Talk:Cocoa Crater

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:Cocoa Crater/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Volcanoguy (talk · contribs) 22:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 20:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Please note that I may make recommendations that are not strictly part of the GA criteria; these are recommendations only and do not affect the pass/fail decision. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• A note for transparency, this article was brought to my attention as something I may be interested at looking at. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Cocoa Crater.jpg - Correctly licensed.
• File:Cocoa Crater black and white.jpg - Seems to be correctly licensed. Odd that a user became active for all of a day, uploaded several decade-old images, then disappeared, but the only online source of a similar age is on Instagram attributed to the same individual and dated the day after the local upload. (Shame the uploader didn't stick around... there are some excellent images).
• Not a GA criterion, but it would be nice to have ALT text for visually impaired readers.

Prose review

• in Cassiar Land District - feels like it should be "the Cassiar Land District", as it's followed by "of" (x2)

  I've never seen "the" used before "Cassiar Land District" in sources. Volcanoguy 21:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• provincial parks in British Columbia - perhaps List of British Columbia Provincial Parks would be a more high-value link?

  Done. Volcanoguy 21:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• just southwest of Mount Edziza - "just southwest" is relative. Do we have any solid figures for distance? A couple similar items further below.

  No, just BC Geographical Names which says "Just SW of Edziza Peak in Mount Edziza Provincial Park, SE of Telegraph Creek (community), Cassiar Land District". Volcanoguy 21:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• a volcanic crater which are a common feature among cinder cones - the "are" seems out of place. Both your subject and "common feature" are singular. Maybe "a volcanic crater; such features are common among cinder cones"?

  How about "a volcanic crater which are common features among cinder cones"? Volcanoguy 21:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Your subject is still singular though. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Your suggestion was fine so I used that. Volcanoguy 01:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• It includes not only the Mount Edziza area but also the Spectrum Range to the south from which it is separated by Raspberry Pass. - You are changing referents in this sentence; your first "it" is the provincial park, while the second "it" is the Mount Edziza area. This may be misconstrued as the park being separated from the Spectrum Range.

  I don't know how else to word it. Volcanoguy 21:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps "It includes not only the Mount Edziza area, but also the Spectrum Range across the Raspberry Pass."? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Would this work: "It includes not only the Mount Edziza area, but also the Spectrum Range to the south, which are separated by Raspberry Pass"? Volcanoguy 02:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  That works! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Spotcheck

Based on this revision

• 2b: Checks out
• 2f: Supports southwest of Mount Edziza and Cassiar Land District
• 3d: Supports southern end of Ravel Plateau
• 7c: Supports area and establishment
• 12: Technically the source says it's the largest single flow, but as a lay person I believe that should be okay paraphrasing
• 19: Supports one of the largest provincial parks in BC.

• Not a GA criterion, but some references appear to be out of order (i.e., [19][7])

  Done. Volcanoguy 21:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Not a GA criterion, but some of your works cited are out of order (i.e., Souther 1988, Souther 1992, Souther 1990)

  Done (I think). Volcanoguy 21:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Conclusion

• Article is basically there. Just a few nitpicks. Good work! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Alright, looks like everything got hammered out. Congratulations! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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.