Talk:Cline Buttes

Deschutes Formation

Orygun This article says Clines Buttes belongs to the Deschutes Formation. The article currently says the John Day Formation. Do we have an inline citation to corroborate the John Day information? Leitmotiv (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• I found same source you did that said Cline Buttes rhyolite came from the Deschutes Formation. However, I also found a more detailed source (Ref 4, see pp. 5, 8 & 11) that specifically addresses the origin of Cline Buttes. In discussing the John Day Formation on p. 5 it says: "Cline Buttes near Redmond is also assumed to be a John Day volcano." The caption on p. 8 says the same and p. 11 has rationale for why Cline Buttes was likely formed during the John Day period. The source you cite only addresses the rhyolite found on Cline Buttes, not the origin of the mountain itself. While rhyolite is the main component of the buttes, it seems to me that the best explanation is that Cline Buttes was originally formed as part of the John Day Formation with additional deposits of rhyolite added by the later Deschutes Formation. Finally, the source you cite has only a brief statement on p. 2841 about Cline Buttes rhyolite coming from the Deschutes Formation; and the paragraph is really about the limits of that source’s study area. The point of the paragraph is that Cline Buttes is outside the area being studied. Not that that source is wrong, but it doesn’t really offer much information on Cline Buttes. Thanks for your interest and thoughtful comment!--Orygun (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 11:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

"The vicinity...with highly conical shapes"?

Y Changed text to read: "Cline Buttes feature gentle slopes with highly conical shaped peaks."

What is the Deschutes Formation?

Y Added text as follows: "...Deschutes Formation, a late Miocene to early Pliocene volcanic lava flow deposited between 7.5 and 5.3 million years ago." Also, added p. 23 to source footnote to cover info on Deschutes Formation.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

Is "peakbagger" a reliable source?

Y Peakbagger was only source I could find to support prominence. I removed source and prominence fact it supported from both infobox and text.

C. It contains no original research:

Some infobox data aren't supported by the main text. I can't check many sources, but of those which I can: I don't have the impression that #1-#3 support the text on the location of the buttes.

Y Ref #1 is USGS source that include elevation, geo location, county, and topo map section. Ref #3 (now Ref #2 because Peakbagger Ref has been removed) is USGS map that shows relative location of the buttes and the access road which is the easiest route to the top. Ref #11 is article about hiking and biking trails which are the normal route to the top. Ref #5 (p. 5) says age of rocks is “late Oligocene to early Miocene.” I changed infobox text from 25 million year ago (which is ~mid-point of late Oligocene/early Miocene time period) to wording used in source and remove 25M from main text, leaving “late Oligocene to early Miocene.” Volcanic type is support by Ref #5.

Why is #6 cited for vegetation?

Y Ref #6 (now Ref #5 because Peakbagger Ref has been removed) has facts about Cline Buttes' soils (which supports vegetation), but that info wasn’t included in article text. Therefore, I removed the ref from vegetation section.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

Pass or Fail:

The discussion above 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.