Talk:Anahim hotspot/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Anahim hotspot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Quite a bit work left to do on this article yet I think; in particular the referencing needs to be tightened up. Here are my detailed observations:


 * All the references need to be double checked, to make certain that they support what's being claimed. For instance, "This in turn has re-raised the antipodal pair impact hypothesis, the idea that pairs of opposite hotspots may result from the impact of a large meteor." Apart from being a non-sequitor, as the subject being discussed immediately before that sentence was tectonic plate movement, the reference provided says nothing at all about the antipodal pair impact hypothesis so far as I can see.


 * Can you explain what makes "An Internet Fly Fishing Magazine" (ref #7) a reliable source for this subject?


 * i don't quite see what's wrong with this site. ~The information is accurate. I an remove the reference if you like. ~ Me  ldshal  42  19:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Where a book is being cited, the full publication details ought to be included, not just a link to google books.


 * You should give full details – author (where available), publisher, last accessdate – for all web references.


 * The lead needs to be expanded to better summarise the article.


 * A hotspot is a location on the Earth's surface that has experienced active volcanism for a long period of time. This theory was first suggested by the Canadian geologist John Tuzo Wilson in 1963." What theory? The preceding sentence simply defines a hotspot; Wilson's theory was an attempt to explain the formation of volcanic islands was it not?


 * Why is geochemistry capitalised in Petrology and Geochemistry?


 * As the tectonic plate drifts across the hotspot, it creates new volcanoes and generally leave unmistakable evidence ...". Plate is singular. I think the whole Background section needs to be rewritten.


 * About 13 and 12 million years ago, the Anahim hotspot created a peralkaline volcanic complex on the coast of British Columbia, now heavily eroded to from the ~20 km (12 mi) long Bella Bella and ~6 km (4 mi) long Gale Passage dike swarms. Which is it? To or from?


 * The converging dikes may mark the arrival of the Anahim hotspot". What does "arrival" mean in this context?


 * "During the early to middle Miocene, the central Coast Mountains were favored thermally-driven uplift arising from the Miocene passage of the Anahim hotspot beneath the range, and response to convergence in late Miocene-Pliocene time." What on earth is that supposed to mean?

reworded. ~ Me ldshal  42  20:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "A sequence of 40-60-m-thick ...". Don't need the hyphen between "m" and "thick", missing imperial conversion.


 * Metric to imperial conversions missing in 3.8 million to 80,000 BP.


 * ... pulled the volcanoes away from the hotspot's magmatic source at a rate of 2 to 3.3 centimetres per year .... Missing conversion.


 * Volcanism appears to have ceased in the western parts of the Anahim Volcanic Belt, but if the suggestion is correct .... What suggestion?


 * "No theory is close to airtight." Language is too informal for an encyclopedia entry.


 * The deepest deposits near the cones is (>3 m) and thin to less than a few centimetres only a few kilometres away ...". Doesn't seem to make sense.


 * "Part of the controversy is due to the rather sudden appearance of the hotspot in the geologic record." This rather sudden appearance ought to have been explained earlier, in 13 to 12 million BP.


 * The last paragraph of Seismology needs to be sourced. Who says that the ash would cause an aircraft's engines to fail within a minute?


 * Hotspots record changes in tectonic plate motions ...". Don't they simply record tectonic plate motions? "Motions" carries certain scatological overtones. Might "movement" be better?

I'm putting this article on hold, to allow time for these issues to be addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hopefully no one minds, but I have used a strike-though of the above text to indicate what I have fixed. --Burntnickel (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine by me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed some of the problems listed above, but some of your suggestions are incorrect. John Tuzo Wilson proposed the hotspot theory to help explain the formation of volcanic chains such as the Hawaiian Islands. As a result, the hotspot theory has been used elsewhere to help explain similar formations such as the Anahim hotspot. See Tuzo Wilson Seamounts. As for the lead, what can be explained? See the Iceland hotspot which is GA and has the same problem. I'll leave the reference problem for someone else because I'm no expert. Black Tusk 20:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am quite open to negotiation on any of the points that I have raised. So far as Wilson is concerned, it is hardly a theory that a hotspot is a hotspot. His theory concerned the formation of volcanic islands so far as I am aware; how does that relate to the Anihim hotspot? As for the lead, it must summarise the article. A single sentence doesn't cut it I'm afraid. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's that much of a problem maybe the Tuzo Wilson and impact sentences should be removed. I don't know what else should be explained in the lead, a hotspot is a hotspot. Black Tusk 00:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You need summarise this hotspot, not hotspots in general. What's the history of this hot spot, its future? The lead has to summarise the article. I won't be moving on this point, and if the lead isn't improved I will fail this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean. The future and history is already mentioned in the article. I'm currently working on the lead. Black Tusk 2:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that Black Tusk has greatly improved the lead. I think it is ready for GA now, no?  All those minor things are not really needed for a GA.  ~ Me  ldshal  42  20:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is not ready for GA, not until all the points raised have been addressed. I am pleased to see the work that's being done on this article though, and I very much hope that it will soon be ready to be listed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Internet Fly Fishing Magazine" is a reliable source because the geologic infomation is correct. I know because I have a book with the same infomation. Black Tusk 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Too may indents, so I'll start back on the left side. I don't think we can conclude that the "Internet Fly Fishing Magazine" is a reliable source just because it is correct. Perhaps the book you mention might be a better source to use than the currently cited web page? --Burntnickel (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's the only reference I can find on the net that can support the Rainbow, Ilgachuz and Itcha Range eruptions. Black Tusk 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Malleus Fatuarum, what do you mean by: This rather sudden appearance ought to have been explained earlier? The appearance of the Anahim hotspot is already mentioned; The converging dikes may mark the first appearance of the Anahim hotspot. --Black Tusk (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I mean that the hotspot's sudden appearance appears to be remarkable, and even controversial according to the Origins section, so it was surprising not to see it mentioned earlier. But it's no big deal if you don't agree, it's just a minor point. BTW, I'm quite impressed with the new lead, very nice job. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It seems like the origins of this hotspot is unknown, therefore I think it would probaly be hard to explain. But I think most hotspots have sudden appearances and unknown origins actually, so it's probably a normal subject with hotspots. Is the "Internet Fly Fishing Magazine" a reliable source for this subject since I explined why it's being used? Hope it is nevertheless I won't know what else to use as a reference. --Black Tusk (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Didn't you say that you had a book with the same information in it? That would be a better source. It's kinda hard to think of a fly-fishing site as a reliable source for geological information. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Added the book reference. --Black Tusk (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this really matter on the GA outcome of this article?

No theory is close to airtight.

Ireally think its a minro thing that doesn't really matter at the moment. ~ Me ldshal  42  20:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this source reliable? It looks to me like a student project. Epbr123 (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the infomation is reliable. It's from scientists that study the area. It also includes references. Black Tusk (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It really does look like a student project. . Epbr123 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's students associated with the Geological Survey of Canada per here (i.e. specialists). But if there's references supporting the infomation it's most likely reliable; some references supporting the infomation are used in the article. Black Tusk (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to close this GA nomination now. I really think the editors have done a fantastic job over the last week or so, and that they're all to be congratulated on what they've achieved. The referencing has improved out of all recognition, there's now a proper lead ... I could wax on and on, but the bottom line is that I think this is now a pretty fine article, and I'm going to list it as a GA. Congratulations! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)