Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hawaii Bathymetry

Hawaii bathymetry

 * Reason:Excellent image which contributes to a reader's understanding of Hawaii hotspot, and it is of high standards and resolution.
 * Articles this image appears in:Hawaii hotspot, Maui Nui, Penguin Bank
 * Creator:United States Geological Survey, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason


 * Support as nominator -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  17:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It's an extremely interesting map. I have two issues though. First, the fonts are rough; I prefer them to be smoother. Second, are the blurrier areas not as well documented as the clearer ones? Because they are kind of annoying (almost like my eyes are playing tricks on me at first).  wadester 16  18:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Fonts can be fixed I guess, but you are correct. As you can see, some ship-based sonar data is more detailed than the rest of the map, which is taken from whatever space-based radar thingy, I assume. There is not much I can do about that, but the major areas of interest are mostly detailed. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  18:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unrealistic depiction of the relief, looks like a stack of plates. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain your comment of "Unrealistic depiction of the relief" Sedd&sigma;n talk 02:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, because of the low resolution of the elevation information, the whole thing looks like the The towers of Hanoi -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So I guess we really need to determine if higher resolution is available. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Info PDF was apparently composed in Adobe Illustrator ("Hawaii-poster.ai"). Resolution of alternate pdf does not seem significantly different. Will point out one vector drawn part that apparently is not on the original raster image, and that's just North of the text "Honolulu" (best apparent on the original PDF). Not sure what's going on there, in terms of providence and accuracy. The original raster image may also have had some jpegesque artefacts, but I'm no expert on PDF-embedded images. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My attempt to upload a much bigger png to at least fix the fonts did not succeed (commons gave an error, "empty document", after about ten minutes spent in transferring the 31MB file); however, the previously uploaded image may be at or near the maximum resolution of the embedded raster image from what I can tell. Text is vector, though. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question about the various lines and trails that run across the sea floor, especially in the deeper parts of the image, but also at the edges of the image: Are they artefacts, and if so, which stage of the measuring/processing introduces them? Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Some of the lines you see are the edges of data integrated from ship-based sonar, hence the zig-zag detail of the Maui Fracture Zone. If that is what you're referring to. If you're referring to the purple area below the Molokai Fracture Zone, that is more of an artifact of the lower resolution zone and this is what the source has to say about it:

"Bathymetry that is predicted from variations in sea-surface height, observable from satellites, provides the low-resolution (fuzzy) bathymetry in between ship tracks. Subaerial topography is from a USGS 30-m digital elevation model of Hawaii."

- Hawaii's Volcanoes Revealed

-- ErgoSum • talk • trib  22:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Update I have provided a higher resolution image, so the fonts issue is solved. Also, there is no "towers of hanoi" effect, as this shows the natural features of volcanic lava flows piled up over time. All of the ship based data is of high resolution, but the areas of fuzzy low resolution are still present. Nothing can be done about this, but the supposed "artifacts" can be smoothed out, however, the this would only "hide" the fact that there is less data available for these areas (i.e., its still not going to be as detailed as the rest of the map). I'm hoping the previous !voters will be kind enough to re-evaluate the image again based on the new and improved version, and in light of new information. Or should I just renominate? I don't deal too much with Featured Pictures, so I'm not up to speed on the procotols around here. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support (Technically edit 1, but uploaded over the original). Looks much better now, with the fonts cleaned up and all.  Very interesting and informative.  Spencer T♦ Nominate! 00:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support and Question There are a couple of places where 'Hawaiian arch' appears in large letters; I assume that's short for archipelago? Time3000 (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer Actually, no, it is not short for anything. If you notice, there is a "Hawaiian Arch" and a "Hawaiian Moat". The islands are surrounded by a peculiar moat-like trench (see this article). Some theorize that the arch is actually an effect of the hotspot deep below the islands, and this "swell" is proof of a "mantle plume", and that this mantle plume is pushing up through the crust like a pimple. Others might say it is simply an effect of the subsidence (sinking) of the heavy volcanic islands pushing down on the sea floor which produces a second arch beyond the moat (notice the words "Hawaiian Arch" again in the upper right-hand corner of the image). Also, the arch in the center of the image was part of an ancient mega-island, Maui Nui, which was broken up (through erosion and sea level rise) into several of the islands we see today. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  13:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

-- wadester 16  01:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)