] and [b]. This is the format I've used in multiple featured articles - what's the objection to using bullet points?

• Is there any information available on the ecology of the area?
• Are there any significant trails for walkers/bikes/off-road vehicles?

I've spent the past two days combing for more sources without much luck. There just isn't anything available from reliable sources as far as I can tell. ceranthor 12:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have checked [1], [2], [3] (see comments above), [4], [5] (see comment above), [10], [11], [13], [15], [16].

That's all for the first read through. A great article, already very close to GA standard. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mertbiol, thanks for the insightful feedback. I've implemented a lot of your suggestions and responded elsewhere where I disagreed/had further questions. Thanks, ceranthor 12:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mertbiol: I realize my previous comment may not have given a ping, so for that purpose just adding one. ceranthor 13:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Apologies for not responding sooner. It has been a pleasure to review this very interesting and highly informative article. Congratulations to @Ceranthor: for his hard work to bring this nomination forward. I pleased to be able to promote this article to GA status. Great job!!! Mertbiol (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]