# Talk:Sand Mountain Volcanic Field

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sand Mountain Volcanic Field/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Will take a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Why is there a Physical geography subsection of Geography? The section has some info about rainfall. Maybe renaming Geography and climate?
Removed the header altogether. ceranthor 15:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The southern part of the field supports mature forests, but other zones with younger lava deposits are barren - how young is "younger"? any info would be good here. Also how barren is barren...
The source doesn't specify; it says: "In the southern Sand Mountainvolcanic field, mature forests exist on lavas covered with Sand Mountain volcanic field tephra (Cold Water Cove, Clear Lake South, Ice Cap, and Great Spring lavas), whereas younger lavas without tephra are relatively barren (Nash, Little Nash, and Clear Lake East lavas). Soil on Cold Water Cove, Clear Lake South, and Clear Lake East lavas (the latter in a localized vegetated area near the vent area) consists of one or two tephra layers, but beyond having general geochemical Sand Mountain volcanic field characteristics, tephra layer compositions did not match specific eruptive units." So not even matching to eruptive units unfortunately. ceranthor 15:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
There is also a submerged forest of Douglas fir trees in Clear Lake, which borders the field - this sounds fascinating. Any more information about it would be good.
Definitely. Will add more on this if possible - looking into it now. ceranthor 15:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Casliber: Almost finished. Working on one last reference, which I hope to use to finish expanding the Ecology section a bit more by EOD today. ceranthor 16:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Casliber: Should be finished now. ceranthor 19:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I rejigged a couple of sections for flow. Hope that  is ok.
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall: 

Pass or Fail:  - Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)