Talk:Hawaii hotspot/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I have just skimmed over the article for now, but there are several issues I can already see. Normally I would "fix it myself" but the issues are so numerous and pervasive, I think (in cases such as this) it is more helpful to let the nominator resolve these issues in order to "teach" them how to write better articles in the future.

TOC ~~Odd placement of the TOC. The TOC should remain in the standard position unless there is an unusual situation that requires a different position.~~

Fixed. ResMar 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images Way too many of them, causing stack-ups. Also, image sizes should not be specified unless absolutely necessary. I would suggest not coding all the images together in one big stack, but instead, sprinkling them throughout the prose as well as alternating them from left to right (but only when possible, without placing them directly under 1st level headers, 2nd and 3rd are OK). You might want to leave out images which aren't directly relevant to the subject matter (such as the satellite photo of Hawaii Island), or redundant images (there are two photos of Pele's hair). I am not against photo galleries, but there are many who seem to think they don't belong in articles. Just a warning if you ever plan on nominating for FA in the future. For more info, see MOS:IMAGES.

Fixed, I believe. You say you still have problems with me putting sizes on several of the images, but that's because if they become too small the caption overloads. ResMar 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of fixing this problem myself. Images should be relevant to the article itself, not merely decoration. Captions should provide as much info as possible, but they should not simply parrot large amounts of information already found in the article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks Problems with too many links, "easter egg" links, redundant links, and adjacent links (see WP:LINK). Piped links are ok, but it should be clear as to which article the link is referring to to avoid the easter egg problem. Adjacent links should be avoided because these can also confuse the reader. The sentence should be reworded to avoid adjacent links, or the links removed. Also there is a problem of overlinking, so simply removing a lot of the links to simple words (such as lava or maps) will reduce this problem. Example: In the introduction, changing [[Midway atoll|Midway]] [[atoll]] to just [[Midway atoll]], and removing the volcano link from [[volcano|volcanic]] [[hotspot]] will fix this problem. Also, wikilinks should only occur upon the first mention of the subject, and subsequent mentions of the word should not be linked. Linking words in the intro, and upon first mention in the body is OK, but third and fourth mentions should certiainly not be linked. There is still consensus-building regarding the linking of dates, but I am fine with it so I will let that one slide. There are also a fair number of ambiguous links, follow this link for more info.

All the dabs are fixed, and I think I've handled the overlinking adequatly. ResMar 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple words that are understood by the common reader should not be linked. There are still easter egg links. Links should be piped only when necessary, and they should be as similar as possible to the article title, as this can cause confusion over what article the reader will be lead to when clicking on the link. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you removed enough to satisfy yourself, because you edit conflicted me. ResMar 19:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't removed enough, I haven't even finished scanning the entire article. I fail to see the point of your objection, I am simply enforcing the MOS, not trying to make your life harder. If you disagree with my assessment I can always fail the article and you can ask for a resassessment or renominate and let another reviewer handle the review. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did this get to a standoff? ResMar 21:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I've fixed the overlinking. I've removed several dozen redundant links. ResMar 12:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted your remarks as indignant, but if I was wrong then I apologize for over-reacting. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction The lead paragraph is too short (see WP:LEAD for more info). The lead should be a summary of the entire article. I find it is easiest to just take snippets from each paragraph (or in the case of longer articles such as this one, perhaps every other paragraph) and put the most interesting and pertinent information into the lead.

Still extending intro, referencing issues fixed. I'm not very good at introductions. ResMar 23:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, this is hard...if I put in too much information from certain sections, it gets all off-topicy. ResMar 23:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is getting better, however, the information is too specific. There shouldn't be any information in the intro that cannot be found within the main body. It is ok to have a few facts and figures, but nothing too focused. Mentioning the rate of drift is fine, but mentioning the fact that it would cover the state of California with a blanket of lava one mile thick is too much info for the intro (not to mention that the information is not also found in the main body). --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the specific line you were talking about. ResMar 22:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant cites This is not really an issue, but I thought I should point out that one does not have to cite refs at the end of every sentence. If a single reference is used for an entire paragraph, one can simply cite it at the end of the paragraph. The standard format is to place the cite at the end of sequence of statements which are supported by the reference, or the end of a paragraph, whichever comes first. It is also not required to place citations within the introduction (unless the statement is controversial or being challenged, which I don't think we have that problem here), providing the information is repeated (and referenced) within the body of the article.

Fixed. ResMar 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, ok, I think I have covered everything, and I haven't even given the article my "thorough" review yet. On second thought, this probably would have qualified as a quickfail, as it might take longer than seven days to fix all the issues. But the seven day limit is mostly a suggestion and as long as I receive a reply within seven days I am willing to overlook the time limit. If an editor has not expressed an interest in addressing these issues within seven days, that is usually when I fail the article. So... good luck! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italics ~~There is improper usage of italics throughout the article.~~

I'm assuming you mean its execution in the "erupted objects" section. That is now fixed. ResMar 21:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okina There is inconsisent usage of the okina accent mark within the word "Hawaiʻi". Common usage is without the accent mark, but I'm not one to say it should be one way or the other, just keep it consistent.

According to my highlighter, this only came up once. Fixed. ResMar 22:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref formatting References should be formatted using the proper templates (such as {{cite}}, {{cite book}}, or {{cite web}}), and should include at least the minimum fields (for books, publisher, page number, published date, author name, and version or edition if applicable: for websites, url, title, publisher, accessdate, and author name if available)

The use of a ref formater is a MoS suggestion, not a requirement. I've filled out all of the refs I used, but I'll go over them once I finish the other issues. ResMar 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from passer-by: There is no requirement to use cite templates. The only thing that is required is the information about the source and that the citations are consistently formatted. See WP:CITE. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are both right, they are not a requirement, however most GAs and FAs use them, and most reviewers ask for them. It just makes it easier for other editors to use and/or modify the refs in the future. On the other hand, it is required that the refs have the minimum amount of information. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to give the article a thorough reading just yet. Please be patient as it might be a few days before I can comb through the article and give it a proper assessment. Also, (just a suggestion, not an issue) if you have a commons account, I would suggest creating a category or gallery over there, and linking to it using the {{commons}} template. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think all the technical issues have been resolved. All that left now is for me to analyze the prose. It shouldn't take too much longer (I got off work early today, woohoo!). --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intro "The Hawaii hotspot is responsible for over 129 volcanoes" - I was under the impression that most of the 129 volcanoes are now extinct. It would be nice to explain exactly how many are extinct and how many are still active.

Sorry, no can do. Most of the Emporer seamounts and some of the northwestern island entities still have yet to be named. No one knows the exact distribution, as far as I've read. ResMar 23:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking for the names, just the numbers. Aren't there only four active volcanoes on the islands of Hawaii, Kilauea, Haleakala, and Mauna Loa, including the Loihi Seamount? The rest of them are dead seamounts, atolls, or extinct volcanoes, are they not? If so, just explain how many active volcanoes are in the chain, and subtract it from the number of extinct volcanoes (123 extinct, 4 active, 2 dormant). I'm not sure if that is an exact figure, but I just made a quick google search and I had to piece these facts together from different sources. We just need a more exact number of, and types of volcanoes. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you have a point. But we do not know the exact number; the figure changes every year or so. We could say something on the lines of "the chain has 4 active, 2 dormant, and over 123 extinct volcanoes[4]" ResMar 01:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Challenges to the accepted theory "The expedition was funded by the Ocean Drilling Program, an international research effort designed to study the world's seafloors, and the drill sites were numbers 1203 through 1206." - Do we really need to know the drill site numbers? I fail to see the relevance of this fact.

Removed. ResMar 23:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about halfway through the article analysis, the issues above are the ones I've found so far. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics and study "in the years 1880 to 1881, who first confirmed the increase and age of the islands moving northwest" - Should this read "increase in age"? Or is it trying to say "increase in number and age of the islands"?

No, just age. The early geologists didn't know about the existance of underwater seamounts as an extention to the Hawaiian islands. ResMar 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps a change to "increase in age" is appropriate? The phrase "increase and age" makes no sense in this context. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. What a silly mistake :) ResMar 23:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics and study "The complete model for the evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes was formulated in 1946. Since the time of the mid-decade, advances have narrowed the gaps between data." - I'm unsure if the actual intention was to say "mid-century"? About 1950 would be mid-century and certainly would make more sense. Also I think these sentences should be combined if this is the case.

Fixed. ResMar 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics and study "In the 1970s, the entire area was mapped. More direct ship data was compiled with math-based SYNBAPS data, with the ship-based bathymetrics carrying the most weight." - How was the area mapped during the 70s? Sonar? Also, (especially in the absence of a stand-alone article) we need some explanation of what "SYNBAPS" is.

Fixed. It's an acronym for a synthetic form of bathymetric mapping. ResMar 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How was the area mapped during the 70s? With standard sonar? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, standard sonar. Fixed. ResMar 22:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics and study "Data collected from the Emperor seamounts up to the Hawaiian island volcanoes provide a 43 million year record of the hotspot's activity, with the oldest seamount lava dated to the late Mesozoic era (Cretaceous period), and the youngest Emperor lava flows dated to the early Cenozoic (Paleogene period), right up to the modern day with the eruptions on Loihi and Kilauea, a total of 82 million years of activity." - This statement seems to contradict itself, it is 43 or 82?

Dubious to understand; it doesn't conta itself-rather, the Emporer seamounts provide 43, the Hawaiians 39, and in total it is 82 million. ResMar 22:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics and study "The top cools and forms an insulating, jagged "shell" on the bottom of the flow in the form of large basalt chunks, which insulates the bottom and keeps it moving." - I got confused here, does "bottom" refer to the "end" of the lava flow?

Bottom refers to bottom half. Fixed. ResMar 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited Statements

Challenges to the hotspot theory ~~"However, this could (and was believed to be) a result of the relative motions of the North American and Pacific plates rather then the hotspot itself."~~

Cited. ResMar 22:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Challenges to the hotspot theory ~~"The theory, at least as a modification to the hotspot theory, has since been mostly accepted by the scientific community."~~

Removed. ResMar 22:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes ~~"This is possible as Kilauea has been erupting continuously for the last 26 years through Puʻu ʻŌʻō,"~~

Done. ResMar 22:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table The table at the bottom of the article is mostly uncited. Ages should definitely always be cited, and notes should be cited if they contain major facts or claims. Example: "A much eroded shield volcano that makes up the western quarter of Maui" is OK left uncited, but "Mauna Loa is the largest volcano on earth" is not.

Do I really have to fill up the article with dozens of barely related citations when it is first and formost presented in their respective articles? The ages for sections two and three are cited (check the headers) ResMar 22:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do. Even though the citations can or may be found in their respective articles, you still need to cite the info for this article. You may simply "borrow" the reference from those respective articles, and this will save you some time. If the refs include links to websites, at least make sure the link is not broken before adding it to this article, and be sure to update the accessdate. Books and journals are fine, even if you have not personally checked the validity of those sources, we can assume whoever has cited them has added the refs in good faith. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So filling out refs. ResMar 22:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help in the tables. I had a hard time finding all of the ages. ResMar 23:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i've been out lately. ResMar 23:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is taking so long, but this article is pretty deep and I don't want to overlook anything. --ErgoSum|talk|trib 15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I have nitpicked enough. This article has been vastly improved and I think actually exceeds the requirements for a Good Article. Thanks for your cooperation, and good work, I'm sure this article must have taken a lot of time. And just to make this official... GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
All issues addressed, article passed. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]