Talk:Desolation Lava Field/GA1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA review
The following discussion 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.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The article is well-sourced and detailed in geology and geography, giving a strong description of the lava field’s composition, cones, flows, and remoteness. However, the lead needs to better summarize significance, recent activity, and why readers should care; more visuals/maps would help; and more context about scientific / environmental relevance or hazards is needed. These issues are fixable within the hold period. Crystalite13 (talk · contribs) 05:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Volcanoguy Crystalite13 (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Crystalite13: Can you please explain what you mean by "significance"? Most of the volcanic deposits in the DLF have not been radiometrically dated so there is a lack of dates available. However, the lead does explain that the DLF is of Holocene age; volcanic activity throughout the Holocene is considered to be recent so the whole lava field is a young feature. The only radiometric date is from Williams Cone (the youngest DLF eruptive centre) which is explained in the lead to have erupted in the last 2,000 years. As far as I'm aware of, readers don't have to care about the topic to be GA; I don't see that in the good article criteria. No other maps are available and although information about relevance and hazards would be great, there is a lack of such information because the DLF is in a remote location that is sparsely populated. Since the DLF is in a sparely populated region, I could argue the lava field doesn't pose much of a hazard from renewed volcanic activity and therefore isn't an important topic to cover. GA articles only have to be broad in their coverage, not complete. Volcanoguy 17:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. By "significance," I meant providing context beyond physical description — for example, how the Desolation Lava Field compares to other Holocene lava fields in British Columbia or within the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province. Even if data on hazards or radiometric dates are limited, secondary sources (such as regional overviews) can still provide that broader perspective.
- I agree that GA doesn’t require completeness, but coverage should still give readers a clear sense of the feature’s scientific and regional importance. Expanding the lead to summarize that context would help meet criteria 1b and 3a. Crystalite13 (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- @VolcanoguyPlease look at below! Crystalite13 (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Crystalite13: Can you please explain what you mean by "significance"? Most of the volcanic deposits in the DLF have not been radiometrically dated so there is a lack of dates available. However, the lead does explain that the DLF is of Holocene age; volcanic activity throughout the Holocene is considered to be recent so the whole lava field is a young feature. The only radiometric date is from Williams Cone (the youngest DLF eruptive centre) which is explained in the lead to have erupted in the last 2,000 years. As far as I'm aware of, readers don't have to care about the topic to be GA; I don't see that in the good article criteria. No other maps are available and although information about relevance and hazards would be great, there is a lack of such information because the DLF is in a remote location that is sparsely populated. Since the DLF is in a sparely populated region, I could argue the lava field doesn't pose much of a hazard from renewed volcanic activity and therefore isn't an important topic to cover. GA articles only have to be broad in their coverage, not complete. Volcanoguy 17:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
User:Crystalite13: Your comments to the nominator are good and appropriate, but this review will need more substance to qualify as a valid GA review. Please let me (or anyone else) know if you need assistance, and thank you for your interest in assisting with the GA process! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Please look at further review below! Crystalite13 (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) 
Overall, very well written, with just a few notes below. This article was written so professionally with so many unfamiliar words it was like decoding ancient hieroglyphs!
Lead
Summarizes well and includes appropriate amount of detail and information.
Geography
"The DLF is at the" --> "The DLF is located at the" Would make sentence more concise
Note: Since this was so minor I decided to fix myself
Volcanic cones
I noticed a lot of the description of the cones (e.g "Eve Cone near the middle") Start directly with their name. I would suggest adjusting all of them to something like "The Eve Cone near the middle".
- The names of the cones never use "the" before their names. That's like saying "the Mount St. Helens", "the Mount Everest", "the Mount Rainier", etc. Volcanoguy 22:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, I was just a bit confused. I guess I don't really think of cones as like the big, typical volcanos Crystalite13 (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I also noticed you used the British spelling of center, so you might want to add a notice on the talk page if you wrote this article mainly in British English, or you might want to adjust it to the American spelling.
While reading the article, I also saw you spelled it British English a few more times.
- The article is written in Canadian English, not British English. See MOS:TIES. Volcanoguy 22:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, that's it, article will be promoted! Crystalite13 (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Geology
All good here, no issues, excellently written!
Sleet Cone and Storm Cone
Good here, no issues
Triplex Cones
Good here, no issues
Sidas Cone and Twin Cone
Good here, no issues
Moraine Cone
Good here, no issues
Eve Cone and Williams Cone
Good here, no issues
Accessibility
Good here, no issues
Sources 
Health/formatting (Criterion 2a)
Looking at all of the sources, they all seem to be up to date and easily accessible.
Reliability (Criterion 2b)
All sources seem reliable. The report that made up a lot of the sources clearly mentions the page number which I like.
Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d)
- Ref 18: Good!
- Ref 37: Good!
- Ref 19: Good!
- Ref 44: Good!
- Ref 9: Good!
Spotcheck comes up all good!
Copyvio (Criterion 2d)
Checked with Earwig's Copyvio Detector, super low percent of copyvio, actually showed up as 0%!
Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b)
Scope seems adequately appropriate to me
Stable (Criterion 5)
Good as far as I can see, no edit wars
Media
Tags (Criterion 6a)
All licensed correctly, good!
Captions (Criterion 6b)
All appropriate, can find no issues here