Talk:Mount Morning/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 22:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

A reasonable article as far as it goes, but needs to go farther
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The first sentence is a puzzle, see below
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The Bibliography section is confusing, see below
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Additional aspects need to be covered, see below
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * See below re limitations of the photo
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

The first sentence of the lede is unclear – it says where the volcano is near, but not where it is. It should say it is a volcano in Antarctica, and what section of Antarctica it's in, which I gather is Victoria Land. And does the first sentence of the lede really need to say it's poorly dissected? That term is not linked to, nor used again in the article, nor mentioned in the article about shield volcanoes, thus leaving a non-expert reader like myself adrift. Also note that later in the lede, the link for Hurricane Ridge goes to the famous road in Olympic National Park, not to anything in Antarctica.

The writing is good if very technical, but there is one spot which lapses into science-paper-ese and needs to be reworked a bit: considered dormant by Martin, Cooper and Dunlap 2010.

In terms of being broad enough in coverage, the article is great on geology, but strangely lacking in humanity. Was there a History section that got lost along the way maybe? Topics that should be covered in such a section include: Where does the name come from? (First thing you see in the morning from the Ross Ice Shelf?) When was the volcano first discovered, and by whom? Where there other early expeditions to it? Where is it visible from? Has anyone ever made a point of climbing to the top of it? Or is it too inaccessible? Is there research work going on around it in current times? A quick check of Gale and of Newspapers.com shows that there are indeed sources that talk about this, such as this Oceanus article from 2008 or several newspapers stories going back to expeditions in the 1910s. Including some of this material will make the article more interesting to non-geologists.

Another puzzle is how this is an 'ultra' – the photo doesn't show much prominence. Is that the Ross Ice Shelf or Sea in the upper left of it? Maybe it would be good to add a bit more explanation to the caption. I wish we could use a photo like this one which conveys the prominence better.

A description of the climate around the volcano might be useful – any differences from surrounding Antarctic climate? And the article's statement that Mount Morning is almost always covered with snow and ice doesn't quite fit with some of the photos I've been looking at of it, such as this one from the 1950s or some of the ones in that Oceanus article.

In terms of sourcing, the entries in the Bibliography really seem like they should either be in External links (the first three) or belong to a Further reading section, since they don't seem to be used as sources for the article.

Anyway, those are my initial reactions upon reviewing this. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I have rewritten the lead section a bit. Delinked Hurricane Ridge. Regarding a history section, most of the sources are fairly generic on the research history e.g "Volcano was reconnoitered by John Doe[1979]". I don't have access to that Gale article but added a bit about the name. "Ultra" is mountaineering terminology, I am not sure of its significance. Regarding the snow cover, that photo only shows a small outline of the mountain - both Google Maps and the USGS maps show it mostly snow covered except for some sectors. I didn't find dedicated sources on the climate of the area, and since weather stations are thinly spread in Antarctica I wouldn't really expect them. Merged the bibliography and external links sections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The lede is better now, but it's still not clear whether the part of the Transantarctic Mountains that the volcano is in is part of Victoria Land or some other region. Similar articles such as Mount Moulton and Mount Berlin, or stubs like Mount Herschel, do tend to give a 'land' as a location.


 * Regarding the name, there is an article on the relief ship, SY Morning, and so that should be linked to. Regarding the cite for the name, it is currently broken – comes across as expedition.CITEREFGNIS2020 in the text.  Furthermore there are three different GNIS links given in the article: the one in "Sources" seems a mistake (it's to some place in Arizona), the first one in "External links" seems like the right one and should be moved into "Sources", and the second one in "External links" is an older, archive version of that which seems superfluous and could be removed.


 * Will get back with more later. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that the volcano is on an island/peninsula so does not get attributed to a "Land" unlike these three volcanoes. Added the link and corrected the GNIS one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Not to get too bogged down on this point, but the map image caption in the article says Victoria Land, the article currently belongs to Category:Volcanoes of Victoria Land, four of the Sources listed in the article have Victoria Land in their title and two of those also have Mount Morning in their title, and other sources not used by the article, such as this National Science Foundation Geographic Names of the Antarctic volume, also put Mount Morning in Victoria Land. So are there sources that explicitly say that because of its location, Mount Morning is not in any 'Land'?  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Added that information. I misremembered the source then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, good. With regard to the Oceanus article I mentioned earlier, it's available in the clear here.  I think it could be used in the History section to show this December 2007 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution geological effort as an example of the kind of research work that's done at Mount Morning.  In particular, because the slopes never see rain and there is virtually no snowfall, the climate there offers a chance to study volcanic landscapes that are untouched by any form of running water and where consequently rocks are shaped only by wind and cold.  So it's not the kind of generic mention of research work that you refer to above – it's very specific to the location.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Seems like a reasonable source but I can't help but notice that "And Mount Morning and the adjacent Dry Valleys region get very little snowfall, so glaciers haven’t touched most of the mountain, either" isn't entirely consistent with the maps. I've done some minor additions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the broad statement about the region, I presume you think the article is credible about the specific area they were visiting and the rock examinations they were doing? I think a little more could be incorporated from that piece.  Here are some additional mapping/research accounts that I thought could be used as the basis for material in the History section:
 * Times of London, 3 April 1912, about how the Western Geological Party that was part of the British Antarctic Expedition, 1910–13 used Mount Morning as the starting point for a detailed survey that extended to Granite Harbour (may be of interest to readers given all the historical attention that expedition has received)
 * New York Times, 1 November 1968, about how infrared scanning has shown Mount Morning is unusually warm and thus might be a sign of future volcanic activity (this may be what your In the 1960s thermal anomalies were observed ... text is referring to?)
 * Marysville Journal-Tribune, 11 November 1977, about how a month-long Ohio State University expedition to Mount Erubus will also visit Mount Morning to collect samples for comparative analysis (gives a flavor of the kind of research visits the volcano receives)
 * Again, I'm trying to see if there is a way for this article to relate to human activity and not just to geological activity. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Thing, we don't in practice list the detailed research history of a geographical object except for major discoveries, astronomical objects and the first discovery. It's a bit of an editorial decision because I see the benefits in making the article less geology-centric - thing is the volcano is mainly known for its geology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realize that there was a "we" that had rules for what does and doesn't go into such articles. I will pass the article for GA.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)