# Talk:Ionia Volcano

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ionia Volcano/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 02:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 
I'm taking on this review. I will be using GPT-4 as a ChatGPT reviewing assistant to help assess good article criteria 1, 3, and 4; I will assess the other criteria. Esculenta (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)

OK, here are an initial set of comments by GPT-4. Background: I told it that it was a reviewer of Wikipedia "good articles", and I fed it the instructions for good article criteria 1, 3, and 4 (at some point soon/now it will be able to do criterion 6b as well, but I don't know how to feed it pictures yet). I removed 3 suggestions that I thought weren't particularly useful. Be warned that I specifically asked it to be critical and nitpicky in its review (to match my own style), but I'm quite aware that many of these suggestions may push and exceed the boundaries of GA-level reviewing, so don't feel obliged to action all of them – consider them "friendly suggestions" :) Esculenta (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
@Esculenta Sounds good, I'll tag the suggestions as either  Done or  Not done depending on if they're GA criteria/reasonably feasible. In terms of improvement, is this AI capable of directly receiving feedback or do it's initial parameters need to be modified in order to refine it's suggestions? I can give a brief explanation for 'rejected' suggestions if that'd be helpful. I'll start now but realistically I'll finish this tomorrow, it's getting late here. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I would be able to better design its initial parameters (i.e. prompt engineering) based on the feedback you give on its suggestions. If we want, for "scientific" purposes, I could again feed in the article after your changes to the article and changes in the initial prompt, and see what it has to say about the "improved" article. Esculenta (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
@Esculenta That'll work, I'm in no rush to get this done. If you want to run this article through a few rounds of GPT-4 I'd be more than happy to help. I also have another GA nomination, Hanhart syndrome, if you want to practice on that as well. I have begun working on the purple shore crab article, so if you want to try an animal article just lmk and I'll get that page ready for GAN.
My initial thoughts are that the bot seems very keen on inquiring about more info. It is a very you style of reviewing (Which is a good thing!!!) but may be difficult for more niche topics like this one where sourcing is limited. Many of these I just can't answer since the sourcing isn't there, I'll make another attempt tomorrow on Newspapers.com to find more info. I feel as though the current parameters are far better suited for larger, higher trafficked topics, such as the Spotted Lanternfly article we did last year. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The article does not consistently refer to the Ionia Volcano by a single name throughout the text, using "Ionia Volcano," "Burnt Bluff," and "Volcano Hill" interchangeably. It would be clearer for readers if the article referred to the subject consistently as the "Ionia Volcano" throughout, only mentioning the alternate names at the beginning.
 Not done, So, the first sentence and infobox establishes them as synonyms but the page doesn't use "Burnt Bluff," or "Volcano Hill" beyond that. I assume that their use in the first sentence is throwing the AI off.
The article could benefit from a more comprehensive explanation of the site's religious significance to the Ponca and Arapaho Native American Tribes. Including more information about the tribes' beliefs and practices related to the Ionia Volcano would provide readers with a deeper understanding of the site's cultural importance.
 Not done, Part of the reason I didn't include the Arapaho customs is because I don't actually know how accurate the claim is. William Huse's The History of Dixon County, Nebraska makes some questionable claims around Arapaho customs that seem rather far fetched and low key racist. I mentioned that Huse claimed it was a sacred site for them but going beyond that is a bit questionable. The Ponca tribe are well known to use the site but I cannot find anything elaborating on its significance. This isn't a bad question, there just is a lot of nuance.
The section on "Geology and Chemistry" uses technical language that may be difficult for some readers to understand. Simplifying the language or providing more context and explanation for terms such as "carlite shale," "selenite," and "colluvium" could make the section more accessible.
 Done WP:TECHNICAL, I'm not sure how to simplify Carlile Shale since it is a massive geological formation, I made selenite and colluvium more straightforward, however. This also helped me catch a spelling error, its "Carlile Shale" not "Carlite Shale".
The article could provide more context on the relationship between the Ionia Volcano and the nearby ghost town of Ionia, Nebraska. Including information about the town's history, population, and reasons for its decline would be helpful for readers seeking to understand the broader context of the area.
 Not done, this is information better suited for Ionia, Nebraska. There really wasn't much of a direct relationship that I could find.
The article could benefit from a more organized structure, with sections dedicated to geology and chemistry, history, religious significance, analysis, and modern status. This would make it easier for readers to navigate and understand the information provided.
 Not done, there really isn't enough to make a religious significance or modern status section.
The "Analysis" section could provide more context on the implications of John W. Jengo's findings. For example, how have Jengo's conclusions been received by the scientific community and what impact, if any, has this had on the understanding of the Ionia Volcano's history and significance?
 Not done Jengo's findings really haven't led to much change but they have been covered in a handful of secondary sources. The National Parks service hasn't really paid them any mind and still says that the site was visited by Lewis and Clark.
The article should include more information about the current status of the Ionia Volcano, such as whether it is still generating heat, if any signs of activity are visible, and any efforts being made to preserve or study the site.
 Not done I can't find anything, I assume it is still active but that would be WP:OR.
The article could benefit from the inclusion of maps or illustrations to help readers visualize the location and appearance of the Ionia Volcano, particularly given the site's unique geological features and historical significance.
 Done
The article does not provide a clear timeline of events related to the Ionia Volcano. Organizing the historical events in chronological order within the "History" section would help readers better understand the evolution of the site and its significance.
 Done I moved a few things around
The article should clarify the difference between a heat-producing bluff and an active volcano early in the text to avoid confusion for readers who may not be familiar with these geological terms.
 Done Made it clearer
The article could provide more information about the significance of the fossil samples found at the Ionia Volcano, such as Subprionocyclus percarinatus. Explaining why these fossils are important and what they reveal about the site's geological history would be beneficial for readers.
 Not done Nothing really to note, this was a footnote in a research paper and Subprionocyclus percarinatus is a rather unremarkable species
In the "Geology and Chemistry" section, it would be helpful to provide more information about the minerals present in the Ionia Volcano's formation, including why they are significant and how they contribute to the site's unique properties.
 Not done This is all I can find, I did move a few things around so that the paragraphs are more focused.
The article could discuss any safety concerns or hazards associated with visiting the Ionia Volcano, particularly given its history of eruptions and heat generation.
 Not done This is probably the furthest off question in the bunch. Apart from Clark's statement that the ground it too hot to touch, it goes without saying that fire=hot (Or at least a semester of fire school has taught me such).
It would be beneficial to include information about any efforts to preserve the Ionia Volcano and its surrounding environment, such as conservation efforts, environmental regulations, or educational programs.
 Not done Simply put, there are none. I like the thinking in this question though.
The article could provide more information about the Lewis and Clark Expedition's overall journey and its broader significance in American history. This would help readers understand the context of the Ionia Volcano's role in the expedition.
 Done Added a bit more.
The article could provide more details about the various explorers, geographers, and researchers who visited the Ionia Volcano and their contributions to understanding the site's properties and history.
 Done Added a bit more.
The article could explore any debates or controversies surrounding the Ionia Volcano, its history, and its significance, both in the scientific community and among the public. This would help readers understand the complexities surrounding the site.
 Not done The analysis section covers this. Additionally, WP:CSECTION.
The article could include a section on the Ionia Volcano's impact on local ecosystems and wildlife, as well as any potential environmental concerns related to the site's unique geological properties.
 Not done I wish there was something more interesting.
While the article is generally well-written, there are a few instances where sentences could be restructured for better clarity. For example, in the sentence "The heat reaction within the bluff is due to carlite shale's high iron sulfide (FeS2) concentration, mainly in the form of marcasite, halotrichite, and jarosite.", it would be clearer to write: "The heat reaction within the bluff is primarily due to the high concentration of iron sulfide (FeS2) in the carlite shale, which is mainly present in the form of marcasite, halotrichite, and jarosite."
 Done
The article uses parentheses to provide additional information, such as chemical formulas and alternate names for geological formations. While this is generally helpful for readers, excessive use of parentheses can make the text more difficult to read. Consider integrating some of this information into the main text or using footnotes instead.
 Done Removed some of the obvious ones, e.g. H2O and H+
The article provides a comprehensive overview of the Ionia Volcano's history and significance. However, it could benefit from more concise language and fewer redundant details. For example, the sentence "The current site of the Ionia Volcano's remains is located near Newcastle, Nebraska, near the ghost town of Ionia, Nebraska, and across from the Ionia Cemetery." could be rephrased as "The remains of the Ionia Volcano are located near Newcastle, Nebraska, close to the ghost town of Ionia and across from the Ionia Cemetery."
 Done
The article could provide more context and background information on some of the mentioned historical figures, such as William Huse, John Harwood Pierce, and Joseph Brewer. This would help readers understand the significance of their contributions to the study of the Ionia Volcano and its history.
 Question:   Most of them were unremarkable. Pierce on the other hand is quite interesting. That being said, the only sources I can find are [1] and [2]. I can maybe see a WP:BLOG rational but it's probably not GA levels of WP:RS.
In the "Analysis" section, the article discusses the 2011 report by geologist John W. Jengo, which challenges the historical narrative of the Ionia Volcano being observed by the Lewis and Clark Expedition. While this is an important part of the article, it would be helpful to provide more information on the implications of this finding for our understanding of the Ionia Volcano's history and significance.
 Not done This would break WP:OR.
Overall, the article is well-written and provides a detailed and informative overview of the Ionia Volcano's history, geology, and significance. By addressing the mentioned points, the article can be further improved in terms of clarity, conciseness, and comprehensiveness, making it an even better resource for readers interested in learning about this fascinating geological site.
Me: "Can you provide any more examples where the text could be written better or more clearly?"
In the sentence "In 1874, the bluff was named the "Ionia Volcano" by John Harwood Pierce in the Omaha Daily Bee.", it would be clearer to restructure the sentence to indicate the naming action more directly: "In 1874, John Harwood Pierce named the bluff "Ionia Volcano" in the Omaha Daily Bee."
 Done
The sentence "In 1877, Nebraska experienced one of the strongest earthquakes in its recorded history, resulting in fears from the locals that the Ionia Volcano may erupt." could be rewritten to emphasize the cause-and-effect relationship more clearly: "After Nebraska experienced one of the strongest earthquakes in its recorded history in 1877, locals grew fearful that the Ionia Volcano might erupt."
 Done Made some modifications to this sentence
In the sentence "The heat generated by the bluff is the byproduct of iron sulfide oxidation in carbonaceous shale when exposed to moisture and oxygen due to erosion.", a slight rephrase would improve clarity: "The heat generated by the bluff is the byproduct of iron sulfide oxidation in carbonaceous shale, which occurs when it is exposed to moisture and oxygen due to erosion."
 Done
The sentence "The 1902 eruption of Mount Pelée, sparked renewed interest in the Ionia Volcano as it had begun smoking again, with some newspapers calling for the governor to send the national guard to suppress the fires." could be improved by reorganizing the information: "The 1902 eruption of Mount Pelée sparked renewed interest in the Ionia Volcano, which had begun smoking again. Some newspapers even called for the governor to send the national guard to suppress the fires."
 Done
In the sentence "The Ionia Volcano periodically erupted due to heat produced when erosion exposed fresh carlite shale and iron sulfide to water, resulting in a violent reaction.", it might be clearer to restructure the sentence as: "The Ionia Volcano periodically erupted when heat was produced due to erosion exposing fresh carlite shale and iron sulfide to water, causing a violent reaction."
 Not done AI's wording is a bit confusing, I cleaned it up on my own.

I'll be back later to check the other criteria. Esculenta (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Esculenta: These are my comments. I also appreciate the recommendations on Hanhart syndrome, I'll take a look at them when I can. After going through the parameters, it appears that the bot isn't entirely aware of all of Wikipedia's policies, or perhaps the same size is too small. Do you think that lists like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources or scripts such as User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter could be fed to the AI? The AI can feasibly dig up sources for a topic, could it potentially cross-reference the sources used versus the sources online that are unused and give suggestions that way? 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 02:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
@Esculenta, just a friendly reminder    :)    🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, I'll finish up later today. Esculenta (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I have boldly copyedited, and added or tweaked links. Please review my edits. Esculenta (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Extra comments after a human read:
add unit conversion to "200 ft tall"
 Done
not sure what "favourably" is meant to imply here: "The iron sulfide favorably reacts with oxygen and water"
 Done
perhaps include what kind of fossil Subprionocyclus percarinatus is (mollusc/ammonite?); perhaps mention that it's one of several fossil ammonites that have been found at the site (not completely sure this is true, didn't read the Cobban & Merewether 1916 source in detail)
 Done, its the only one mentioned but I clarified nonetheless
It's not clear from the reference list what kind of citation the Joeckel et al. source is (journal article, government report). Also, there’s a pdf link here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322242392_Geology_Of_Northeastern_Nebraska_And_Environs_Cedar_Dakota_and_Dixon_Counties_in_Nebraska_and_Plymouth_and_Woodbury_County_in_Iowa
 Done
the HARRIS, KATHRYN source should have a date (and author name decapped)
 Done
there should be a date on the www.nps.gov. source ("Last updated: September 17, 2020", says the page)
 Done
for the citation "team, The Explore Nebraska History." (awkward author format, btw), should the publisher be "Nebraska State Historical Society"?
 Done
"Some newspapers even called for the governor" is sourced to a single newspaper article, so this should be reworded.
 Done, technically multiple newspapers ran this story but I'll reword
there is some scholarly information about the topic in this article doi:10.1016/j.catena.2011.01.011, available here if you decide to expand the article a bit more (not a GA requirement, just FYI).
 Done, added
I have examined every source and consider them to be sufficiently reliable for this article. I have also spot-checked every statement taken from citations 1,3, and a couple others, and verified that all statement are backed up by their citations, with no evidence of too-close paraphrasing. Esculenta (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Esculenta:, that should be everything. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Great! It appears that everything is in order to promote this article. Thanks for being a "guinea pig" in this Chatbot-assisted review. I've since added a plugin that lets GPT4 connect to the net, so in the future I will be able to have it read the MoS and other relevant pages prior to conducting a review (like your suggestion above), which should hopefully increase the usefulness of its comments. FYI, I asked to it to review the update article again, and aside from a few minor sentence adjustments, it didn't suggest any improvements tangibly different from its previous suggestions, so I think we've exhausted its utility for this particular article! Esculenta (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)