Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive1


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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:43, 20 February 2010.

List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain

 * Nominator(s): Res Mar, Awickert

This list is the end result of a split from Hawaii hotspot, when it got too long to manage. I'm nominating it for FL because it's well-referenced and well-written. However, this list is a bit bold, because it has issues with completeness that can never be really surmounted, that is that in addition to the stuff listed, there are countless more. The list covers signifigant seamounts, but I can't find a clear distinction between what's listed and what's not, other then that the vast majority of what's not listed has a coordinate and a name, sometimes not even a name. Res Mar 20:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Support now. All issues have been resolved. bamse (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support from KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils )
 * Note: At the time of the review, KV wasn't a signifigant contributor to the article, although I asked him for help with it (which he's been doing a wonderful job with ;) ) Res Mar 22:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it typical for FLCs to backlog for so long? Res Mar 15:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We are short on reviewers right now. Additionally, the header on the main FLC page does state that nominations remain open for at least 10 days or longer (this one has only been open for nine) and that the bot only runs twice a week for promotions. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 17:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, very short...Res Mar 14:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You might ask earlier reviewers to re-visit their comments, as lnog as your aren't canvassing. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 15:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Emperor" or "Emperior"? Spaced en dash or hyphen? These consistencies in the main article have me confused about this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Emperor and en dash. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "only known " should be hyphenated?
 * ? Please elaborate. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * only-known... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would put Notes above References, but would also ensure that Notes are all referenced.
 * Removed. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 23:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Notes need references? oO The notes outline a trend to mot include the two volcanoes in the ordinary defenition of Hawaii island, that's a little hard to reference...<span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I really can't find a ref for that. It's true, yes, but not directly implied anywhere...should I remove it? <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 01:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Notes need references in general, particularly if you make claims in the that some may dispute. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed, still can't find applicable source. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks overall great. I made some tweaks to the lede. I have two suggestions: Other than this, I'll just do a grammar/style check of the descriptions in the table (once I know whether or not they need to be complete sentences), and I'll be happy to support. I'm just going to assume that you all have cross-checked the numbers :-). Awickert (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Although it may be obvious, I think it would be helpful to make a note at the start of the tables that you're going from the present-day hotspot location to the farthest point away from the hotspot on the Emperor seamount chain. Done.
 * Dunno about a full-blown note, but I added to the part of the intro about the list that it's organized by distance. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 21:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. Awickert (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What do you think of the grammar of, "Named after former emperor of Japan Emperor Kammu."? It seems clunky to me, but I can't find a better way to say it except for, "Named after Emperor Kammu of Japan," which leaves the reader to imply the "former" and so is arguably worse. Done.
 * 2) I just asked Dabomb87 if sentence fragments are OK; if they are, great! If not, there are a bunch of minor edits to do to tweak the notes in the tables. [Update: Dabomb87 says that they are OK so long as they don't have sentence-ending punctuation. Done. Awickert (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)]
 * Point 2 uh, so is there a better way to say it? Seems just fine. 3 seems to be resolved...<span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 17:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Point 2 isn't very important. Point 3 is not resolved: there is sentence-ending punctuation at the end of non-sentences. Awickert (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For point 2, if I may suggest: Named after Emperor [so-and-so], former ruler of Japan? KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 19:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - I'll do it. Awickert (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And point 3 is now sorted. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 19:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! This takes care of all of these concerns. Awickert (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There seem to be some issues in date consistency: the dates given for Kilauea are for its first subaerial eruptions, while the dates given for Mauna Loa are for its first eruptions, period. A convention should be decided upon, and noted (maybe as a footnote), such that we know what "age" means. I'd suggest (where possible) giving a full range of dates from the estimated first to most recent eruptions. Another viable option would be to only give the date of first eruption, or perhaps the date of first subaerial eruption (so when the volcano surfaced). I guess that there are 3 important dates actually (start volcanism, breach surface, and end volcanism), so there are multiple ways to include some or all of these. Awickert (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is, I believe, the last outstanding issue, and I am unsure about the best way to execute it. I can certainly provide a footnote; I just need to know what it should say. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 01:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm... well, a range of dates given could be from first (submarine) eruption to final eruption. Then if we wanted, we could put in the table (or as a footnote) a surfacing age. Does this sound good to you? If so, I'd be happy to help straighten it all out. Awickert (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be eminently grateful for any help you could provide, as the topic itself just isn't a strong suit. I must say, though, that helping ResMar with this list has made me more interested in volcanoes! And that's really the point of Wikipedia, isn't it? Collaborate; learn; lather, rinse, repeat... KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 12:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's fun! I'm no volcanologist either... Awickert (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Volcanologist? Where? <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 14:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the Starship Enterprise.


 * Comments from Bencherlite
 * "is responsible for the volcanism that forms the volcanoes in the chain" – perhaps "is responsible for forming the volcanoes in the chain", to avoid near-repetition of a word?
 * "cause the volcanic edifice to become lower" – "make the volcanic edifice smaller"?
 * In the Northwestern Hawaiʻian islands table, the cells with dashes sort in between the cells with numbers. This took me some time to work out.  Am I right in saying that it's because Maro Reef, for example, is in between Laysan and Gardner Pinnacles in the chain and therefore in age, even though the actual age is unknown? Ref 29 (eventually) yielded that information to me, but a simple browser search didn't find "Maro", for example, because the text is sideways on in the diagram!  Perhaps a note to explain this, at the head of the table if nowhere else strikes you as suitable?  It was particularly confusing because the Emperor seamounts table sorts differently, with "unknown" together at the end.
 * Otherwise, a very full list that is clearly the product of much hard work. BencherliteTalk 15:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bencherlite: I've addressed your first two concerns, and can explain the third since I did the sorting stuff, but you've essentially explained it yourself. It's easily inferred that the age is between x and y due to location, but the true age or even estimated age is unknown or unrecorded. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 01:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense. I've added a note to that effect, which I hope is OK.  That would just leave Awickert's point about dates, I think. BencherliteTalk 01:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note is good; spelling corrected :-). I've left a reminder for Awickert so he can perhaps revisit this. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 01:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Spot the geological noob... Anyway, if you can satisfy Awickert, then I'm happy too, so that's probably a conditional support (I know FL Directors like bold type...) BencherliteTalk 01:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunatly this nominations trawled its long and painful path into finals week. I have no time to devote to Wikipedia for at least a week and a half. Sorry. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 00:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrawl
 * ResMar, I can help out with the last few outstanding issues, so if you want to consider striking the withdrawal, I'll see what I can do for you. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 01:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck, ResMar. And if KV5 can get this one over the finishing line, that might even put a smile on your face during exams. BencherliteTalk 01:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, K5, if you can wrap it up I'd be grateful. No pressure though. Immense thanks...you can put up a star for yourself when all's said and done :) <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 02:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Crawling through the list
 * Made it down to Koolau, but the refs leave me confused as to whether it is truly a part of the island that the article says it is. I'll come back to this later on, but if someone who knows about Hawaii has a chance to clarify this before then, I'd greatly appreciate it! Awickert (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have checked and haven't been able to make sense of it either, at least not enough to verify that. Although I fixed the spelling there, I don't know if that verifies the refs. We might need ResMar, or perhaps we can recruit a member of an appropriate WikiProject to translate. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 13:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can make sense of it then, probably later in the day when I have more time. Awickert (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the status of this? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Woot, finals are all done. Now I have 6 days to relax...ahhh... Ok lemmie see...<span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 14:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno what your issue is, this pretty clearly states where it is...<span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 14:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to contact Awickert to ask if his concerns have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy Saturday - and now I'm back too. The source says it's on Oahu, but we say that it's on Molokai. My question was whether its location is in error, or is just something I don't know about Hawaiian geography. Awickert (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Resolved. Errors accidentally introduced by User:Killervogel5 on 19 December 2009.  Further review of diff may be needed. Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The dates for the whole Hawaiian chain are now done. Emperors will come soon. Awickert (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Loihi Seamount is generally classified as part of the Big Island, but someone has also removed the category from the Loihi article as well. It was appropriately classifed under the Big Island in December 2009. I think it should be listed as part of the Big Island category (as it is on the flank of Mauna Loa) and the category should be added back to the main article.  Books and papers generally categorize Loihi under any discussion of the Big Island, and category literalism is not helpful. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments from Avenue:
 * Some scientists have argued that Kauai was not formed by a single volcano, but from two. Even one of the sources we cite acknowledges the two-shield model as a valid alternative. But we list it as a single volcano, without any indication that this is controversial. -- Avenue (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead says "As the volcano sinks and is eroded, it first becomes an atoll and then an atoll island." How is an atoll island different from an atoll? The linked article doesn't mention the term.
 * Next the lead says "Further subsidence causes the volcano to sink below the sea surface, becoming a seamount and/or guyot." Neither the cited source nor our Evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes article suggest that further subsidence is to blame, instead saying it is due to the coral reef dying. This in turn is blamed on the volcano's movement into colder waters, past the Darwin Point, in the "Evolution ..." and various other articles.
 * I have two main concerns about the next part of the lead: "This list documents the most significant volcanoes in the chain, ordered by distance from the hotspot; however, there are many others that have yet to be properly studied."
 * The first is that it seems to gloss over the distinction between volcanoes and the islands, atolls, and seamounts they produce. This is linked to my initial point above about Kauai possibly comprising two main volcanoes. Other islands or seamounts might likewise represent more than one volcano, and future research might bring this to light, but we do not acknowledge this possibility anywhere.
 * My other concern is that "most significant" (previously "most notable") doesn't seem to be a good description of what's included here. I would be happier with something like "known". Again, I think this should include a caveat about some seamounts etc being listed singly when the true situation may be more complex. -- Avenue (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, based on the problems noted above with the lead and comprehensiveness. -- Avenue (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been noting whether dates are an estimate, whether they span the whole lifetime of the volcano, or whether they're a single radiometric date. I've been spot-fixing a couple of the numbers at the same time and finding some new ones. Some things I need help with:
 * Dates
 * I've been identifying tons of potassium-argon dates. This seems to clutter things; should I just make the dating method be a footnote?Awickert (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not. I really want to keep notes out the way; it's not that bad of an issue; any other opinions? <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:black;">Res</b> Mar 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I'll leave them, easier for me that way too. Awickert (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't find any of the dates noted in this reference, Duncan, R. A. and Clague, D. A. (1984) The earliest volcanism on the Hawaiian Ridge (abstract), EOS American Geophysical Union Transactions, volume 65, page 1076. Can anyone access this and confirm the dates in the article, and how they were obtained?Awickert (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Mm40 (talk). Argh, I like FLC because I can stay away from science lists. Oh well, geology isn't that bad.
 * "The chain has been produced by the" just checking, you mean to imply that the chain is still being formed? Is there some way you can clarify this?
 * I guess you can use "ocean crust" and "oceanic crust" interchangeably?
 * "and is eroded" why not just "erodes"? (sorry if I don't understand verb conjugations for you ecology types)
 * Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "it is both the youngest part" either take out "both" here or the "also" later in the sentence; I'd prefer taking out "also"
 * Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "in the chain that is in the submarine pre-shield stage"
 * Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a link for "extinct islands"?
 * Is there a more common synonym for "phase-out"?
 * In the "Age" column, some date ranges use dashes while others use "to"
 * I have no idea what a "rift-zone eruption" is; elaborate
 * In Lanai's column, there should be some sort of punctuation after "Sixth-largest island"
 * "the southern half remains above the sea today"
 * "including religious places" is there a better word than "places"?
 * Can you link "rock outcrop" somewhere?
 * In the notes for Lisianski Island, you may want to link to the captain himself; you might pipe it like you do with "a key battle" in Midway Atoll's notes.
 * The plus-or-minus signs (±) are sometimes spaced and sometimes not; be consistent
 * The Age box for Suiko makes no sense; you can be plus-or-minus a date range, just go with the bigger value, and what does the second ± mean?


 * References
 * There are a couple abbreviations in the references readers may not be familiar with. I noticed USGS, KQED, and QCC.
 * Add the authors in reference 5
 * You note that links are PDFs 3 different ways: letters before link (ref 6), symbol after link (end of ref 6, ref 44), and symbol with letters after link (34).
 * Ref 6 claims the first link is the pre-press version, but the second link is titled "Pre-press version"
 * Sometimes you link the USGS, sometime you don't
 * Refs 7, 10, and 11 cite the same observatory three different ways
 * Reference 11's retrieval date is in a different style than the others
 * Can geology.com (ref 13) be replaced with something of higher-quality?
 * Funny typo in ref 18: "Vulcanology"
 * In ref 43: You know Clague's first name (David, from ref 15). More importantly, though, why not use cite journal as it's formatted differently than the other journals
 * Ref 46: "page 199" -> "p. 199"

OK, that's enough nitpicking for me. I found this article accessible and not too covered in unexplained jargon. Thus, I'll gladly support once these issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Have these been addressed? Mm40 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go through and fix the grammar and formatting nit-picks in the next few days; hopefully Awickert or ResMar can address the other things. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Based on the above comments I also have to oppose at this time. --Kumioko (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read my comment? The above are all minor nitpicks ("that's enough nitpicking for me"), and I said that I was about to support, not oppose. Please rescind your oppose or come up with a better rationale. Mm40 (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As you stated, I wil gladly support once they are corrected. I am most concerned about the reference issues and the inconsistent plus or minus signs. All of these are fairly easy to correct but at the same time I think they should be correct and consistent for a featured article/list--Kumioko (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as the ± inconsistencies, this is the result of my large-scale ongoing updating and spot-checking of dates. I'll fix the ones that I've gotten to so far. Awickert (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note for nom: this paper summarizes a lot of dates for the volcanoes. As I've already put in 10+ hours on this article (looking things up, formatting them, checking info) and have other articles that I'd like to work on, I'd appreciate if you went through this and checked it against the current dates. For now, I'm going to add a couple more things and then sign off, Awickert (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind on the newness; looks like you already found it, so I'll add a link to that ref. Might be good to double-check against the others anyway. Note that multiple K-Ar dates don't provide a date range per se (due to inadequate sampling to say something that specific), so best to just state what the acquired ages are. But I'll fix these (I already have done many) so no worries, Awickert (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If Mm40's tweaks are implemented I'll support; until then I cannot, so hopefully it's done quick else this will probably be archived. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Content Support: the content is correct. Can't say much about MoS or inclusiveness (though it seems to include every volcano that is usually talked about, and a few that aren't), but I've finally gotten through all of the dates and they look good. Once these non-content issues are taken care of, you (pl.) can assume that I fully support. Awickert (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.