708:
remain concerned about some aspects of this article. I made suggestions about technical references that could readily be incorporated into this text for accuracy, but you've chosen to stick with only general referances. I feel that is a mistake and leads to things like a lead paragraph where you jump around in major events in time. You start with recent uplift, go to subduction for hundreds of millions of years, then date these volcanoes at 70 MY, yet the
Knowledge (XXG) article on the Cascade Vocanoes says volcanism began in the arc 37 MYA. I don't agree with the tag being removed, and I don't agree that this is FA, at least the introduction. In general it's well written and well researched, except for missing some details that can only come from reading more recent technical papers--the sources cited are insufficient for the topic of the article.
420:
399:
21:
201:
180:
773:
support to pass so I could incorporate your feedback into improving it. That said, I very much want to address your concerns, but that is a bit difficult if more of a specific critique is not forthcoming. In the meantime, I'll search the academic literature for relevant papers and try to find time to visit a nearby university that has the journals. If you have any ideas on papers I should look at, then please provide them. :) --
309:
149:
288:
54:
211:
319:
430:
720:"Oceanic tectonic plates have plunged below the North American Plate in this part of North America for hundreds of millions of years. Heat from these subducting plates has fed scores of volcanoes in California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia over at least the past 30 million years (see Geology of the Pacific Northwest) and is also responsible for activities in the Lassen volcanic area.
757:
article, which is not comprehensible from a geological perspective. This has not been dealt with, and apparently it will not be dealt with as the push for FA status is going forward full force, and apparently my objections about the geology of this article are a bit too much for those supporting it. I bow out and leave it to all of you to push this forward as a FA.
661:
originally - with the events leading to the formation of the Tuscan
Formation since we have a fairly clear link between that and the geology we see today. Not to mention, that the Tuscan is known to exist right below the surface in several places within the park and does crop out in places near park borders.
772:
encyclopedia articles in their own right. So we can't include everything there; just the most relevant and important info. As for the tag; everybody else who has commented on that issue has agreed that none is needed. I also voluntarily had this article un-FACed in spite of it having more than enough
727:
We have three things going on here right from square one, we have hundreds of millions of years of tectonic plates, then the article discusses the current subduction complex, the
Laramide Orogeny and younger events--well, what the heck is this hundreds of millions of years of subduction about, then?
767:
You previously suggested removing all info about
Cretaceous events. I did so. I also removed mention of the Sierra uplift from the intro because it is not directly related to the geology of this particular volcanic area. Should that go back? Also, what other parts of the geology of this area need to
909:
Unfortunately Wet
California is not an area I know about much. I admit that a complaint this hyperbolic strikes me as questionable. I think the current lead section is on topic and pertinent. The main question is how far the timeline should go, right? Well, the Californian subduction zone goes back
697:
I've since started the article with the tilting of the
Sierras and laying down of the Tuscan formation, thus directly addressing KP's objection of mentioning the Sierra/Klamath split 140 mya and then not mentioning any geology up to the Tuscan formation. So, can we get rid of the tag? I can't think
664:
One has to limit what is talked about in some way, and other park geology articles focus on formations/layers that actually crop out in or immediately around the park with short mentions about removed or deeply buried layers (self-limiting the discussion in a fairly natural way). I think that would
914:
but I am not sure (also, is Lassen really, geologically speaking, part of the
Cascades? My topographic impression is that it should be considered part of the Sierra Nevada instead - at least its surface parts, that is) that it extended so far north. And I am pretty certain most information that we
707:
I think there's a lot of the
Cenozoic that can simply be left out of an article on the geology of the Mt. Lassen area, but if you include any you must be certain you are talking about an earlier Sierra. I think the notes left by another user on the FAC page would greatly help the introduction. I
672:
Personally, I think that the
Cenozoic history of the area is interesting, but doesn't need to go into the introduction, because it is a side issue. I went back and did some research: I think you hit the high points already --- the Eocene and Miocene vulcanism, the Modoc flood basalts, Mount Maidu.
929:
I don't know enough geology to be sure I could recapitulate KP Botany's objections, I was just hoping someone who did could take a look -- KP seemed pretty convinced it was not up to scratch and I gather Mav was an interested layman, not a professional, so thought it was worth checking. I don't
756:
The introduction IS vague, and the tag IS needed. I object to its being removed without discussion, and my comments about it being removed being ignored by the remover. The tag does belong right now on this article to alert the reader to issues of major concern about the introduction of this
550:
The article was promoted prematurely; I made an attempt to address the concerns of the person who placed the tag just hours before promotion. The user has not looked over my changes yet. I've ask Raul to relist as a FAC so we can have the best possible version of the article linked in the above
660:
KP/all - at least in general terms, what events that occurred post
Klamath/Sierra basement break and pre-Sierra uplift do you think are relevant to an article about the Lassen volcanic area? If none or few, then I will add that info. However, I'm tempted to simply start this article as it did
878:, from 2007. User KP Botany was very definite then that the article was deficient, even at the end of the FAC, and as far as I could tell the other reviewers were not experts in the field. Can you have a look at KP Botany's comments and see if you think they're valid? Also pinging
1024:
is their last post complaining about errors and they say that not enough has been done by way of reading the relevant technical papers. I know so little about geology I was concerned that there were basic errors here, but if you think it’s OK then that’s a relief to hear.
1019:
Most of their concerns seemed to be about the introduction, by which I assume they meant the lead, so if you think the lead is in good shape that would be the main thing. There are also comments about the geology being more complex than is explained in the article:
1071:. There is significant uncited text, which appears to be the primary issue from my non-geologist's eye. Also, the newest current material is from a 2005 source; is there anything to add as to the activity of this area since then? If issues are not addressed, a
1001:, which specific criticism by user KP Botany do think user Mav has not addressed? Of course, there is always room for improving any Knowledge (XXG) article but I think this article is currently a reasonably good attempt at summarising the geology
119:
539:
How does this work. Surely if there is disputed content it can't be a featured article? If the area of dispute has been cleared up, please remove the tag... it doesn't look good to see a featured article with that tag smack bang at the top.
828:
As it turns out: both. There's no strict definition of the end of an eruption. The last major eruption was in 1917, "activity" continued until. 1921, and Lassen still leaks a little steam today. Theis is explained in the Tuttle book.
973:
875:
100:
35:
1127:
723:
Between 2 and 4 million years ago, volcanic-derived mud flows called lahars streamed down several major sources that included nearby but now extinct Mount Yana and Mount Maidu to become the Tuscan Formation."
1122:
60:
1172:
915:
have on the area is about its post-Jurassic history, so that needs to be the bulk of the article. Finally, I see lots of unsourced paragraphs ... perhaps it warrants a trip to FAR.
488:
605:
I would fix the article myself, but I do not have the reference texts at hand: I think we have to either wait for mav to fix the article, or perhaps KP can step in and fix it.
64:
580:
that the article more information is needed for the early Cenozoic (I also mentioned this in the FAC). However, this is an omission, not a factual inaccuracy. The template
1142:
1167:
381:
728:
You start at the bottom in the intro, then move to the current setting and move back in time in the article, then call the Sierran uplift the "basement rocks?"
498:
1157:
1005:
and it seems (reasonably) accurate, clear, and comprehensive. I have not yet found any major inaccuracies in the article. If I do, I'll try to correct them.
371:
788:
Seems to me that the introduction seems to be a little long and technical. Shouldnt some of that information be trimmed and merged into the main article?
270:
1177:
1162:
1137:
976:? It looks as though Mav addressed some of them but not all of them. Do you think the article is accurate, clear, and comprehensive as it stands?
260:
347:
1117:
464:
1152:
1147:
1038:
989:
943:
899:
1034:
985:
939:
895:
789:
332:
293:
1132:
832:
Mav: I don't have access to the fifth edition --- if you like, you could find this fact in the fifth edition, and combine the refs. —
443:
404:
1090:
731:
No, the introduction is vague, almost entirely unrelated to the article, and the tag should remain as long as this is an issue.
236:
227:
185:
160:
30:
645:
419:
398:
847:
This confused me too: my father remembered big smoke or ash plumes, and I recall photos in a local library dated c.1940.
874:, you're the two most expert geology editors I know of. I was looking through old FACs and read this article's FAC,
741:
I'll take another look and make another shot at addressing your points. I've already started to use journal cites. --
53:
148:
20:
166:
40:
793:
1098:
1030:
981:
953:
935:
920:
891:
590:
is used for articles with multiple false or unverified statements. I think we should change the template to
525:
633:
804:
The intro is a summary of the whole article and is within the correct range for an article this size. See
1064:
717:
The introduction remains vague, and the tag should stay until the introduction is all that it should be:
463:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
346:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
641:
852:
44:
1102:
1084:
1042:
1014:
1010:
993:
964:
960:
947:
924:
903:
856:
841:
817:
797:
777:
761:
745:
735:
712:
702:
692:
677:
649:
622:
609:
594:
555:
544:
529:
637:
1094:
1080:
1026:
998:
977:
931:
916:
887:
871:
521:
460:
930:
think Ceranthor is very active at the moment but there's no hurry; we can see if they comment.
837:
584:
570:
456:
324:
235:
resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
1068:
805:
435:
1072:
848:
742:
699:
689:
666:
619:
552:
1006:
969:
956:
883:
867:
758:
732:
709:
577:
541:
216:
1111:
1076:
813:
231:, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use
59:
This article appeared on Knowledge (XXG)'s Main Page as Today's featured article on
833:
674:
630:
can someone please remove the karate kid picture and replace it with the graphic?
606:
210:
200:
179:
308:
287:
452:
429:
425:
342:
337:
314:
206:
698:
of anything else that needs to be added or taken away from the intro/lead. --
665:
make for a more on-topic article that will flow better. What do you think? --
952:
Geologically, the Lassen Volcanic Center is part of the Cascades. See e.g.
954:
https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/lassen-volcanic-center/geology-and-history
911:
879:
809:
774:
688:
OK - if that is the consensus, then we can remove the tag in 24 hours. --
448:
232:
142:
1128:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page twice
336:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
1021:
112:
93:
886:, as a courtesy, though neither has edited for years.
1123:
Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
447:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1067:. This older FA needs a bit of a tune-up against
768:be in the intro? Recall that intros need to be
576:tag on this article as it stands. I agree with
1173:Low-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles
8:
972:, what do you think of KP Botany's comments
673:So, I don't think you need to add any more.
43:. Even so, if you can update or improve it,
39:as one of the best articles produced by the
33:; it (or a previous version of it) has been
393:
282:
174:
72:
15:
1143:Low-importance FA-Class Geology articles
223:Talk:Geology of the Lassen volcanic area
146:
1168:FA-Class WikiProject Volcanoes articles
600:, to more closely match KP's criticism.
395:
284:
176:
520:How'd this get featured? It's so good!
356:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject California
752:Strong objection to tag being removed
551:history when it does get promoted. --
473:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Volcanoes
7:
441:This article is within the scope of
330:This article is within the scope of
1158:High-importance California articles
245:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Geology
27:Geology of the Lassen volcanic area
14:
1118:Knowledge (XXG) featured articles
1091:There is probably something here
428:
418:
397:
317:
307:
286:
209:
199:
178:
147:
52:
19:
1178:All WikiProject Volcanoes pages
1163:WikiProject California articles
1138:Low-importance Geology articles
493:This article has been rated as
376:This article has been rated as
359:Template:WikiProject California
265:This article has been rated as
882:, the original nominator, and
479:WikiProject Volcanoes articles
476:Template:WikiProject Volcanoes
165:It is of interest to multiple
1:
842:16:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
467:and see a list of open tasks.
350:and see a list of open tasks.
1153:FA-Class California articles
1148:WikiProject Geology articles
1043:20:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
1015:19:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
994:16:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
965:11:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
948:22:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
925:18:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
904:17:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
798:05:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
650:20:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
248:Template:WikiProject Geology
1063:Looking at this as part of
1194:
1103:08:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
1085:02:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
818:03:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
499:project's importance scale
382:project's importance scale
271:project's importance scale
101:Featured article candidate
1133:FA-Class Geology articles
778:15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
762:04:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
746:11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
736:21:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
693:00:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
678:12:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
623:20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
610:15:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
556:06:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
545:03:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
492:
413:
375:
302:
264:
194:
173:
133:
75:
71:
41:Knowledge (XXG) community
857:04:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
713:18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
703:13:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
535:Featured & Disputed?
530:15:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
1073:featured article review
120:Featured article review
1003:for the general reader
333:WikiProject California
155:This article is rated
1065:the ongoing FA sweeps
618:Correct tag added. --
444:WikiProject Volcanoes
239:for more information.
159:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
863:Issues from old FAC?
566:with the use of the
1075:may need to occur.
362:California articles
228:WikiProject Geology
161:content assessment
76:Article milestones
652:
636:comment added by
564:strongly disagree
513:
512:
509:
508:
505:
504:
457:igneous petrology
392:
391:
388:
387:
325:California portal
281:
280:
277:
276:
141:
140:
129:
128:
113:February 19, 2022
1185:
631:
599:
593:
589:
583:
575:
569:
481:
480:
477:
474:
471:
461:related subjects
438:
436:Volcanoes portal
433:
432:
422:
415:
414:
409:
401:
394:
364:
363:
360:
357:
354:
327:
322:
321:
320:
311:
304:
303:
298:
290:
283:
253:
252:
251:Geology articles
249:
246:
243:
219:
214:
213:
203:
196:
195:
190:
182:
175:
158:
152:
151:
143:
136:Featured article
134:Current status:
115:
96:
73:
61:January 22, 2008
56:
31:featured article
23:
16:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1108:
1107:
1083:
1069:the FA criteria
1061:
865:
826:
786:
754:
686:
658:
656:Missing history
597:
591:
587:
581:
573:
567:
537:
518:
478:
475:
472:
469:
468:
434:
427:
407:
378:High-importance
361:
358:
355:
352:
351:
323:
318:
316:
297:High‑importance
296:
250:
247:
244:
241:
240:
215:
208:
188:
156:
111:
92:
12:
11:
5:
1191:
1189:
1181:
1180:
1175:
1170:
1165:
1160:
1155:
1150:
1145:
1140:
1135:
1130:
1125:
1120:
1110:
1109:
1106:
1105:
1079:
1060:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
864:
861:
860:
859:
825:
822:
821:
820:
785:
782:
781:
780:
753:
750:
749:
748:
685:
682:
681:
680:
657:
654:
628:
627:
626:
625:
613:
612:
602:
601:
578:User:KP Botany
559:
558:
536:
533:
517:
516:Wow! featured!
514:
511:
510:
507:
506:
503:
502:
495:Low-importance
491:
485:
484:
482:
465:the discussion
440:
439:
423:
411:
410:
408:Low‑importance
402:
390:
389:
386:
385:
374:
368:
367:
365:
348:the discussion
329:
328:
312:
300:
299:
291:
279:
278:
275:
274:
267:Low-importance
263:
257:
256:
254:
221:
220:
217:Geology portal
204:
192:
191:
189:Low‑importance
183:
171:
170:
164:
153:
139:
138:
131:
130:
127:
126:
123:
116:
108:
107:
104:
97:
89:
88:
85:
82:
78:
77:
69:
68:
57:
49:
48:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1190:
1179:
1176:
1174:
1171:
1169:
1166:
1164:
1161:
1159:
1156:
1154:
1151:
1149:
1146:
1144:
1141:
1139:
1136:
1134:
1131:
1129:
1126:
1124:
1121:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1113:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:Jo-Jo Eumerus
1092:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1058:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1027:Mike Christie
1023:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
999:Mike Christie
997:
996:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
978:Mike Christie
975:
971:
968:
967:
966:
962:
958:
955:
951:
950:
949:
945:
941:
937:
933:
932:Mike Christie
928:
927:
926:
922:
918:
917:Jo-Jo Eumerus
913:
908:
907:
906:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
888:Mike Christie
885:
881:
877:
873:
872:Jo-Jo Eumerus
869:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
845:
844:
843:
839:
835:
830:
824:1917 or 1921?
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
802:
801:
799:
795:
791:
790:76.212.151.84
783:
779:
776:
771:
766:
765:
764:
763:
760:
751:
747:
744:
740:
739:
738:
737:
734:
729:
725:
721:
718:
715:
714:
711:
705:
704:
701:
695:
694:
691:
683:
679:
676:
671:
670:
669:
668:
662:
655:
653:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
624:
621:
617:
616:
615:
614:
611:
608:
604:
603:
596:
586:
579:
572:
565:
561:
560:
557:
554:
549:
548:
547:
546:
543:
534:
532:
531:
527:
523:
522:AmongusRanger
515:
500:
496:
490:
487:
486:
483:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
445:
437:
431:
426:
424:
421:
417:
416:
412:
406:
403:
400:
396:
383:
379:
373:
370:
369:
366:
349:
345:
344:
339:
335:
334:
326:
315:
313:
310:
306:
305:
301:
295:
292:
289:
285:
272:
268:
262:
259:
258:
255:
238:
234:
230:
229:
224:
218:
212:
207:
205:
202:
198:
197:
193:
187:
184:
181:
177:
172:
168:
162:
154:
150:
145:
144:
137:
132:
124:
122:
121:
117:
114:
110:
109:
105:
103:
102:
98:
95:
94:July 16, 2007
91:
90:
86:
83:
80:
79:
74:
70:
66:
62:
58:
55:
51:
50:
46:
42:
38:
37:
32:
28:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1062:
1002:
866:
831:
827:
787:
784:Introduction
769:
755:
730:
726:
722:
719:
716:
706:
696:
687:
663:
659:
629:
563:
538:
519:
494:
442:
377:
341:
331:
266:
237:project page
226:
222:
167:WikiProjects
135:
118:
99:
65:May 23, 2022
45:please do so
34:
26:
1059:FA concerns
632:—Preceding
453:volcanology
225:is part of
1112:Categories
849:Sparafucil
595:vagueintro
353:California
343:California
338:U.S. state
294:California
36:identified
1007:GeoWriter
970:GeoWriter
957:GeoWriter
884:KP Botany
868:Ceranthor
759:KP Botany
733:KP Botany
710:KP Botany
684:Tag issue
542:Kare Kare
470:Volcanoes
449:volcanoes
405:Volcanoes
63:, and on
1077:Hog Farm
1035:contribs
986:contribs
940:contribs
912:Jurassic
896:contribs
646:contribs
634:unsigned
585:disputed
571:disputed
157:FA-class
106:Promoted
1039:library
990:library
944:library
910:to the
900:library
834:hike395
806:WP:LEAD
770:concise
675:hike395
638:Chladek
607:hike395
497:on the
380:on the
269:on the
242:Geology
233:geology
186:Geology
84:Process
800:Sandy
459:, and
163:scale.
87:Result
29:is a
1099:talk
1081:Talk
1031:talk
1022:this
1011:talk
982:talk
974:here
961:talk
936:talk
921:talk
892:talk
876:here
853:talk
838:talk
814:talk
808:. --
794:talk
642:talk
526:talk
372:High
125:Kept
81:Date
1037:-
988:-
942:-
898:-
880:Mav
810:mav
775:mav
743:mav
700:mav
690:mav
667:mav
620:mav
553:mav
489:Low
340:of
261:Low
1114::
1101:)
1093:.
1041:)
1033:-
1013:)
992:)
984:-
963:)
946:)
938:-
923:)
902:)
894:-
870:,
855:)
840:)
816:)
796:)
648:)
644:•
598:}}
592:{{
588:}}
582:{{
574:}}
568:{{
562:I
528:)
455:,
451:,
1097:(
1029:(
1009:(
980:(
959:(
934:(
919:(
890:(
851:(
836:(
812:(
792:(
640:(
524:(
501:.
384:.
273:.
169:.
67:.
47:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
-logo-v2.svg.png){kind=logo}
