Talk:Cinder Cone and the Fantastic Lava Beds

Cinder Cone and the Fantastic Lava Beds 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: May 10, 2018. (Reviewed version).

Volcanoes High‑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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains Mid‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

For Google: Fantastic Lava Beds

"Human history" section: plagiarized?

The entire "Human history" section is plagiarized from the following source:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2000/fs023-00/

Since its a government publication, its public domain. However, if I'm not mistaken, the fact that the article is based on this source should be noted somewhere. Peter G Werner 04:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is noted in the references section and via cites. So this is not plagiarism. --mav 17:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human activity

When I was a youngster I climbed Cinder Cone on a vacation -- this was about 1960. I think this is not allowed now. I remember the feeling of taking a step forward and sliding half a step back in the loose scoria and I believe that some damage was done to the cone by climbers, and therefore climbing is no longer allowed. I may look this up and add something to the article. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC) Eric[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cinder Cone and the Fantastic Lava Beds/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Volcanoguy (talk · contribs) 11:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a worthy GA article. I have completed the review. Volcanoguy 11:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Elevation/height

I just noticed the elevation of Cinder Cone is inconsistent throughout the article. For example, the elevation in infobox is given as 6,896 ft (2,102 m) while the elevation in the "Description and geology" section is 700 ft (213 m). Which of these two is correct? I assume the latter is rather the topographic prominence. Volcanoguy 15:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NNL?

This article was included in the category: National Natural Landmarks in California

But that doesn't appear to be the case. See the NNL site for California

I removed it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]