Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Williams Cone/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 16:00 22 June 2026 FACBot (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Williams Cone


Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 17:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a small volcano and the youngest cinder cone in the Desolation Lava Field of British Columbia, Canada. It's kinda short but that's to be expected for an article about a minor landform. For example, see the article about Eve Cone which is about 6 kilometres (3.7 mi) northwest of Williams Cone. Volcanoguy 17:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, GeoWriter, and Generalissima: This FAC may be of interest to you. Volcanoguy 20:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

JJE

Disclaimer: Was linked to here from my own FAC so this review should be assessed accordingly.Pretty short article, but not too short for FA I reckon. Specific points:

  • "The cause of volcanic activity in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province is thought to be due to rifting of the North American Cordillera" is the "due to" needed? The rifting is the cause, there isn't an intermediate step named here.
    I've removed "The cause of" and replaced "volcanic activity with "volcanism". Volcanoguy 20:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "involved the accumulation of" better "build up"?
    Done. Volcanoguy 21:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most of it was rafted away by massive lava from Williams Cone" what does "massive lava" mean here?
    Removed "massive". Volcanoguy 18:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing objectionable about article structure, sourcing and formatting. ALT text and images fine too.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the small-text qualifier above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Viz request at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests, I actually reviewed the sources too. Mostly consistent except for some IDs but that's for the bots. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that, sorry. Volcanoguy 14:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: noting that I did a source review here too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FM

Yes, the script looks at the article body alone. There are several duplinks from within the Basemen section and below. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the duplinks for the Nido and Raspberry formations. Volcanoguy 18:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after being submitted to the BC Geographical Names office by the Geological Survey of Canad." do we know how it was proposed and by who?
    Source doesn't say. Volcanoguy 17:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Williams Cone is named after a man named Hank Williams who was killed in an avalanche near the cone along with Johnny Edzerza in or before 1974" this seems awfully vague for something that happened so recently. Really no more info about this?
    I tried to find more information about this incident but I was unable to. It's vague because BC Geographical Names does not give the exact year when Hank Williams and Johnny Edzerza were killed. It cites a Beautiful British Columbia magazine published in 1974 so the avalanche happened that year or earlier. Volcanoguy 21:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
First mention is "The name of the cone", which would seem a logical place to spell out and link the term first time. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 18:23, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the northeastern flank of Mount Edziza." I wondered why the name was so similar to the name of the other man that died with Williams. Turns out it's a native name, and both men were native Tahltan, could be mentioned, along with any other missing info from that source.
    I don't think this is important, not to mention it would probably be off topic since this article isn't about Mount Edziza. Volcanoguy 17:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It indicates the hiker this cone is named for was Tahltan, which seems relevant. "They, like many of the local Tahltan people, had made the trip many times before". FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the following sentence in the article: "Hank Williams and the Edzerzas were Tahltans, the local First Nations people whose traditional territory covers an area of more than 93,500 km2 (36,100 mi2)." Volcanoguy 19:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and bombs" no idea what this was, seems the linked article is more specific with saying volcanic bomb or lava bomb, so could help here too.
    Used "lava bombs". Volcanoguy 17:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're inconsistent in whether you abbreviate measurements or not (mm/millimetres etc.)
    I recall there being a guideline that says if a measurement is used several times it should be abbreviated after its first usage. Volcanoguy 17:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, haven't seen that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unusual that Hank Williams in the infobox links to a section in the article. Can't really ind a policy on this, but I was under the impression that it was discouraged.
    Hank Williams is not a notable person so it links to this article. Volcanoguy 18:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and comments Crisco 1492

  • I see that Jo-Jo already signed off on the images above. For visibility's sake, I just figured I'd add a subheader and note specifically that all three photographs are from the same photographer, with EXIF data also reflecting the credited photographer.

Otherwise, in excellent shape - at least as a lay reader. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, could I just check if you are intending to indicate a pass for the image review and a support for the article in general? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

  • "Williams Cone is a cinder cone on the northeastern flank of Mount Edziza in Cassiar Land District of northwestern British Columbia, Canada." Is it normally described like that? To me it seems to lack a definite object - '... a cinder cone on the northeastern flank of Mount Edziza in the Cassiar Land District of northwestern British Columbia, Canada.'
    There is normally no the before the names of land districts. Volcanoguy 17:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has an elevation of 2,100 metres (6,900 feet)". Exactly 2,100 m? (Which does not convert to 6,900 ft.)
    2,100 metres is all I could find in RS. Volcanoguy 17:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What was the source? And would it be possible to either quote here just what that RS says about the height or send me a copy?
Global Volcanism Program, there is nothing to quote it just lists the elevation of the cone as 2,100 m. Volcanoguy 17:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Surrounding Williams Cone are a number of other volcanic features". But when you go on to list some, you only list cones - not "a number of other volcanic features".
    The cones are volcanic features. I used "features" instead of "cones" to avoid redundancy. Volcanoguy 17:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Access is via horse trails from Telegraph Creek and Iskut, although landing on Buckley Lake with float-equipped aircraft is also promoted to reach Williams Cone." 1. I don't think we need "access is by" and "to reach Williams Cone" in the one sentence. 2. Promoted by whom?
    I'm not sure what's wrong with the current wording. Changed "promoted" to "allowed". Volcanoguy 17:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if this might be ready for promotion, but given your last two comments I am a little twitchy re 1a. I could skim the rest of the article myself, but given the FAC backlog I will see if I can round up someone else. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what is wrong with my last two comments so we can solve any issues. You said you don't think "access is by" and "to reach Williams Cone" are needed. However, with without those included, the sentence would read as "Horse trails from Telegraph Creek and Iskut, although landing on Buckley Lake with float-equipped aircraft is also allowed". Without "access is by", it isn't clear what the connection is between the cone and the horse trails. Volcanoguy 18:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bgsu98 (6/10/26)

Cinder cone is not a term that most people will recognize. Ideally, we don't want a reader to have to navigate away from an article in order to understand something about it. Therefore, I recommend a brief (one-sentence) definition of "cinder cone" in the lead so readers will know what it is.

I'm not sure if that is necessary because the following sentence makes it obvious that its a volcanic feature. Volcanoguy 22:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give you an example from a GA review I just did today: "Clear Channel acquired WTEV outright from MGA Broadcasting after the FCC legalized duopolies—the outright ownership of two broadcast licenses in a market—in 1999." The author used a term that most people would not recognize (duopoly), so she immediately gave a very brief explanation that fit seamlessly in the prose. All the second sentence says is that a cinder cone is a volcanic cone. Not until Geology#Formation do we finally get to learn what a cinder cone is. Leads are supposed to summarize the main points of an article. I (highly) recommend a sentence in the first paragraph (probably even the second sentence), defining what a cinder cone is. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98: I have not seen any GA or FA articles giving the definition of a volcano in the introduction. If you think this is a problem I could simply replace "cinder cone" with "small volcano". Volcanoguy 19:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would work. I apologize for not responding sooner; I did not receive the notice that you had responded. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 23:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Name and etymology
  • "The name of the cinder cone became official on January 2, 1980." --> This is not a good opening sentence. Perhaps "Williams Cone was officially named on January 2, 1980."
    Done. Volcanoguy 22:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Williams Cone is named after a man named Hank Williams who was killed in an avalanche near the cone along with Johnny Edzerza in or before 1974." --> "Williams Cone was named after Hank Williams, a man who was killed along with Johnny Edzerza in an avalanche near the cone on or before 1974."
    Done. Volcanoguy 22:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The avalanche occurred during a vicious snowstorm that had blown in from the north as Hank Williams, Johnny Edzerza, and Edzerza's wife Eve were traveling via dog sled to Iskut from Telegraph Creek 72 km (45 mi) to the west."
    Done. Volcanoguy 15:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hank Williams and the Edzerzas were Tahltans..."
    Done. Volcanoguy 15:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
  • You could repeat the full name Mount Edziza volcanic complex (MEVC) at the start of this new section, but that is just a recommendation.
  • "The dominant rocks comprising these volcanoes..." --> This is a misuse of "comprising" (a common error, which many people, including myself, have made.) You probably want "composing" instead.
    Comprise means "to consist of" or "be composed of" so I don't see how "comprising" is being misused here. Volcanoguy 15:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and the rocks do not consist of the volcanoes; the volcanoes consist of the rocks. "Comprise" is almost always incorrectly backwards. The play is comprised of five acts. vs. The play comprises five acts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Used "composing" instead. Volcanoguy 19:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "The dominant rocks composing these volcanoes are alkali basalts and hawaiites, but nephelinite, basanite and peralkaline[a] phonolite, trachyte and comendite are locally abundant." This beginning of this sentence still sounds awkward. @RoySmith, Gog the Mild, Crisco 1492, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and FunkMonk: You have all commented on this FAC; I am looking for a second opinion on this phrase. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to preface this with a note that I don't write about geology. Personally, I am okay with the phrasing, but would "These volcanoes are composed predominantly of alkali basalts and hawaiites, though nephelinite, basanite and peralkaline[a] phonolite, trachyte and comendite are locally abundant." address your concerns (and reflect the phrasing used in the field)? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue to me is a question of grammar, not geology. The phrasing as is does not sound right, but I'm not sure I can explain why. Your suggestion sounds grammatically fine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit that being ESL I am not sure if "comprising" is good or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    English is my first language, but to be honest I probably understand English grammar less than many who have learned it as a second language. I mostly go with what sounds right and can rarely give you a strict grammatical argument to back that up. I suspect that's true of most native speakers. With that out of the way, I agree that "composing" doesn't sound wrong, but it does sound a little odd. How about side-stepping the question with "The dominant rocks that make up these volcanoes are ..." RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Volcanoguy: Overall, a well-written article. Please let me know when you've had a chance to examine my comments. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:01, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: Volcanoguy 15:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Volcanoguy: Please see my responses above. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Volcanoguy: Let me know when you've had a chance to resolve the two remaining issues. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: Should I use "The dominant rocks that make up these volcanoes are ..." instead? Volcanoguy 23:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Volcanoguy: That sounds like a good solution. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98: Done. Volcanoguy 01:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

I was asked by one of the FAC coords to take a look at the prose here vis-a-vis WP:FACR 1a ( engaging and of a professional standard). But rather than that, I'd like to take a step back and consider this from the viewpoint of criteria 4 (stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style) which comes into clearer focus when considered along with closely related articles.

Looking at Williams Cone#Accessibility, I then went and looked at Mount Edziza volcanic complex, Mount Edziza, Eve Cone and Desolation Field volcanic complex. These roughly 400 word sections are all essentially identical. In many cases, they're obviously copy-pasted from each other. Is this really necessary?

The same is true of the Name and etymology sections of Williams Cone and Eve Cone. Mount Edziza also covers some of the same material. There is similar overlap in the Geography sections:

Williams Cone lies in Mount Edziza Provincial Park southeast of the community of Telegraph Creek.[2] With an area of 266,180 hectares (657,700 acres), it is one of the largest provincial parks in British Columbia.[25][26] Mount Edziza Provincial Park was established in 1972 to preserve the volcanic landscape.[25] It includes not only the Mount Edziza area, but also the Spectrum Range to the south, both of which are separated by Raspberry Pass.[4][25] Mount Edziza Provincial Park is in the Tahltan Highland, a southeast-trending upland area extending along the western side of the Stikine Plateau.[4][27]

Eve Cone lies in Mount Edziza Provincial Park southeast of the community of Telegraph Creek.[2] With an area of 266,180 hectares (657,700 acres), Mount Edziza Provincial Park is one of the largest provincial parks in British Columbia and was established in 1972 to preserve the volcanic landscape.[17][27] It includes not only the Mount Edziza area but also the Spectrum Range to the south, both of which are separated by Raspberry Pass.[4][17] Mount Edziza Provincial Park is in the Tahltan Highland, a southeast-trending upland area extending along the western side of the Stikine Plateau.[4][28]

My apologies if this sounds harsh, but this feels like an example of Least publishable unit. RoySmith (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the accessibility and geographical information you mentioned is useful for criteria 1b (it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context). The articles you looked at are about features in the same area so it's only natural for them to contain some of the same information. As far as I'm aware of, copying within Wikipedia is allowed as long as attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page per WP:CWW. I'm the one who wrote all of the information so attribution is unnecessary. I don't see anything in WP:FACR saying copied material from other articles can't be used. Volcanoguy 15:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is not about copyrights, it's about how to best present information to our readers. When a topic gets too big to comfortably cover in one article, it makes sense to split it into smaller chunks. But I don't see that being the case here; there's so much material in common between this group of articles, it feels like you're spreading it too thin just for the sake of having more articles.
But I don't see that being the case here; there's so much material in common between this group of articles, it feels like you're spreading it too thin just for the sake of having more articles. This is not necessarily true. Some features of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex have a lot more information than others so I can see WP:UNDUE being a potential issue in a single comprehensive article about subfeatures of this volcanic complex. Volcanoguy 19:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It especially feels like you're going past "neglects no major facts" and into "unnecessary detail" territory when you enumerate the features of every little creek and trail. I'd rather see a more selective presentation of the important things in a comprehensive article covering the whole area. RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors who have reviewed this and other articles about neighbouring features did not seem to have a problem with any of this. The trails do not have articles and are probably not notable enough to have their own articles. That's why it's more detailed. What "features of every little creek" are you referring to? The only creek I went into detail with is Tsecha Creek, which seems reasonable to me because it originates at Williams Cone. Lots of water from the cone flows through this creek so the two features are interconnected. Volcanoguy 18:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit. What do you think would be a better word to use than numeronym? Volcanoguy 15:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just say that's what it's called without trying to explain a reason behind the name. I don't see anything in Souther which goes into that, so neither should you. In fact, Souther says "Eve Cone and Williams Cone are the two youngest eruptive centres in the Desolation Lava Field" which contradicts your "tenth youngest". RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It does say Williams Cone is considered to be younger than Eve Cone. Volcanoguy 16:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "With an area of 266,180 hectares (657,700 acres)". I think that square kilometres and miles would make more sense to readers for such a large area.
    Maybe, but the source uses hectares instead of square kilometers. Volcanoguy 16:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that WP:CALC applies. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 20:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It includes not only the Mount Edziza area, but also the Spectrum Range to the south, both of which are separated by Raspberry Pass." Do you mean that Raspberry Pass goes between the areas? If so, "both of" makes no sense here.
    Removed "both of". Volcanoguy 17:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rifting of the North American Cordillera, driven by changes in relative plate motion between the North American and Pacific plates". No change needed, but the North American plate is apparently moving apart from the African and Pacific plates. Does that mean that North America is being squeezed from both sides causing continuing mountain building?
    I'm not sure, but the NCVP is not the only place in western North America that has undergone rifting; there's also the Basin and Range Province. With that being said, I think the Coast Mountains west of Williams Cone are still undergoing tectonic uplift. Volcanoguy 17:06, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Williams Cone and its eruptive products...are the most recent additions to the Desolation Lava Field" "The cone is the youngest in the Desolation Lava Field". This is repetition unless I have misunderstood. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded. Volcanoguy 17:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Williams_Cone/archive1&oldid=1360676258"