![]() | Boring Lava Field is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 1, 2023. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
How could I pass over a title like this, and it was anything but. If I wasn't so stretched I would give a closer read, so just take this as a couple of passing comments,
Hope these comments are useful, cygnis insignis 04:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The USGS is mentioned fifteen times, would contracting to that acronym be warranted? cygnis insignis 17:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
...this article seems like in a pretty good shape. Is there no pre-1845 history of the region? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The subsection titled "History", while not without interest, has essentially no relevance to the article's subject (to wit, the Boring Lava Field, who's history is covered in the subsection titled "Eruptive History"). The "History" subsection does not provide any relevant context to the lava field. In the interest of retaining focus on the actual subject of the article, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:CA70:F8E3:8A67:E3E:F837 ( talk) 18:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Boring Lava Field is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 1, 2023. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
How could I pass over a title like this, and it was anything but. If I wasn't so stretched I would give a closer read, so just take this as a couple of passing comments,
Hope these comments are useful, cygnis insignis 04:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The USGS is mentioned fifteen times, would contracting to that acronym be warranted? cygnis insignis 17:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
...this article seems like in a pretty good shape. Is there no pre-1845 history of the region? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The subsection titled "History", while not without interest, has essentially no relevance to the article's subject (to wit, the Boring Lava Field, who's history is covered in the subsection titled "Eruptive History"). The "History" subsection does not provide any relevant context to the lava field. In the interest of retaining focus on the actual subject of the article, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:CA70:F8E3:8A67:E3E:F837 ( talk) 18:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)