Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Resolution Guyot/archive1

Resolution Guyot

 * Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about one of the three well-studied seamounts in the Mid-Pacific Mountains (the other two are Allison Guyot and Horizon Guyot), all of which were formerly volcanic islands before they first became carbonate platforms - similar to present-day atolls - and later sank below the sea surface for reasons not yet known after a brief period of emergence. There has been a fair amount of research with drill cores which allowed scientists to reconstruct how it may have appeared a hundred million years ago (and from Wikipedia's perspective, to allow some illustration of the long-gone landscapes based on present-day environments with similar traits). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Imma ping participants - minus coordinators - in the past four FACses on guyots I've done in case they have time and interest to comment on this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am probably not qualified to do a review, but I just wanted to let you know that this has not been added to the nominations list. Aoba47 (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oy. It seems like someone already fixed that mistake; thanks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be the one like, who to is to be plied upon with glory and all hale unto him! ——  SerialNumber  54129  08:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite bloody right. I should get a 10% pay rise for that! - SchroCat (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ceoil
Interesting as usual. Will take a few days to leave comments here, but reading slowly through. Ceoil (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Were you still planning to comment, Ceoil? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, yes will post tonight. Ceoil  (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * rising 500 metres (1,600 ft) above the seafloor to a depth of about 1,320 metres (4,330 ft), rising 500 meters...to a peak of 1,320 meters above the seafloor..the word depth after rising threw me here.
 * Seems like you already resolved this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * which left its northern side sheltered from waves, except from storm-generated waves.[89] These waves waves x 3
 * Took out the second one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Already during the Aptian and Albian, could be better phrased
 * Reworded this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Very good overall, still reading through Ceoil  (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Resolved the issues so far. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to support; read through most of the article on tablet this afternoon, found very little to hold up upon, and it was most interesting. I do find the writing a little stilted, numeric and dry, but as its a specialist topic attracting a type of reader that will want lots of stats and dates, yes it is perfectly fine. I very much enjoy reading about such large time scales; zonked out a few times in-between, trying to fathom the scale the page covers.  Ceoil  (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing:
 * postulate is not a great word
 * Yeah, not the best word I figure but I am not sure what else would be better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * chains of volcanoes got. 'became' is better than 'got'
 * Changed, but to present tense as it's describing a theory of how ongoing development of hotspot chains works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * the sect "Regional setting" uses the words 'active' too much, pls vary
 * Removed one mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ''Potential hotspots involved in the genesis of Resolution Guyot are the Easter hotspot, the Marquesas hotspot, the Society hotspot[9] and in some plate reconstructions the Pitcairn hotspot[36] although not all point at a presently active hotspot' Easter, Marquesas, Society..reduce instances of saying "hotspot"! 'formation', not 'genesis'
 * Done; removed a few "hotspot"s. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The entire Mid-Pacific Mountains may be the product of such a hotspots as well - loose 'as well'
 * Dropped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Continued subsidence balanced by upward growth of the reefs led to the formation of thick carbonate platforms Progressive subsidence...ofset by...upward...
 * Better "continued" as the point is that it begins already before the reefs begin to grow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Ceoil (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

SC

 * Name
 * "During that Leg": the capital isn't needed without the full name
 * Hmm, the concept is known as a "Leg", not as a "leg". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as it's not being used as s formal title, it should be lower case. - SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Local setting
 * "there is an about 200 metres" this reads rather lumpily like this. Perhaps rephrase as "at one site there is a terrace about 200 metres (660 ft) wide, surmounted by a 25 metres (82 ft) high cliff" or similar
 * Reworded this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "sediments,[17] underwater cameras": needs more than a comma: a semi colon would work well
 * Swapped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "probably originate from" originates, as the "sediment" is singular
 * Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "and which surround a lagoon or tidal flat." This sentence needs a tweak – I've read it a few times and I'm still a bit mystified!
 * The source says The internal areas were either a semiprotected lagoon or a shallow peritidal flat. - "peritidal" is covered under "tidal flat" on Wikipedia. I dunno what to write here... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps split into two sentences, or a quote? Don't necessarily change at my behest, but if someone else mentions it, maybe it should be looked at closer? - SchroCat (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * History
 * "Radiometric dating": no need for cap
 * Mended. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Done to the start of the Volcanic phase: more to come. - SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

- SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Image review
 * "Between the Hauterivian (ca. 132.9 – ca. 129.4 million years ago[19]) and Albian (ca. 113 – 100.5 million years ago[19])" perhaps add "periods" at the end?
 * In the parenthese? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think "... 100.5 million years ago[19]) periods..." would be best. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A little unsure about this one. "Albian" and similar terms are full nouns, not adjectives; is a clarification necessary for laypeople? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel it is (from a position of complete ignorance!) leave it as it is for now, but it may be worth revisiting if others think it should be altered. Sound OK? - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good approach. I am OK with it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you go with the above, there are a few other places in later paragraphs where you could follow suit
 * "Well developed[101]" All the ref is doing is supporting the two words, nothing else; best move it to the end of the paragraph
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FN47 should be pp., not p.
 * It's not a page range, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter: if it covers more than on page it should be pp. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * FNs 65 and 78 don't need the retrieval date (the doi means you're using a specific text)
 * Done (but with 76). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. There are a couple of points I’m unsure of, but that shouldn’t hold up a support here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * File:Suwarrow_Anchorage_Island.jpg: source link is dead


 * File:North_Pacific_location_map.svg: from which specific map was this cropped? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Mended the dead link. Based on the upload summary it seems like the map is based off File:World location map Wraparound.svg (which indeed appears to match the shorelines) which in turn looks like it is derived from File:World location map (equirectangular 191).svg. I don't think that SVG maps are usually "cropped" from anything however and they'd qualify as derivative work only under particular circumstances. I've asked the uploader of the other map to be sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Got a reply to the effect of (translated) No, I've measured the land myself, but a friend of mine is an astronaut on the ISS he did check that again;-) My sources are stated. Is there something unclear? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Er, from which map uploader did you get that response? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * From TUBS, the uploader of File:World location map (equirectangular 191).svg which appears to have the exact same contours so presumably the same copyright status (or at least one might infer the copyright status from this file). The uploader of the problem map is inactive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'd suggest amending the description of the problem map to point to that one as a supporting source. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk

 * I'll have a look soon. At first glance, it seems pyrite is duplinked, and the article could probably benefit from some active wikiproject talk page tags. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tagged, but I can't find any duplink. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Pyrite is linked twice within the Composition section. You can highlight duplinks with this script: FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Remedied this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * What does Huevo refer to?
 * No idea, sources are not helpful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It means egg in Spanish, but why it would be called that is of course the issue. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I assume this is supposed to be US English, but you have UK metres/kilometres (instead of meters) throughout. The conversion templates probably need the US spelling parameter.
 * I don't know English enough to write in one style only, but it is supposed to be in BrEng - I don't see how WP:TIES could apply when it's so tangential to the US. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Should be fine then. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "ferromanganese" Could warrant some explanation in parenthesis or similar.
 * Added a note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Terrigenous" likewise.
 * Did some rewording. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The link to "organic" should probably be moved up there then. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "has indicates ages" Indicated? Or remove has?
 * Removed "has". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since "mass failures" is a red link, it is difficult to figure out what it means here.
 * Replaced with a synonym. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "resembling these of the Bahama Banks" Those?
 * Replaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * " JOIDES Resolution[3] during Leg 143 of the Ocean Drilling Program" State nationality of this program?
 * Added a bit in the note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "The Cretaceous Apulian Carbonate Platform in Italy, the Urgonian Formation in France have been compared" Missing an "and" instead of comma here?
 * Replaced with "and". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Life on Resolution Guyot included algae" I guess these are all fossils? Could be stated clearly then.
 * Added a sentence later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "included algae including" included/including looks clumsy, how about "such as" at the second time?
 * Reformatted this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is abit difficult to figure out how the images in the gallery correlate to the subject of the article, I think the captions could be more informative and state if for example what is shown is thought to have existed where the guyot is now or such. Perhaps the gallery could also have a title stating what the the overall message/theme of the included images is.
 * Added a caption; basically, these images should show how the platform might have looked like in the past. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good, should "resemble these of the former environments" be "those of"? FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "in present-day French Polynesia before plate tectonics shifted it to its present-day location" The double present-day could maybe be varied?
 * Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - looks fine to me now, with the caveat that I'm by no means an expert on these things. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * Links to sources checked & working, per the checker tool
 * Formats:
 * Ref 40 requires pp. not p.
 * Ref 82 same issue
 * Retrieval dates: a single format should be used

Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Quality/reliability: No issues. The sources all appear to meet the standard required by the FA criteria.
 * The 40 and 82 refs were deliberately so formatted as they refer to only these pages rather than a page range; I generally use pp for page ranges. Standardized the retrieval dates though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's the dash that indicates a page range. In its absence it's obvious that 40 and 82 are not defining ranges, but each of these refers to more than one page so you need pp. – as indeed you acknowledge with ref 49! Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)