Mount Cleveland (Alaska)

Previous peer review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed an FAC fairly recently. That experience taught me that over-prepared is still not prepared enough; hence, I'm listing the article for review here as a step towards renominating it and, hopefully, passing this time. ;) ResMar 04:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's always useful to research a bit more. Have you consulted all of the resources here? ceranthor 14:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the ones that are accessible, yeah. The problem with Cleveland is that there's tons of sources, but none are very detailed, most just gloss over Cleveland with passing reference. Still, many of them contain short little unique bits, and it's from that that the article is structured. I don't remember exactly, but I think I talked to Awk and he got me some of the material in there, but it turned out to be nothing new; and if Awk can't get it, I certainly can't, haha. ResMar 16:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, no problem then. ceranthor 16:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

As you noted in the FAC, it is a short article. However, if you have consulted all the resources available, there's probably little that can be done about that. If I see any information that I feel is particularly missing, I suppose I'll note it.

Lead

• When I read "a remote landmass 490 km (304 mi) from the western end of the Aleutian Arc" I assume that it is located far to the west of the Aleutians. However, in the next paragraph it states that the island is part of the Aleutians, and from the map it appears to be near to the middle of the arc. Could you clarify its location slightly?

The Aleutian Arc is in general very remote, including Mount Cleveland. I've moved the 490 bit down to Geological setting per below. ResMar 21:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You have two sources currently in the lead, one of which is only found at that point. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should have no information not in the body. Information from these sources should be moved into the main article text if not already there. I notice the description of stratovolcanoes is currently not in the body.

Done. ResMar 21:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think information about the most recent eruption(s) would be useful to mention here. Try to make sure that all sections in the article are mentioned in the lead in some way, at the moment it seems to me that a short description of structure would be helpful.

Done. ResMar 21:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geological setting

• "As the plate moves deeper into the earth, the increasing pressure results in the loss of volatiles from various hydrous minerals, especially chlorite, and the addition of water to the mantle wedge between the subducting and overriding plates lowers the melting point and causes magma to form." This is a very long sentence, which includes terminology (eg volatiles, mantle wedge) whose meaning may not be obvious to your layman reader. Although they are wikilinked, perhaps a slightly longer explanation would make things clearer.

I've tried to simplify it. ResMar 21:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

• This is a fairly long paragraph, and I would suggest a simple break into two paragraphs separating the Aleut name information from the English name information.
• Since this section introduces the Aleut name as Chuginadak, the subsequent phrase "Mount Cleveland and the rest of Chuginadak were separate islands" may be confusing, especially as it still discusses Aleut lore. Something like "Mount Cleveland and the rest of what is now Chuginadak island were separated" would be clearer?

Done. ResMar 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This section includes the phrase "like the other volcanoes in the Four Islands group". The four islands group has not been mentioned before in the article, so to the unknowledgeable (aka me) it raises more questions than it answers at this point. Are all these islands volcanically related, and if so perhaps information about the history of the group could be added to Geological setting? (as I see there is some information in the next section) Additionally, whatever the first mention is, wikilink it at that point.

Um, I don't see that in the section. ResMar 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• How is Corwin's rock relevant?

Removed. ResMar 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and structure

• Is there anything unique about it being almost symmetrical?

It's a characteristic. There are other volcanoes that exhibit this trait, most famously Mount Fuji. ResMar 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• When you say Mount Cleveland is "the highest of the four volcanoes" does that mean the volcanoes of the islands of the four mountains? Or are there four volcanoes on Chuginadak?

Changed. ResMar 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What island is Nikolski on? Is it an Aleut settlement? Are there anything like research stations closer to Mount Cleveland?

Added Nikolski's island, no way to be sure but I don't think it is, and no there are none in the vicinity, although there is a camera located on a nearby island (don't know which one off the top of my head). ResMar 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Information about the eastern half of the island does not seem entirely connected. I assume the volcanic peaks are related to each other, are they from the same magma chamber as Mount Cleveland?

That would be speculation; no one's studied them beyond marking them down on a map, so I can't say anything about them besides that they're there. ResMar 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(excuse my ignorance if I'm saying complete rubbish) In addition, you mention glaciers on the east, are there any on Mount Cleveland?

Mount Cleveland's constant eruptions disrupt the slow layer on its flanks, so no glaciers, no. ResMar 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the significance of there being rhyolite?

None, it's just a rock. A lot of people has asked this, and honestly, it's just a detail, it doesn't mean anything. Seems like I should change it to just "rock". ResMar 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What does it mean for a volcano to be "heavily dissected"?

Changed to rough. See File:MountCleveland.jpg; the change in slope and in, um, "smoothness" is clearly visible near its base. ResMar 21:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The last couple of sentences here have some terminology that again could use some laymanising (laymanising?). By "The flows" does that mean hardened lava flows? By "variably vegetated" does that mean different kinds of vegetation or vegetation only occurring in some areas?

Done. ResMar 21:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Without knowing we are in the Holocene it is hard to understand the connection between the lack of erosion and the result that it is a Holocene volcano. Perhaps add something such as "...Mount Cleveland is likely a Holocene volcano, formed in the last 10,000 years."

Done. ResMar 21:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eruptive history

• Perhaps best to separate the description of vulcanian and strombolian eruptions, again for the layman.

Hmm. There isn't much different between the two. Strombolian eruptions are more constant and lower level, but vulcanian eruptions burp out more material. The way it describes them, by listing eruptive ejecta, isn't really changed between the two, save in volume; it applies to both types. ResMar 14:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Who observed the different eruptions? Why are half of them only possible?

Done. I'd be more specific, but that would be going into speculation... ResMar 14:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of this section seems very good, and besides perhaps more explanation on the size of recent eruptions and the reason some eruptions were only possibly eruptions I can at the moment think of little else to say here.

I'm not an expert on volcanoes, and this article seems fairly thorough to me. It seems you know your volcanoes, and I hope what I have said is clear. If not, I'm watching this page. Good luck, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of the above comments and think this would have some trouble at FAC in its current state. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I think the lead should be more accessible - the word "Alaska" does not even appear until the last sentence on the lead. I think it should be in the first sentence (and yes, it is in the title)

Added Alaska to the first sentence of the lead. ResMar 13:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I also think most readers will be more familiar with the Aleutian Islands than the Aleutian Arc and would mention the islands in the first sentence and the arc later. I think I would also mention that the arc is a chain of volcanoes and give some idea of the rough number of volcanos in the chain itself.

I always thought that major geological formations are more oft remembered then the border lines that are superimposed on them. We know them as the Himalayas, not as the Tibetian Himalayas and Chinese Himalayas and Indian Himalayas. I've changed it to Islands but this comment still puzzles me. ResMar 15:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you give a distance from some more well known point too (Anchorage?) - does not have to be in the lead, but might help.

I can't find its distance to Anchorage...ResMar 13:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason not to list the height of summit in the lead? It is in the infobox.

Done. ResMar 15:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Very nice free 1982 photo of Mount Cleveland here

There is already a very good lead image. This is a good image too, but there is no space to put it in the article. I will upload it to Commons sometime, though. ResMar 13:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The above photo's information mentions that the island / mount are in the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, which is also shown pretty clearly on this mape of the refuge - here (PDF) - the refuge should be mentioned in the article.
• I was also surprised there was nothing on vegetation and animal life that inhabit the slopes of the mountain - the description for File:Alaska's Aleutian Island (ASTER).jpg mentions vegetation too

B/c no one cares. Yes it's in a gigantic wildlife refuge covering many, many islands, and that is relevant; but that doesn't mean that its wildlife, if it has any (?), is specifically relevant. All the attention the volcano has received has been exclusively geological. No one's really payed attention to its grass; I'd think it would be disturbed constantly by eruptions. ResMar 15:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I found File:Islands of Four Mountains.jpg to be another striking image which appears to show steam emissions too. I also noticed the article uses both "Four Islands group" (in Etymology) and "Islands of Four Mountains" (in Geography and structure), which seems needlessly confusing. If it should be "Four Mountains island group" or something similar in Etymology, I would link it there instead.

Regarding the image, again, there isn't enough space for it; although it would make a good gallery image. The images in the article are pretty good imo. The one I would like to replace is the one of the Four Mountains group, the satellite photo, because the photo there is very cloudy - unfortunately "cloudy" is the status quo around there. ResMar 14:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would a map of the Four Mountains island group help? Open Street Map could be used.

I think an overhead satellite image is better. Open Street Map is for, well, streets. ResMar 14:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good topo map here. I would love to stack this and the satellite photo in a vertical image template, but the section isn't long enough...ResMar 14:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Islands of Four Mountains article says Mount Cleveland was shown on a Russian map from 1826 or so (as on the islands of four mountains) - assuming this is accurate, it should also be in this article.

Done. ResMar 14:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So it is in a wildlife refuge and the Russians mapped it and the article says nothing about flora or fauna. One of the FAC criteria is comprehensiveness. If I can find these missing things just poking around a little, I think there is likely more out there to include.

See above, but I'll reiterate here, no one cares about its minimal flora and fauna. Can't write without sources. ResMar 15:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Problem sentence It was named "Mount Cleveland" by a U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey expedition in 1894, when it was originally observed by the USS Concord; like the other volcanoes in the Four Islands group, Mount Cleveland was named after prominent American politicians at the time, Cleveland itself having been named after then-president Grover Cleveland.[10][9] First off the sentence is too long and should be split. Second (minor point) refs should be in numerical order (so [9][10]). Third, we already know the Aleuts observed this and it seems that the Russians did too, so "originally observed" seems very wrong. Fourth, it was not names after politicians (plural), it was named after Grover Cleveland (who was large but singular). Fifth - avoid passive voice where possible (usually a bit shorter to use active voice too). So I would tweak it to something like The USS Concord, on a U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey expedition, observed the peak in 1894 and named it "Mount Cleveland" for then-president Grover Cleveland. All of the volcanoes in the Four Islands group were named for prominent American politicians of that era.[9][10]
• This could use a copy edit.

|: ResMar 15:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible to date volcanoes in any meaningful way - does anyone have a scientific estimate as to how old this mountain / volcano is? Even if that is not known, I assume there is some sort of rough date / age for the Aleutian arc / islands?

Mount Cleveland is <11,000 years old, judging by its activity level and slope characteristics. Although a sample of rock was taken from it sometime, I don't think it was dated. There's a few ways to date a volcano, some more accurate then others: dating rocks taking from the volcano's bedrock; morphological analysis based on similar volcanoes; and stratigraphical analysis, to name a few. ResMar 14:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the Chlorite group article lists quite a few species known as chlorites (7 or 8), shouldn't this article use the plural (chlorites, not chlorite)?

I've removed chlorites entirely to simplify the reading. ResMar 15:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In Geography and structure I would discuss the peak first and then the rest of the island (now it is peak, island, more peak)

Done. ResMar 15:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes this more notable than the other previous eruptions? The first notable eruption from Mount Cleveland was a Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) 3 Vulcanian eruption that occurred between June 10 and June 13, 1944.

Only direct volcanic fatality, a couple of sentences down. ResMar

• Why the inconsistent capitalizations on Vulcanian and Strombolian?
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing

Dropped 2 links I think. ResMar 15:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid non-specific time expressions The volcano has erupted at least 21 times in the last 230 years,[15] with the most recent beginning on May 30 2010 and ending in late May or early June.[18] That was true in 2010, but now it is 2011 and strictly speaking it is 231 years now.
• Also avoid words like today - can use "as of 2011" or if the start date is known "Since YEAR, the Alaska Volcano Observatory monitors activity at Mount Cleveland using satellite imagery.
• I note that Brianboulton and Ealdgyth both thought the non-published source should not be used here (I know this from Brian's talk page)

It's only used one now for a bit of routine information. As I understand it, they thought it was borderline, and I'd rather add sources to the article then remove them. ResMar 15:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Ok O_O. ResMar 15:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]