Talk:Trout Creek Hill

Trout Creek Hill has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 10, 2018. (Reviewed version).

It is requested that an image or photograph of Trout Creek Hill be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Washington (state) may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A fact from Trout Creek Hill appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 May 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Trout Creek Hill volcanic eruption approximately 340,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene, produced a lava flow that extended 20 km (12 mi), temporarily damming the Columbia River?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2018/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trout Creek Hill.

Wikipedia

A fact from Trout Creek Hill appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 June 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Trout Creek Hill volcanic eruption approximately 340,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene, produced a lava flow that extended 20 km (12 mi), temporarily damming the Columbia River?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trout Creek Hill.

Wikipedia

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Volcanoes Low‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

GA Review

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 09:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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:
Who is the publisher of "Day Hiking Columbia River Gorge: National Scenic Area/Silver Star Scenic Area/Portland–Vancouver to The Dalles"?
Fixed. ceranthor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

C. It contains no original research:
I am not sure that source #2 supports the content and source #7 does not speak of a dacitic Garibaldi Volcanic Belt at least not there.
Fixed. Source 2 also has information on the subpage "Subfeatures".

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Although I'd recommend that the lists of plants and animals use their own sorting method.
Not sure what you mean by this. ceranthor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
The article currently uses the same sorting order as the source text. Normally I use alphabetic or inverse alphabetic when I am taking such lists from a source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I see. I'll fix that now. ceranthor 15:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Jo-Jo Eumerus These should now be fixed. ceranthor 15:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
But the source link to the geology image is broken.
Should be fixed. ceranthor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Overall:
Pass or Fail:
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks, as always, for the insightful review and comments. I fixed most of your comments, and left a few questions/replies. Thanks! ceranthor 15:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic