Talk:Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex#Pre-FAC review

{{u|Volcanoguy}} - sorry I'm just now getting to this - life got busy.

• "The MEVC has a volume of 670 cubic kilometres (160 cubic miles) " - I'm assuming this is of post-eruptive material, but it wouldn't hurt to explicitly state this as it is not very common to see geographic areas measured in volume
• :I've reworded this part of the first sentence to "The MEVC covers {{Convert|1000|km2|mi2|abbr=off}} and comprises {{Convert|670|km3|mi3|abbr=off}} of volcanic material". Volcanoguy 21:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• "Volcanism of the MEVC took place during five magmatic cycles" - I'd rephrase this a bit - the use of the past tense here indicates that all volcanism at the MEVC is over, but as the article notes, the fifth cycle might still be going on
• :Replace "took place" with "has taken place"? Volcanoguy 20:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• I may just be completely misunderstanding this, but I'm not seeing how the dates for the periods of the first magmatic cycle work. If the Little Iskut conformably overlies the Raspberry formation, then how does it work that the dates for the Raspbery formation extend essentially for the entire range for the first magmatic cycle, including up to 1.8 my after the Little Iskut formation? - so further on in the article I learn that they're possible coeval or nearly contemporaneous. I think it would be best to mention that fact in the introductory paragraph for that first magmatic section
• :I've moved that sentence to the introductory paragraph and reworded it a bit to "Eruptions of the Little Iskut period immediately followed or may have been coeval with those of the Raspberry period due to the lack of an erosion surface between the two formations." Volcanoguy 00:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• "As the lava domes continued to grow their slopes became oversteepened, " - is this grammatical? Something seems off here to me
• :I'm not sure. Volcanoguy 21:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Ready for the second magmatic cycle, will continue soon. Hog Farm _Talk 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Hog Farm}} I've responded to all of your comments. Volcanoguy 00:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• "The lava flows buried lag gravels" - I think you'll need a link or a short gloss for what "lag gravels" area
• :Linked "lag" to lag deposit. Volcanoguy 14:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• "Potassium–argon dating has yielded ages of 0.31 ± 0.07 million years for Kakiddi mugearite" - but the article says earlier that the Ice Peak formation was the only one to involve mugearite?
• :I've changed the text in the Ice Peak eruptive period section so it claims this eruptive period was the only one involving the eruption of large volumes of intermediate rocks. Volcanoguy 23:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Are the any estimates for volume of eruptive material for the fith magmatic cycle?
• :Yes it's already mentioned: "About 1.7 cubic kilometres (0.41 cubic miles) of volcanic material was deposited by the Big Raven eruptions." Volcanoguy 13:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this will be good to go for FAC once the above are addressed. Let me know when you nominate it and I'll likely support; apologies for this taking so long. Hog Farm _Talk 02:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Hog Farm}} No need to apologize I don't plan on nominating this article for FA yet, but I have nominated the Big Raven Formation article if you want to take a look at it. Volcanoguy 16:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

{{Edit_template-protected|Template:Editnotices/Page/Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex|answered=yes}}

Please create an edit notice for the article, placing in it the template {{Canadian English|form=editnotice}}

{{ArticleHistory

|action1 = GAN

|action1date = 20:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

|action1link = Talk:Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex/GA1

|action1result = listed

|action1oldid = 1196963246

|action2 = FAC

|action2date = 2024-08-14

|action2link = Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex/archive1

|action2result = failed

|action2oldid = 1238603147

|topic = Natural sciences

|currentstatus = FFAC/GA

}}

. Thank you. Volcanoguy 17:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}}. (Sometimes people responding to editnotice requests ask for some indication of need, so it would be helpful to note whether it has been an issue in the past. I'll add it here since each of "colour", "centre", "travelled", and "-ize" are used in the article.) SilverLocust 💬 21:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

::There haven't been any disputes in this article (yet) but given that this is a high-quality article I want to try and prevent any future issues over spelling. I'm well aware that some users (especially anonymous ones) like to change spellings without discussion and articles like this one aren't maintained by a lot of users (I'm the main user who maintains articles about Canadian volcanological topics and even I sometimes have periods of inactivity) so I think adding the template would be helpful since not everyone is familiar with MOS:TIES. I also plan on nominating this article for FA sometime in the future which requires articles to be stable. Volcanoguy 22:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Footnote b talks about "Silicium", with the word linking through to the Silicon page. On that page, it is noted that "Silicium" is just an archaic term for Silicon.

Does the term have a specific meaning in volcanology (and of so, does a more relevant page exist to link), or should the term just be changed to "Silicon"? 84.64.234.184 (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)