Talk:Broken Top

Broken Top 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: May 31, 2018. (Reviewed version).

Mountains Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

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.

Some comments on the article

Ceranthor asked for commentary on the article on the talk page, so I shall give; partial review only since it's the holidays:

The article says that the mountain is 9,177 feet high, but this source says it's 9,175 and the source in the article approximates it at 2,800 metres. I know that the height of mountains is not generally an exact thing.

Do you want me to add a footnote clarifying disagreement on the exact elevation? Unsure what you're suggesting.

Might be perhaps a personal preference, but wildfires aren't exactly uncommon and giving recent ones such detailed description may be a little undue.

It's only three sentences; is that really too detailed?

I think the {{convert}} template could be told to not convert km3 into such exact measures of mi3.

Will fix that.

The Tumalo paragraph does cite a source which does not mention Vesuvius, which is still mentioned in the paragraph.

Will fix that.

On the positive aspects, it seems the article has sound prose (although I have never been very good at it, so take with a pinch of salt).

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your initial comments. ceranthor 19:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that I said I'd fix have been addressed, I think. ceranthor 19:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Realized I hadn't pinged you; sorry for that. ceranthor 22:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I am not certain what to do about the elevation information. When I write on Andean volcanoes I often see several different heights and no clue as to which is more reliable - thus I write it out as "X or Y high". USAmerican volcanoes are usually much better documented so there may be a source that carries more weight than others, but I wouldn't know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see your point. I think that Hildreth, coming from the United States Geological Survey, would be more reliable than a website, which AFAIK I avoid because it doesn't seem like a totally reliable source. That being said, I can definitely add a footnote to clarify that there is some disagreement about the elevation. ceranthor 22:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broken Top. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212135310/http://www.skiingthebackcountry.com/ski_guide/UNITED-STATES/OREGON/CASCADES-CENTRAL/BROKEN-TOP to http://www.skiingthebackcountry.com/ski_guide/UNITED-STATES/OREGON/CASCADES-CENTRAL/BROKEN-TOP

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 09:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
"Bend and Crook Glaciers are the two named glaciers on the peak" - this strikes me as awkward, would it be better as "There are two named glaciers on the peak, Bend and Crook Glacier"? Up to you though.

"making it the second-largest wilderness area in Oregon" - it would be interesting to know what the first is. Can you add it onto the end of this sentence?

Rhyodacite is wikilinked, though not at its first mention. Rhyolite could use a wikilink at its first mention too.

"overlapping with eruptions at North Sister" - what is North Sister? Same issue with South Sister later on

"Edward Taylor's analysis determined" - when did this happen?

Memorial Day is wikilinked twice
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Some of your retireval dates are more than 10 years old. It's definitely not a fail point, but I'd update them.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Looks really good. Placing on hold until minor issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: I think your comments have all been addressed! Thanks for the review! ceranthor 16:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Happy to pass now. Congrats. Freikorp (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]