Blue Lake Crater has been listed as one of theGeography and places good articles under thegood article criteria. If you can improve it further,please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you canreassess it. Review: August 26, 2019. (Reviewed version).

This article is ratedGA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

OregonLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theU.S. state ofOregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. The currentcollaborations of the month areWomen's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed atOregon Women of Achievement (modern) orWomen of the West, Oregon chapter (historical). VolcanoesLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofvolcanoes,volcanology,igneous petrology, andrelated subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.

"According to the Geographic Names Information System it has an elevation of 3,461 feet (1,055 m), while the Global Volcanism Program and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) list its elevation as 4,035 feet (1,230 m)." It appears the elevation of Blue Lake itself is 3,461 feet (1,055 m) while the crater has an elevation of 4,035 feet (1,230 m). The change in elevation is due to the fact that the crater has a rim that rises over the lake.Volcanoguy21:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed —hike395 (talk)06:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,Volcanoguy, for that catch (I should have realized that), and thankshike395 for fixing it.ceranthor13:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This review istranscluded fromTalk:Blue Lake Crater/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:Ganesha811 (talk·contribs)18:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status using the template below.Ganesha811 (talk)18:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1.Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, andunderstandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	In lead: Remove comma between "three" and "overlapping" for readability Last sentence of first paragraph should be split in two, probably around '2009' Is there a link available for 'spatter cones'? 'Esoteric' is odd word choice here - maybe 'little-known' or 'little-used'? In 'Human history and recreation', typo - 'widlife' should be 'wildlife' Generally good prose, no major issues Fixed issues myself (WP:BOLD) - should be all set now.Ganesha811 (talk)20:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with theManual of Style guidelines forlead sections,layout,words to watch,fiction, andlist incorporation.	Pass - no issues.
2.Verifiable withno original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance withthe layout style guideline.	Pass. No issues.
	2b.reliable sources arecited inline. All content thatcould reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass. No issues.
	2c. it containsno original research.	Pass - no issues.
	2d. it contains nocopyright violations orplagiarism.	Pass - no issues.
3.Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses themain aspects of the topic.	Pass. Covers all important aspects of topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (seesummary style).	Pass. Well-written.
	4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass - no issues.
	5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoingedit war or content dispute.	Pass - no issues.
6.Illustrated, if possible, bymedia such asimages,video, oraudio:
	6a. media aretagged with theircopyright statuses, andvalid non-free use rationales are provided fornon-free content.	Pass. No issues.
	6b. media arerelevant to the topic, and havesuitable captions.	Pass. No issues.
	7.Overall assessment.

Fixed the minor existing issues myself (WP:BOLD) and passed. Good article, nomination was smooth. Congrats toceranthor and others who worked on this article!Ganesha811 (talk)20:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason then-Gov. Ted Kulongoski is mentioned so prominently? If he ''signed'' the bill, that means the bill was passed first, which doesn't make him seem like the central player. I mean, maybe he was, but nothing in the article suggests he was. Still, he's mentioned twice, and (until I removed it) his portrait was included in the article. Seems odd, but it's not a bit of history I know well. -Pete Forsyth (talk)03:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• GA-Class Oregon articles
• Low-importance Oregon articles
• WikiProject Oregon pages
• GA-Class WikiProject Volcanoes articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles
• All WikiProject Volcanoes pages