From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Setting/location needed
As with on Talk:Mount Brew, there is no CLUE in that opening paragraph where these are, no mention of the Lillooet Icecap (is "at the headwaters of the Bridge River" or "on the eastern flank of the Lillooet Icecap" not more descriptive than only "in southwestern British Columbia", and yet ANOTHER first-paragraph focus on vulcanological classification only. At least talk about the setting, what town it's so many miles from, what other peaks are nearby, what rivers flow out of the area; these happen to be unnamed otherwise and are mostbly notable only as volcanoes; but they still have a setting, and the setting happens to be very historic, as is the river. I don't want to piss you off by saying it too often but please write mountain articles than are about more than just vulcanology. I know you're going through source material creating all of these in a string, and other people can add to them; but because of their obscurity it's unlikely anyone but another vulcanologist will add to them. Write in plain language, not scientific jargon; linguistics oriented pages are even worse; you'd never know language was about communication and not just syntax and phonology; ditto here. There's not much to add here other than a description of their location as just laid out, whatever's addable, but in general throughout all the articles you've created please make an effort to detail out other data than only what has professional/academic interest.Skookum1 08:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I would add some non-volcanological information to the volcano arcticles I created, but I can't seem to find that kind of stuff that much. The only volcano that I could find some non-volcanological stuff is Mount Meager (history section). I would do the same for the other volcanoes, but perhaps other people should add there own knowledge to them and not just mine. Volcanological references appear more common than non-volcanological references. Plus, if the mountain is a volcano, it's a volcano, not just a normal mountain that sits there doing nothing with no geological history, etc. Volcanoes actually play quite a big part of British Columbia's landscape, people just barely notice it. There have been about 49 eruptions in western Canada in the past 10,000 years, and there have been several eruptions in the past 400 years (the most recent being about 100 or 200 years ago). Also, there have been 9 or 10 volcanoes in British Columbia that have had recent seismic activity, (which is earthquakes, etc) and seismic activity is usually an early sign of volcanic activity. The eruption of the Tseax River Cone in 1730 produced one of Canada's worst known disasters, which killed approximately 2000 people, and I bet you there will be something similar to that again sometime because there is a lack of knowlage about our volcanoes, nobody knows how active there magma systems are, etc. That's why volcanic hazards are considered low and therefore I don't think they actually are. Any suggestions? Black Tusk 23:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
