This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Three Sisters (Oregon) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Three Sisters (Oregon) 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 January 6, 2018. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 12, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Three Sisters (pictured) in Oregon are part of a
complex volcano? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Three Sisters (Oregon) from fr.wikipedia. ( 813278873 et seq.) |
This article contains a translation of Three Sisters (Oregon) from fr.wikipedia. ( 813352015 et seq.) |
Moved from Talk:Three Sisters
The link to the CNN article seems invalid. :/
I don't think I did the move request right, but there it is. I don't see these three sisters in Oregon as being more notable than the other mountain ranges or other meanings of the word so I suggest the first page be disambig. Mithridates 01:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Tried to move it just now but I wasn't able to move the disambig page into the main one so I just put it back for the moment. Now that I think about it I should be asleep now. Maybe someone else can help. Mithridates 21:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Please note that there has been a proposal to make the default for " Three Sisters" the Chekhov play rather than the disambiguation page. Please refer here to express your view. Somno ( talk) 03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
First: I tried to improve the appearance of the article. To fix the line spacing, between the three elevations, prominences and coordinates, I ran everything together on one line for each field. Look at the prior version to see the problem this fixed.
Second: I used PeakBagger as the source for elevation and prominence data for all three mountains. The prior version used NGS as the source for the elevation of the South Sister. The elevation on the NGS datasheet uses NAVD 88 while Peakbagger and the on current topo maps uses NGVD 29. I think its better to use the same datum for all three. – droll [chat] 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Neonblak ( talk · contribs) 17:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I should have a review posted within a day or two. I look forward to assisting you in promoting this interesting article !
Neonblak
talk - 17:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Comments below have been reviewed, and corrected as needed. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Layout is correct, and all sections are properly constructed. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | All references are properly, and consistently, formatted. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All photos have proper licencing. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All photos are valuable in illustrating the topic. | |
7. Overall assessment. | A finely written article, great job. |
Lead
Geography and geology
Flora and fauna
Like Congrats on the GA! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Ceranthor: what do you think of making this section a sub-section under Geography and geology? This would create a very long beginning section, but currently all of the last section's content falls under those categories. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Ceranthor. Geography is off my beaten track, but the article which is looking good from a layman's point of view. Just some minor comments from me, mostly technical.
I have read till Climbing and recreation section. FrB.TG ( talk) 20:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
And that's it. FrB.TG ( talk) 15:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC) @ Ceranthor: ping me once you get this to FAC. FrB.TG ( talk) 08:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
For geology, one topic that's missing is the hazards posed by the volcanoes. One source is here: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/three_sisters/three_sisters_hazard_98.html , which talks about lahars down the local drainage rivers.
The whole geology/geography section might benefit from subsections.
The text on the topographic map is probably too small to be a useful image: perhaps you could wikilink to the topographic map somewhere? The USGS hazards map has larger text, but may be too specialized. How about something like File:Cascade Range map.png ? That shows the location of the Three Sisters relative to other volcanoes. Maybe cropping it to just Oregon?
Happy to do any of these edits, but didn't want to do them unilaterally during FAC. — hike395 ( talk) 04:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I just expanded the ecology section. According to the USGS ecoregion maps, the area around the Three Sisters lie in 4 different ecoregions (depending on elevation and location). I took some material from Cascades (ecoregion) and Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills (ecoregion), condensed it, and built a short new ecology section around that. (Found an interesting thesis about the ecology of the area, also --- we could further expand this section with information from that thesis). The new material was partially taken from PD USGS sources.
The feature article criteria don't address PD material --- I believe it should be OK. If other editors think it's unaesthetic, we can either back out the edits or attempt to rewrite. It may be difficult to rewrite enough to remove the PD tag, because the material includes lists of species. — hike395 ( talk) 18:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
See here and here. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I thought the level of cooperation on getting this to FA was especially impressive. Kudos to Ceranthor and all the other editors who pitched in. Finetooth ( talk) 17:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Three Sisters (Oregon) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Three Sisters (Oregon) 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 January 6, 2018. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
October 12, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the
Three Sisters (pictured) in Oregon are part of a
complex volcano? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Three Sisters (Oregon) from fr.wikipedia. ( 813278873 et seq.) |
This article contains a translation of Three Sisters (Oregon) from fr.wikipedia. ( 813352015 et seq.) |
Moved from Talk:Three Sisters
The link to the CNN article seems invalid. :/
I don't think I did the move request right, but there it is. I don't see these three sisters in Oregon as being more notable than the other mountain ranges or other meanings of the word so I suggest the first page be disambig. Mithridates 01:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Tried to move it just now but I wasn't able to move the disambig page into the main one so I just put it back for the moment. Now that I think about it I should be asleep now. Maybe someone else can help. Mithridates 21:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Please note that there has been a proposal to make the default for " Three Sisters" the Chekhov play rather than the disambiguation page. Please refer here to express your view. Somno ( talk) 03:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
First: I tried to improve the appearance of the article. To fix the line spacing, between the three elevations, prominences and coordinates, I ran everything together on one line for each field. Look at the prior version to see the problem this fixed.
Second: I used PeakBagger as the source for elevation and prominence data for all three mountains. The prior version used NGS as the source for the elevation of the South Sister. The elevation on the NGS datasheet uses NAVD 88 while Peakbagger and the on current topo maps uses NGVD 29. I think its better to use the same datum for all three. – droll [chat] 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Neonblak ( talk · contribs) 17:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I should have a review posted within a day or two. I look forward to assisting you in promoting this interesting article !
Neonblak
talk - 17:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Comments below have been reviewed, and corrected as needed. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Layout is correct, and all sections are properly constructed. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | All references are properly, and consistently, formatted. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All photos have proper licencing. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All photos are valuable in illustrating the topic. | |
7. Overall assessment. | A finely written article, great job. |
Lead
Geography and geology
Flora and fauna
Like Congrats on the GA! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Ceranthor: what do you think of making this section a sub-section under Geography and geology? This would create a very long beginning section, but currently all of the last section's content falls under those categories. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Ceranthor. Geography is off my beaten track, but the article which is looking good from a layman's point of view. Just some minor comments from me, mostly technical.
I have read till Climbing and recreation section. FrB.TG ( talk) 20:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
And that's it. FrB.TG ( talk) 15:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC) @ Ceranthor: ping me once you get this to FAC. FrB.TG ( talk) 08:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
For geology, one topic that's missing is the hazards posed by the volcanoes. One source is here: https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/three_sisters/three_sisters_hazard_98.html , which talks about lahars down the local drainage rivers.
The whole geology/geography section might benefit from subsections.
The text on the topographic map is probably too small to be a useful image: perhaps you could wikilink to the topographic map somewhere? The USGS hazards map has larger text, but may be too specialized. How about something like File:Cascade Range map.png ? That shows the location of the Three Sisters relative to other volcanoes. Maybe cropping it to just Oregon?
Happy to do any of these edits, but didn't want to do them unilaterally during FAC. — hike395 ( talk) 04:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I just expanded the ecology section. According to the USGS ecoregion maps, the area around the Three Sisters lie in 4 different ecoregions (depending on elevation and location). I took some material from Cascades (ecoregion) and Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills (ecoregion), condensed it, and built a short new ecology section around that. (Found an interesting thesis about the ecology of the area, also --- we could further expand this section with information from that thesis). The new material was partially taken from PD USGS sources.
The feature article criteria don't address PD material --- I believe it should be OK. If other editors think it's unaesthetic, we can either back out the edits or attempt to rewrite. It may be difficult to rewrite enough to remove the PD tag, because the material includes lists of species. — hike395 ( talk) 18:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
See here and here. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I thought the level of cooperation on getting this to FA was especially impressive. Kudos to Ceranthor and all the other editors who pitched in. Finetooth ( talk) 17:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)