Talk:Boring Lava Field

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 15, 2019	Good article nominee	Listed
August 3, 2019	Peer review	Reviewed
December 12, 2022	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

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

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

comments[edit]

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,

Who was Treasher, if we care, and did he just name the townsite and the volcanic field acquired that later. Sometimes there is an interplay in nomenclature, which is otherwise well addressed.
Do the names of the volcanologists who surveyed the site need mentioning? The information seems uncontentious, and authority beyond the survey seems superfluous.
The first para of *Physical geography* is about the river systems in the surrounding area, the rest seems to be directly related to the local hydrology (if that is the word I'm looking for).
Para 1 of *Human history* is backgrounding? I'm unsure of the relevance to the article and imagine this also discussed and maintained in other articles, perhaps some caution to redundancy.
Regarding biota, lists of taxa can be unwieldy and the inclusion systematic names with the local common name is not something I would push, however, the ecological communities (as they are called in Australia) and protected areas may have those definitive and extensive lists in the relevant articles.
If high and low-K is mentioned, can a short explanation of whatever that be mentioned.

Hope these comments are useful, cygnis insignis 04:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanna say …[edit]

The USGS is mentioned fifteen times, would contracting to that acronym be warranted? cygnis insignis 17:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cygnis insignis: You mean to contract United States Geological Survey to USGS? ceranthor 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States Geological Survey (USGS) and thereafter just USGS.

I read the article again, its so cool, go for FA! cygnis insignis 19:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cygnis insignis: Thanks for the encouraging words. I'm hoping to take it there eventually, though I'll want it to go thru PR, and I still have a few future-looking comments from the GAN to address first. ceranthor 13:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the request on my talk page...[edit]

...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)[reply]

Good point. I'll see if I can find a little bit more on the Portland area, as there were certainly indigenous people living nearby. ceranthor 15:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does the paragraph I added look? ceranthor 22:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems pretty good. I think perhaps it's ready for one of the formal content review processes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History subsection should be removed[edit]

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)[reply]

Nah, the article isn't just about the volcanological aspects. I'd say it's pertinent information, putting the topic in a regional context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]