Talk:Chaos Crags

Chaos Crags 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: February 20, 2018. (Reviewed version).

Volcanoes 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.

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.

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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 19:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take me a couple days to complete this review. It is not necessary to wait for me to finish my notes before you start updating. All of my comments are up for discussion, please don't feel like you have to accept every recommendation I make. Once complete, I'll be using this review to score points in the 2018 wikicup.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Lead
"1,100-1,000 years ago" is it standard to list the higher number first? I know it is when using BC dates, but it seems counterintuitive when it's an age estimate.
I think it's usually oldest to newest per MOS:DATERANGE.

"Lassen Peak, and form " - comma not needed, form should be plural
Fixed.

" typically drying " - this is fine as is, but I think it would read better as "and typically dries"
Changed.

"flattened the forest] " - stray bracket needs to be removed
Fixed.

"numerous tree, plant, and animal species" - trees are a subset of plants. Is there a reason to set it apart?
Fixed.

Geography
"Crags Lake,[8] or the Chaos" - comma not needed
Fixed.

"cool temperatures near the shores, but grows colder " - I think and would fit better here than but, since cool and colder are similar.
Fixed.

Geology
"Between 385,000 and 315,000 " - same question as lead. The featured article Mauna Loa gives the lower number first in the "__ and __ years ago" format.
Same response as above. I think the way I'm doing it makes more sense, but open to change.

"The entire Lassen volcanic center did not erupt between 190,000 and 90,000 years ago." - this sounds off. I suggest "Beginning 190,000 years ago, eruptions ceased in the Lassen Volcanic center for 100,000 years." or something similar.
Changed.

"dome field,[16] and the youngest " - comma not needed
Fixed.

"The domes were produced about 1,100 years ago,[14] starting with.." - suggest "The domes began forming about 1,100 years ago in a process beginning with..."
Changed.

"activity,[16] which created unstable " - I think this would read easier if the sentence was split after activity and This was substituted for which.
Changed.

"similar to recent eruptions at the Mono–Inyo Craters" - Is this comparison needed? Unless readers are familiar with the eruptions at the Mono-Inyo craters, this doesn't add to the material. If you keep it, you should specify what "recent" means.
Clarified (most recent).

"eruptive phase also resembled the Lassen Peak eruptions in May 1915" - like the Mono-Inyo eruptions, I'm not sure how helpful this comparison is. If you keep it, the word also isn't needed.
These are fairly well known eruptions, and took place at the nearby Lassen Peak volcano. Got rid of also.

"violent eruption,[14][18] producing" - I think "eruption that produced" would read more smoothly
Changed.

"Eruptions within the Lassen center, at least the..." - suggest "The Chaos Crags event may have been fed by the same reservoir of crystal-containing magma as the 25,000BCE and 1914-1921 eruptions at Lassen Peak, based on [the evidence]."
Changed.

"dated to about 1,125 ± 15 years old" - Does the 1125 figure account for the age of the 16 year-old source? Why not use a year instead of an age?
I don't see why it makes a big difference. I'm not sure what you're suggesting I change.

Chaos Jumbles
What did you mean by this comment?

"transformed the area" this phrase is repeated twice in the first paragraph. I think the second instance can be removed without losing any meaning.
Removed.

"The Chaos Crags are monitored" by whom?
Updated. The direct source doesn't say, but all the monitoring for such volcanoes seems to be conducted by the USGS and subsidiaries.

Ecology
no concern

Human history
"As of 2011, they cost" - dated. If current prices aren't available, I suggest "When the cabins reopened, they cost"
Changed.

Recreation
" trail,[7] and " - comma not needed
Changed.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
There doesn't seem to be anything in the lead from the Human history section. Maybe a sentence about geological studies starting in the late 1920s?
Added.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
no concern

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig returned weak results caused by unavoidable phrases ("the Lassen Volcanic National Park")
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
It seems odd that the Human history section doesn't make any mention of Native Americans. Did any tribes live in the area? Did the crags have any significance to them? If there's no available information, that's ok.
I haven't seen anything yet that suggests they held particular importance to indigenous peoples.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article's in good shape. I'll pass this after a few minor tweaks (or responses to the requests for them). Argento Surfer (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough review. I've responded to all your comments I think. ceranthor 18:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]