Tennena Cone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Tennena Cone/archive1

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 04:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a small subglacial volcano on the southwestern flank of Mount Edziza in British Columbia, Canada, and is a part of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex series of articles, three of which I have brought to FA class (Mount Edziza, Mount Edziza volcanic complex and Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex) so far. Unlike other volcano articles I have brought to FA, there appears to be no information about volcanic hazards for Tennena Cone. This may be because it's a minor volcanic feature or because the cone is monogenetic (the Wood & Kienle source describes the Mount Edziza volcanic complex as a "group of overlapping basaltic shields, felsic stratovolcanoes, domes, small calderas and monogenetic cones"). Monogenetic volcanoes are typically considered to erupt only once and to be short-lived. Pinging Generalissima since they claimed to have admired my dedication to the Mount Edziza volcanic complex in the last FAC. Volcanoguy 04:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this at GA and was impressed already. Happy to support this for FAC on prose. As for media:

• File:Tennena Cone.jpg - Correctly licensed. Not a fan of bare URLs, as those are prone to link rot, so I know I personally would put a bit more detail.
• File:Mt. Edziza - 4037245997.jpg - Correctly licensed. Not a fan of bare URLs, as those are prone to link rot, so I know I personally would put a bit more detail.
• File:Mt. Edziza - 4037996194.jpg - Correctly licensed. Not a fan of bare URLs, as those are prone to link rot, so I know I personally would put a bit more detail.
• None of the ALT text uses a full sentence, so no period is needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed all periods from the alt texts but I'm not sure what details to add for the urls. Volcanoguy 18:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd generally add "Flickr, accessed xxxx-xx-xx" just so that there is evidence of when the link was still active. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All done. Volcanoguy 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks muchly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mount Edziza's ice cap" -> "Mount Edziza's ice cap,"

  Done. Volcanoguy 22:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "crudely bedded tuff breccia exposed" This has two link next to each other which looks like one link. This should be fixed.

  This is only required when it's possible to avoid two links next to each other per WP:SEAOFBLUE. Volcanoguy 22:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "lava flows which are exposed" -> "lava flows that are exposed"

  I think the current wording is correct. Volcanoguy 22:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Armadillo Formation underlies the Nido Formation" -> "Armadillo Formation underlie the Nido Formation"

  Done. Volcanoguy 22:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ping me when done and I'll support unless I find more issues. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @History6042: I've responded to all of your comments. Volcanoguy 22:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright then, support. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "ages as old as 0.011 ± 0.033 million years": just checking that this is intentional: is this missing a zero in the second number? The error bars are bigger than the measurement. Same comment for "950 CE ± 6,000 years ago".

  Those numbers are used in the cited sources. Volcanoguy 21:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mike Christie: I've simplified these two ages. Volcanoguy 23:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks -- I think that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any chance of a map showing the cone in relation to the other local topographic features named in the article? E.g. Sezill Creek, Tencho Glacier, Ornostay Bluff, Koosick Bluff. Not required for FA but would be very helpful if it can be created.

  I'm not aware of there being a useable map of these features, although they are labeled in the Souther 1988 geologic map cited in the article. Volcanoguy 21:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can see to comment on. I have no geological expertise, and I can't say I fully understand some of the technical language, but everything that I think needs to be linked for clarity is linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Up-front note to coordinators and other reviewers: I was linked to this page on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Licancabur/archive1, which is being reviewed. So it's a bit of a quid-pro-quo review and should be evaluated with this caveat in mind:

• "Prominent" in the lead, is it simply an adjective or a technical term?

  It's referring to topographic prominence so I've linked it to that article. You've also used it in the lead of the Licancabur article. Volcanoguy 17:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the hyphens or dashes between the values in the first paragraph of Geography correct? I honestly don't recall what the correct formatting is here.

  Yes. Volcanoguy 16:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "less than 1 metre (3.3 feet) to more than 1 metre (3.3 feet)" could that be turned into a single statement?

  Changed to "less than to more than 1 metre (3.3 feet)". Volcanoguy 17:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "has been modified by glacial erosion" would it flow better as "eroded by the glaciers"?

  I think it's fine how it is. Volcanoguy 19:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Image licence, ALT and use seem OK to me.
• Source formatting seems OK to me, nothing that jumps out to me as inappropriate.
• Structure and length are fine.

@Mike Christie: Sometimes radiometric dating yields dates so inexact that the error bar exceeds the date. I believe that nowadays they are often discarded, but they are technically speaking valid output (and often mean "really young"). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checked some more things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]