Talk:Geology of the Lassen volcanic area

Wow! featured!

How'd this get featured? It's so good!AmongusRanger (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Featured & Disputed?

How does this work. Surely if there is disputed content it can't be a featured article? If the area of dispute has been cleared up, please remove the tag... it doesn't look good to see a featured article with that tag smack bang at the top. Kare Kare 03:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was promoted prematurely; I made an attempt to address the concerns of the person who placed the tag just hours before promotion. The user has not looked over my changes yet. I've ask Raul to relist as a FAC so we can have the best possible version of the article linked in the above history when it does get promoted. --mav 06:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the use of the {{disputed}} tag on this article as it stands. I agree with User:KP Botany that the article more information is needed for the early Cenozoic (I also mentioned this in the FAC). However, this is an omission, not a factual inaccuracy. The template{{disputed}} is used for articles with multiple false or unverified statements. I think we should change the template to {{vagueintro}}, to more closely match KP's criticism.

I would fix the article myself, but I do not have the reference texts at hand: I think we have to either wait for mav to fix the article, or perhaps KP can step in and fix it. hike395 15:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct tag added. --mav 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

can someone please remove the karate kid picture and replace it with the graphic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chladek (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing history

KP/all - at least in general terms, what events that occurred post Klamath/Sierra basement break and pre-Sierra uplift do you think are relevant to an article about the Lassen volcanic area? If none or few, then I will add that info. However, I'm tempted to simply start this article as it did originally - with the events leading to the formation of the Tuscan Formation since we have a fairly clear link between that and the geology we see today. Not to mention, that the Tuscan is known to exist right below the surface in several places within the park and does crop out in places near park borders.

One has to limit what is talked about in some way, and other park geology articles focus on formations/layers that actually crop out in or immediately around the park with short mentions about removed or deeply buried layers (self-limiting the discussion in a fairly natural way). I think that would make for a more on-topic article that will flow better. What do you think? --mav

Personally, I think that the Cenozoic history of the area is interesting, but doesn't need to go into the introduction, because it is a side issue. I went back and did some research: I think you hit the high points already --- the Eocene and Miocene vulcanism, the Modoc flood basalts, Mount Maidu. So, I don't think you need to add any more. hike395 12:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag issue

OK - if that is the consensus, then we can remove the tag in 24 hours. --mav 00:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've since started the article with the tilting of the Sierras and laying down of the Tuscan formation, thus directly addressing KP's objection of mentioning the Sierra/Klamath split 140 mya and then not mentioning any geology up to the Tuscan formation. So, can we get rid of the tag? I can't think of anything else that needs to be added or taken away from the intro/lead. --mav 13:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of the Cenozoic that can simply be left out of an article on the geology of the Mt. Lassen area, but if you include any you must be certain you are talking about an earlier Sierra. I think the notes left by another user on the FAC page would greatly help the introduction. I remain concerned about some aspects of this article. I made suggestions about technical references that could readily be incorporated into this text for accuracy, but you've chosen to stick with only general referances. I feel that is a mistake and leads to things like a lead paragraph where you jump around in major events in time. You start with recent uplift, go to subduction for hundreds of millions of years, then date these volcanoes at 70 MY, yet the Wikipedia article on the Cascade Vocanoes says volcanism began in the arc 37 MYA. I don't agree with the tag being removed, and I don't agree that this is FA, at least the introduction. In general it's well written and well researched, except for missing some details that can only come from reading more recent technical papers--the sources cited are insufficient for the topic of the article. KP Botany 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The introduction remains vague, and the tag should stay until the introduction is all that it should be:

"Oceanic tectonic plates have plunged below the North American Plate in this part of North America for hundreds of millions of years. Heat from these subducting plates has fed scores of volcanoes in California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia over at least the past 30 million years (see Geology of the Pacific Northwest) and is also responsible for activities in the Lassen volcanic area.

Between 2 and 4 million years ago, volcanic-derived mud flows called lahars streamed down several major sources that included nearby but now extinct Mount Yana and Mount Maidu to become the Tuscan Formation."

We have three things going on here right from square one, we have hundreds of millions of years of tectonic plates, then the article discusses the current subduction complex, the Laramide Orogeny and younger events--well, what the heck is this hundreds of millions of years of subduction about, then? You start at the bottom in the intro, then move to the current setting and move back in time in the article, then call the Sierran uplift the "basement rocks?"

No, the introduction is vague, almost entirely unrelated to the article, and the tag should remain as long as this is an issue. KP Botany 21:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take another look and make another shot at addressing your points. I've already started to use journal cites. --mav 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong objection to tag being removed

The introduction IS vague, and the tag IS needed. I object to its being removed without discussion, and my comments about it being removed being ignored by the remover. The tag does belong right now on this article to alert the reader to issues of major concern about the introduction of this article, which is not comprehensible from a geological perspective. This has not been dealt with, and apparently it will not be dealt with as the push for FA status is going forward full force, and apparently my objections about the geology of this article are a bit too much for those supporting it. I bow out and leave it to all of you to push this forward as a FA. KP Botany 04:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You previously suggested removing all info about Cretaceous events. I did so. I also removed mention of the Sierra uplift from the intro because it is not directly related to the geology of this particular volcanic area. Should that go back? Also, what other parts of the geology of this area need to be in the intro? Recall that intros need to be concise encyclopedia articles in their own right. So we can't include everything there; just the most relevant and important info. As for the tag; everybody else who has commented on that issue has agreed that none is needed. I also voluntarily had this article un-FACed in spite of it having more than enough support to pass so I could incorporate your feedback into improving it. That said, I very much want to address your concerns, but that is a bit difficult if more of a specific critique is not forthcoming. In the meantime, I'll search the academic literature for relevant papers and try to find time to visit a nearby university that has the journals. If you have any ideas on papers I should look at, then please provide them. :) --mav 15:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Seems to me that the introduction seems to be a little long and technical. Shouldnt some of that information be trimmed and merged into the main article? 76.212.151.84 (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Sandy

The intro is a summary of the whole article and is within the correct range for an article this size. See WP:LEAD. --mav (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

1917 or 1921?

As it turns out: both. There's no strict definition of the end of an eruption. The last major eruption was in 1917, "activity" continued until. 1921, and Lassen still leaks a little steam today. Theis is explained in the Tuttle book.

Mav: I don't have access to the fifth edition --- if you like, you could find this fact in the fifth edition, and combine the refs. —hike395 (talk) 16:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This confused me too: my father remembered big smoke or ash plumes, and I recall photos in a local library dated c.1940. Sparafucil (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Issues from old FAC?

Ceranthor, Jo-Jo Eumerus, you're the two most expert geology editors I know of. I was looking through old FACs and read this article's FAC, here, from 2007. User KP Botany was very definite then that the article was deficient, even at the end of the FAC, and as far as I could tell the other reviewers were not experts in the field. Can you have a look at KP Botany's comments and see if you think they're valid? Also pinging Mav, the original nominator, and KP Botany, as a courtesy, though neither has edited for years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wet California is not an area I know about much. I admit that a complaint this hyperbolic strikes me as questionable. I think the current lead section is on topic and pertinent. The main question is how far the timeline should go, right? Well, the Californian subduction zone goes back to the Jurassic but I am not sure (also, is Lassen really, geologically speaking, part of the Cascades? My topographic impression is that it should be considered part of the Sierra Nevada instead - at least its surface parts, that is) that it extended so far north. And I am pretty certain most information that we have on the area is about its post-Jurassic history, so that needs to be the bulk of the article. Finally, I see lots of unsourced paragraphs ... perhaps it warrants a trip to FAR. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know enough geology to be sure I could recapitulate KP Botany's objections, I was just hoping someone who did could take a look -- KP seemed pretty convinced it was not up to scratch and I gather Mav was an interested layman, not a professional, so thought it was worth checking. I don't think Ceranthor is very active at the moment but there's no hurry; we can see if they comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Geologically, the Lassen Volcanic Center is part of the Cascades. See e.g. https://www.usgs.gov/volcanoes/lassen-volcanic-center/geology-and-history GeoWriter (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

GeoWriter, what do you think of KP Botany's comments here? It looks as though Mav addressed some of them but not all of them. Do you think the article is accurate, clear, and comprehensive as it stands? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Mike Christie, which specific criticism by user KP Botany do think user Mav has not addressed? Of course, there is always room for improving any Wikipedia article but I think this article is currently a reasonably good attempt at summarising the geology for the general reader and it seems (reasonably) accurate, clear, and comprehensive. I have not yet found any major inaccuracies in the article. If I do, I'll try to correct them. GeoWriter (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Most of their concerns seemed to be about the introduction, by which I assume they meant the lead, so if you think the lead is in good shape that would be the main thing. There are also comments about the geology being more complex than is explained in the article: this is their last post complaining about errors and they say that not enough has been done by way of reading the relevant technical papers. I know so little about geology I was concerned that there were basic errors here, but if you think it’s OK then that’s a relief to hear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

FA concerns

Looking at this as part of the ongoing FA sweeps. This older FA needs a bit of a tune-up against the FA criteria. There is significant uncited text, which appears to be the primary issue from my non-geologist's eye. Also, the newest current material is from a 2005 source; is there anything to add as to the activity of this area since then? If issues are not addressed, a featured article review may need to occur. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

There is probably something here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)