# Talk:Mount Churchill

I didn't know how or where to insert this; maybe in the opening paragraph concerning the White River Ash; see this article in UpHere magazine, from Yellowknife, concerning one archaeologist's theory about why the Dineh (Navajo) moved south from what appears to have been their former domicile in the Nahanni area....(note the name similarity)....figured it's more than signficant enough to include here and in teh White River Ash article.....Skookum1 (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We can see the location on the map, but if we click the map, there is no longer a location indicator. Tallard (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

While this source draws a link between a volcano in the White River region and legends of volcanic activity, the primary source does not seem to refer to the White River region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The selective geography of volcanism in oral traditions is a reference to Mount Churchill, even if it confuses the volcano with Mount Wrangell. Any reason not to add it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Parking this source here b/c from the later sources it seems like there is stronger support for a link between the Dene migration and the 2nd White River Ash. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, this probably needs careful writing: A Multiscalar Consideration of the Athabascan Migration does argue that the Athabaskan migration was due to demographic shifts, but Power, security, and exchange: Impacts of a Late Holocene volcanic eruption in Subarctic North America says that evidence for a volcanic forcing is still good. From reading other recent sources, it seems like there is a consensus that the volcano "probably"/"may" have played a role in the Athabaskan migration, so leaving the article unchanged for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This list may include sources not yet used that could be used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mount Churchill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 16:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

So life outside wiki got busy but I should get to this tomorrow. I haven't forgotten! Ealdgyth (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2024 (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 (inline 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: 

I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation (the main things flagged by Earwig are the titles of the sources and phrases such as "White River Ash eruptions" or "1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo" which are rather difficult to phrase otherwise).
References:
"HOLOCENE ALASKAN AND ICELANDIC TEPHRA IN POLISH PEATLANDS" per MOS:ALLCAPS should be "Holocene Alaskan and Icelandic Tephra in Polish Peatlands"
Not required but ISBNs for Abel, Nash & Baxter, Ringsmuth, and Wood & Coombs
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Spotchecks:
"It is the tenth-highest peak in the United States.." is sourced to this source p. 18 which supports the information
"The age of the Churchill-Bona massif is unknown" is sourced to this source p. 113 which supports the information
"The eastern White River Ash has a colour ranging from white to beige" is sourced to this source p. 242 which supports the information
General:
There are a LOT of duplicated links here - examples - Pumice is linked three times in the second paragraph of Geography, tephra twice in the same paragraph, Pacific Plate twice in the third paragraph of Geology, etc.
Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Lead:
"Churchill and its higher neighbor Mount Bona about 2 mi (3 km) to the southwest are both ice-covered volcanoes; Bona is the highest volcano in the United States" why are we giving prominence to Bona here? Suggest "Churchill and its neighbor Mount Bona are both ice-covered volcanoes with Churchill having a 2.7 by 4.2 kilometres wide caldera just east of its summit."
This is in Alaska, right? So ... why is kilometres used? Even if we use metric because of the scientific aspect, shouldn't it be "kilometers"?
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Geography:
"The mountain is in the University Mountains sub-range[1] of St. Elias Mountains of Alaska" suggest "Mount Churchill is in the University Mountains sub-range[1] of the St. Elias Mountains of Alaska"
"Mount Churchill is a 4,744 metres (15,564 ft),[8] 4,766 metres (15,636 ft),[2][10] 4,767 metres (15,640 ft)[6] or 4,768 metres (15,643 ft) high[a] peak" is very clunky - suggest "Various measurements have placed Mount Churchill at 4,744 metres (15,564 ft),[8] 4,766 metres (15,636 ft),[2][10] 4,767 metres (15,640 ft)[6] or 4,768 metres (15,643 ft)." and split the rest of the original sentence into another sentence. Also - why "metres" for an Alaskan subject? Shouldn't it be either feet or "meters"?
"amphitheatre" again - why British English spellings for an Alaskan subject?
"coloured/colored" again - why British English?
"A 90 metres (300 ft) high pumice mound on the other side of the glacier, 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) from Mount Churchill, was formed by tephra building up on a bedrock bench; was once considered the vent of the White River Ash." is very complex - suggest "A 90 metres (300 ft) high pumice mound on the other side of the glacier, 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) from Mount Churchill, was formed by tephra building up on a bedrock bench. This mound was once considered the vent of the White River Ash flows."
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Geology:
"Unlike other volcanic arcs, the Wrangell volcanic field features numerous large shield volcanoes, which are among the largest volcanoes in volcanic arcs on Earth." I'm not sure what the "unlike other volcanic arcs" is exactly trying to get across. Nor does the "which are among the largest volcanoes in volcanic arcs on Earth" supposed to tell us either.
What it's supposed to get across is that a volcanic arc usually does not feature a lot of shield volcanoes; they are more common in ocean islands like Hawaii. And the Wrangell ones are among the largest volcanoes in volcanic arcs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
This is obviously not getting through, however. Is there a better way to get the explanation you just said into the article, I understood that! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately this explanation cannot be traced back to any source I know of. So I've done a different edit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
"The basement under Mount Bona is formed by a plateau consisting of Permian to Pennsylvanian-age rocks[49] and Tertiary granites; most of Mount Bona may be formed by these nonvolcanic rocks." the relevance of this to Churchill is unclear.
It is highly improbable that a peak 2km away from Bona has a radically distinct composition, so it's using Bona as a proxy for Churchill. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Does the source actually link this to Churchill or is this a case of sorta WP:SYNTH here? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
The source discusses Churchill and Bona together, so yes. This one also treats Churchill and Bona together. They are only a few kilometres apart and there is no major fault zone going between them, so it's likely they are connected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
"Volcanic rocks are dacitic[e] and define a calc-alkaline[56] adakite suite" is this ALL volcanic rocks or just the rocks at Churchill?
Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Ice cores:
"An ice core taken in 2002 from the col between Mount Churchill and Mount Bona[72] is the longest non-polar ice core as of 2006,[73] being 460.96 metres (1,512.3 ft) long." I suggest removing this - as it's (1) trivia and (2) likely outdated trivia. Combine the remaining sentence with the following paragraph.
Actually, it doesn't seem like there are currently any longer non-polar ice cores. Unfortunately, I don't know of any list or database of ice core lengths. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Still - this is trivia - is it noted in works specifically describing Churchill? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
In works discussing the ice core, yes. Churchill is one of these volcanoes where each aspect (ice cores, volcanism, effects of volcanism) is discussed separately in the literature. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Eruption history:
"The edifice may have looked very different" "edifice" means what exactly?
Edifice means the entire volcanic pile. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The problem is "edifice" to most readers is going to have a shade of meaning that implies a building, not a mountain. Suggest just saying "The mountain" or "The volcano" Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Changed Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
White River Ash eruptions:
the first paragraph is a bit confusing - we date one eruption as "1890" years ago but date the other as occurring in 852/853. Then we say they "occurred within a few centuries from each other." - I make the first erruption about 130 AD and the second in 852 - that's ... 700 years apart? A bit more than "a few centuries" and I'm not sure why we don't standardize on either 1890 and 1171 or 130 and 852? Also - suggest that we note that the first eruption is called the "Northern White River Ash" later and that the second is called the "Eastern White River Ash" later
The problem with standardizing is that the 2nd WRA eruption is dated very precisely to winter 852-853. The other is much more roughly dated. Specified the directions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
"Only in 1984 and 1995 was the correct location, Mount Churchill, identified" suggest "Only in 1984 and 1995 was Mount Churchill identified as the source." since it's always possible that this will get switched in the future.
"It forms conspicuous layers along the Alaska Highway,[103] in riverbanks[107] of the Yukon, Tanana and their tributaries, which are often exploited by ground squirrels who dig their burrows into the ash." I'd ditch the bit about ground squirrels as it's a distraction and not very useful here.
"The ashes affect the properties of the soil they are in; ash layers can sometimes be the detachment surface of landslides." the second phrase of this sentence is awkward - perhaps "The ash layers affect the properties of the soil they are in; sometimes they are the detachment surface of landslides."
"Stumps of trees killed by the fallout emerge from the ash layers, close to Mount Churchill." why the comma?
"Given that tephra is not expected to cause fatalities in pre-modern peoples" but it is expected to cause fatalities in modern peoples???
Oddly enough, yes - modern people are much more likely to drive cars, live in houses with heavy roofs and try to clean roofs and roads, all things that cause casualties from tephra fall. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I still think this is ... odd and confusing to the reader. Can we rephrase somehow? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Can't do it until TWL stops acting up with JSTOR ("Request Header Or Cookie Too Large") Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
JSTOR works again, so I have rephrased. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Eastern White River Ash:
"A link between the White River Ash and the mid-6th century cooling (Late Antique Little Ice Age and volcanic winter of 536) has been ruled out." well, duh. Since the Eastern White River Ash is dated to 852/853 - it's kinda hard to have a link to a cooling in 536...
Yeah, that theory was formulated back before we knew the exact date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I think we can delete the "volcanic winter of 536" bit here, yes? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Responded to a few queries and handled the rest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Struck what's done and have inline replies for you to consider. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Did the rest. I wonder if you have access to any books about Athapaskan prehistory; one thing I have been wondering when writing this is how definitive the link between the eastern lobe and the Athapaskan migration is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Changes look good. Unfortunately, I don't have any thing on pre-Columbian American history (or not anything that would shed light on your question) beyond what's in TWL. Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)