Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hawaii hotspot/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:10, 28 November 2009 [1].

Hawaii hotspot[edit]

Conominators: ResMar 19:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC) and ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This is no small article. Coorespondingly, this is no small project! But I do think that it's ready to go through FAC. ResMar 19:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fairly complete to me. Although I did not see any response to my previous issues: skipping from Ancient myths to 1880, no mention of Māhukona? I have done research on history but am not a geologist, so maybe all the explorations such as Charles Wilkes, Menzies, and authors such as Titus Coan etc. are not geologically interesting? Anyway there are links to them on the individual volcano articles, and this seems long enough to cover the topic well enough. There are a bunch of red links, that might not be evr filled in if the targets are not otherwise notable. Ah, should the red link to Journal of Science be instead American Journal of Science which does have an article, and even mentions Dana? Yes, I vote promote it. W Nowicki (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks done. Um, do you mean that the article should mention Māhukona...? And what do you mean by geologically interesting? be a little more clear and I will fix :) ResMar 22:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that I do not know enough geology to understand if your not mentioning Māhukona in your table is a mistake or intentional. Isn't it one of the hostspot volcanoes? Why is it not mentioned? Note it has an article, as opposed to the East and West Molokaʻi, so someone thought it was notable.

haha, that's embarrasing. Fixed. ResMar 22:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following the James Dwight Dana wikilink I see he was on the Wilkes Expedition! but that was not in 1880, but 1840-1841? It was just published later. Right? Mauna Loa#Wilkes expedition discusses. W Nowicki (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, where is this? I see both links but it doesn't mention him in either as far as I can see; am I missing it? ResMar 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, my point was that you should probably add a link to James Dwight Dana from each of those other articles. In the James Dwight Dana article it should link to Hawaii hotspot, and talk about him visiting in 1840-1841. At least that is the way I like to work, complete the "web of knowledge" and it improves Wikipedia as a whole. As for this article here, if James Dwight Dana was on the 1840 expedition, then the wording that says "In 1880 and 1881, James Dwight Dana directed the earliest geological study..." is misleading. Mention the 1840 visit here? Or something like "After a brief visit in 1840 on the United States Exploring Expedition, he began a more in-depth study..." or whatever, if he really was on the visit. W Nowicki (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well, its called History of study, not a history of Dana, so... As for the in-article links, sure I can do that. ResMar 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The caption says "Sir James Dwight Dana" probably the "Sir" shold be removed? He was American, not British? No mention of a Knighthod either. W Nowicki (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

  • No dab links, but ref 1's first PDF link is dead.
Ouch. Fixed. ResMar 22:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; no dead external links now. --an odd name (help honey) 01:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 22:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dates look good. --an odd name (help honey) 01:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--an odd name (help honey) 20:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this article definitely deserves to be a featured article. It is very in-depth, refined, and is written like an encyclopedia. Kevinmon•talk•trib 07:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The writing is ok, but I found things to improve at the top, suggesting independent eyes are needed.

  • "While most volcanic activity occurs along the boundaries of tectonic plates, hotspots can occur far from any boundary, and require different mechanisms for maintaining volcanic activity." Perhaps "a" instead of "any". Different mechanisms for each hotspot, or the difference is between the mechs of hotspots and non-hotspot volc. activity? Pesky, isn't it.
Well, I clarified how volcanoes on the boundary work, and added "geological" to boundaries. I'm not sure if "a" is better then "any", though, because I kinda want to stress how singled-out hotspots (in general, but Hawaii too) are as compared to the geological settings around it. "...far from a geological boundary" to me sounds like it's just one thing, not many. Not sure how to denote "in general" in the sentance though. ResMar 14:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More than 123 ... Could we have commas instead of semicolons?
Done. ResMar 14:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link pipe "heavily eroded", to the article "erosion". Is this a dictionary term? Is such a broad article target useful?
Done. ResMar 14:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about 35 km" ... so it moves from time to time (serious question, not being sarcastic), or can we just say 35?
Well, firstly, yes the hotspot does in fact move. Secondly, they know only the rough location of the hotspot because it's a bit vauge. How do you find the exact location of a heat bump? So I think "about" belongs there. ResMar 17:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parallelism not treated as such: "This chain includes the Hawaiian Ridge, consisting of the islands of the Hawaiian chain northwest to Kure Atoll, and the Emperor seamounts (a linear region of islands, seamounts, atolls, shallows, banks, and reefs along a line trending southeast to northwest beneath the northern Pacific Ocean)." Parentheses versus commas.
Done. ResMar 17:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rm comma after "old".
Fixed. ResMar 17:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The chain of" image: what kind of image is it? It's rather small—can it be 20% bigger and on the right side? Tony (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, which one, there are two "chain" type images. The diagram of the trends or the one illustrating movement? ResMar 17:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline Severe 2c issues leading to necessary 1c issues (unverifiability of research). MOS doesn't give you a loophole, the cites are internally inconsistent, and don't provide for verification of research (1c) at the moment. I have extended an offer to fix the citations in the article to a common style to the nominator, and the nominator is welcome to take the offer up at any time during the FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Unresolved 2c at talk Fifelfoo (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Fif told me he'll handle it for me. Awfully nice :) ...ResMar 16:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supports

Apart from a few references fixes, I would have to say support as being the creator of this article. The article has transformed greatly since I created the page, and its contributors have done hard work adding more information, sections, images and references. However, I have not been one of the major contributors of any Hawaiian volcanism articles because I have been busy working on Canadian volcanism articles for quite a while due to the lack of contributions. BT (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[2] It's an online learning program for college people. Um it says at the bottom of the link "The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302)" Does that make it accurate? ResMar 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[3] Ok, it says "Storming Media is a private, independent reseller of Pentagon and other US federal government reports on many subjects." I'll try and see if I can't find it on the .gov network. ResMar 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found it! I'm wondering if I could use its handle instead because the handle has the abstract, and that's all I need for the article. ResMar 23:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, he told me yes on his talk page, so I've replaced stormingmedia with the report's handle on the Defense Technical Information Center network. Done! ResMar 13:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of order, Ealdgyth's a "she". Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, and I can't find a substitute; gonna have to remove it...ResMar 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. ResMar 00:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Space Encyclopedia is catagorized at World Cat as a juvenile encyclopedia. Surely we can find an adult encyclopedia at least?
Hehe, well I'm sorry I ended up having to use my childhood encyclopedia :P ResMar 23:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. I noted SDSU, NYU, but there may be others.
I've gone through the refs again and I think I have it. See any more? (well besides the K### thing at the end, that's a channel in California and refers to itself only by that name). ResMar 13:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 51 ("The Horn of Africa". On the Volcanoes of the World. Science Channel. 2009-06-06) is this a TV show? If so, you need to give a bit more information in order to make it clear to readers
I added |work=Tv show to it. ope that makes it clear. ResMar 13:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: still no mention in the article if Dana was on the historic Mauna Loa ascent in 1840-41 or not? If he was, probably deserves a mention, right? It was quite a project, with Wilkes hiring hundreds of men to haul all sorts of equipment to the top. The site is on NRHP. Wilkes a talks about measuring gravity with a pendulum, however, not if there was anything scientifically valuable discovered about the voncanic activity. W Nowicki (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not ignoring you, I got tied up first with the refs, now with reliabilty. I'll get to it :) ResMar 00:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, give me a WP:RS source and I'll add it to the article. ResMar 14:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ran the dash bot on it. I see & (see MoS)
Cool, there's a dash bot? Where can I get the code? Looks useful. ResMar 16:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"which wrecked on the reef"—were wrecked?
I think someone got to it already, because I can't find it. ResMar 16:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pics are tiny; have you upsized any based on the amount of detail and other criteria? The blue/green map is just one example. I'm squinting. The glowing lava flow is largely wasted at that tiny size; so are the "tears".
Prose looks ok. Tony (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has many excellent images. Too bad they all have to be thumb size according to regulations. I can up the size of a few, but not all; which ones do you want? It originally was like that, actually; I had a stack of 400px images before it was removed. ResMar 16:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IMAGES says that image sizes can be forced in certain cases; see bullet 8. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, ok, if everyone's for it I'll go and upsize the images. Hehe, I was really sad when we had to downsize to meet thumb requirments (that apparently can be forced through...). ResMar 17:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imho, I hate thumb size. If you have an image and you can show it at higher size, do it! The thumb-sized images are really small and you can't see detail on them :( I've upped two of the lava pix, the chart, and the lava stalagtites. Good? ResMar 17:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The no forced size rule is there for a reason, you can easily enlarge images using your preferences. Some people have larger screens which would easily handle huge thumbnails, while people with smaller screens need smaller thumbs to avoid overcrowding the screen. The default setting is a happy medium which looks best on the largest variety of screens. Many of the images are already enlarged to the maximum recommended size, and honestly... if you want to see more detail you only have to click on the photo to see the full size. Secondly, forcing sizes smaller than 300px will actually make the photos appear smaller for those people who have their prefs set for 300px, which is the opposite effect you are trying to achieve by forcing the image size. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the previous comment re the inadvisability of setting thumbnail sizes between 180px and 300px. To work around that problem, please use "|upright=1.2|" rather than "|220px|". Also agree that one should not overdo upsizing; the default sizes are normally what readers prefer (though not always, of course). Eubulides (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text is present (thanks) but there are a few problems:

Gee, that really illustrates how interprative the guideline is, considering how the guy before you said that the alts are "Fine". ResMar 23:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Main photo gets a long description, second one is See adjacent text because I think the caption describes it adequatly. ResMar 23:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the caption isn't adequate, because it merely says "historic lava flows can be seen in black", giving the blind reader no clue as to where these flows are (something that really stands out to the sighted reader). I suggest saying that the northeast quarter of the island, the northern and southwest coasts, and a central ridge, are all black. Eubulides (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok done. ResMar 01:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alt text for File:WorldCrustalAge - Hawaii hotspot.png should mention the overall pattern of older crust in the eastern Pacific and younger in the western, which is obvious to the sighted reader but not to the visually impaired.
Done exactly as you said. I wish you would stop being so politically correct with all the visually impaired nonsense. Just say blind. Sheesh :D Sounds like you're calling the fat American lady "veluptious." ResMar 23:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most visually impaired people are not blind, but OK, I'll call them blind in future comments here. Eubulides (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please omit phrases like "Drawing of" (it's not a drawing, anyway), "Photo of" (eight times), "Picture of", "Painting showing" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid.

Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omited. ResMar 02:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but there's still one "Photo of" and one "Picture of", and now there's a new "A depiction of". These phrases all convey essentially zero useful information, and should all be removed so as not to waste a blind reader's time. Eubulides (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? Closed? Why? It's still going! IT'S NOT MY FAULT HALF THE PEOPLE WHO COMMENTED HAVEN'T RESPONDED DESPITE MESSAGING!
For now I'm simply going to ignore the close. It is unjust and unright. Going ahead with everything as normal. ResMar 01:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hawaii_hotspot/archive2&oldid=1138462456"