# Talk:Cinder Cone and the Fantastic Lava Beds

For Google: Fantastic Lava Beds

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)