Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horizon Guyot/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2019 [1].

Horizon Guyot

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about yet another submarine mountain in the Pacific Ocean, one of the major Mid-Pacific Mountains and one of the few whose present-day conditions have been explored and researched in (some) detail. For comparison, Allison Guyot and Resolution Guyot has been principally the subject of research in their Mesozoic apparel, as were the other two (FA) Wōdejebato and Limalok, with little known about their present-day life and processes. But like these other seamounts, it formed as a volcano in the early Cretaceous and after persisting as an island or a shallow shoal finally sank below the sea where sediments accumulated on it and animals got established; its geologic history is not well known. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Main_Line_Islands,_NOAA_bathymetric_map_with_lineations_(Horizon_Guyot).png: suggest using the NOAA-specific tag

SC

[edit]
General
  • I'm trying to work out the variant of English used. We have metre, etc, but also "characterizes" and a "spreading center". These need to be consistent throughout.
    It's a mix between both, probably because I am ESL. I've changed some of these to the BrEng version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Local setting
  • "Horizon Guyot ... is part of the Mid-Pacific Mountains": this was mentioned in the last sentence of the previous section. I'm not sure there is an elegant way round it, but I'll leave you to mull over if it's possible to avoid the repetition.
    To be honest, I am a little at a loss as well on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a 35 kilometres (22 mi)[20]-70 kilometres (43 mi) wide and over 300 kilometres (190 mi) long ridge". This reads slightly oddly. I would expect it to be a "70-kilometre wide" and 300-kilometre long ridge" (singular on the measurements and hyphenated as it's a compound modifier). The plurals may be an EngVar thing – I'm reading it from a BrEng view.
    I think it makes sense to standardize to BrEng, so if singular is correct it should be in singular. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sediment layers cover almost the entire summit of Horizon Guyot[22] and consist": "which consist"?
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Composition
Drowning
Present state
  • "Chert[1]": Now, refs are supposed to cover all the information that goes before. Here we have a citation supporting one word but nothing else. I'd move this to the end of the sentence.
    Yeah, this is a bit of a bad habit I've picked up. Moved it to sentence end. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes

That's it from me. All very nit-picky, as the article is in excellent order overall. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thanks, and got the issues. Once the page looked like this so I was a bit less certain on the quality than in other FACses I've submitted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AhmadLX

[edit]

Will be reviewing soon. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  • Sometimes you've cites inside parentheses and sometimes outside: (251.902 ± 0.3 – 66 million years ago[41]) and (4,734 ft)[19] etc. Why not make them all outside?
    The cites inside the parentheses are meant to support only the parenthetical content, not the sentence outside of the parens that comes before it. 11:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Some citations are in sfn (eg. [1], [2], [3]) and others in ref tags (eg. [4], [12], [13]).
    That is a deliberate choice to make it easier to format these sources for which I only used one page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you need to be consistent with formats. Also, with current formatting, at places you've page numbers as "p. X"/"pp. X–Y", at others just as "X"/"X–Y".
I am pretty certain that such a consistency in the citation formats isn't actually a requirement anywhere. Regarding the last issue, I am not seeing it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Compare [14] with [13] or [15].
A, that issue. I don't know how to fix it, assuming that it can. It's a template problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: Is it okay to leave it as it is? Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I said it the wrong way. I mean, journal citations don't include full date or even month. Year is enough.
OK; removed non-year information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess you are using et al. after three authors? Eg. Davis et al. 2002, has four. In [15] you've listed five, in [49] and [93] four.
    Yes, but only in the sfn citations where it is automatically applied. The full cites in the reference list spell out all the names. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some full cites contain page ranges (eg. [20]), some have specific cited page (eg. [29]), some don't contain page info at all (eg. [24]).
No sir, I meant that in full cites, page range of the cited article should be given (so full citation of [20] (Davis, A. S.; Gray, L. B.; Clague, D. A.; Hein, J. R. (2002)) is correct) since specific page is given in the short inline citation. Full citation of [29] (Lonsdale, Peter; Normark, William R.; Newman, W. A. (1972).) should have page range of the article (289–316) and not the cited page (289). Similarly full citation of [24] (Winterer, E.L. (1976)) should have page range of the chapter (731–747). Same with Bass, M.N. (1976). Bukry, D. (1973). Douglas, R.G. (1973) etc.
​Ah, that. Added these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full citation of [48] should mention the chapter name and the authors of that chapter. Something like "Robert J. Van Waasbergen Edward L. Winterer (1993). "Summit Geomorphology of Western Pacific Guyots". In Pringle, Malcolm S.; Sager, William W.; Sliter, William V.; Stein, Seth, eds. The Mesozoic ..."
    I don't think that's really necessary, even if it's not harmful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It really is ;) Right now, the author info is missing. Citations of edited books include chapter name and its authors in addition to editors and book name.
I still don't think so, especially since I am not convinced it's actually possible to assign chapter-specific names to a sfn cite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
35 is still there ;)
Yeah, but it meant whole pacific floor contains these.
"These are submarine mountains which are characterised by a flat top and usually the presence of carbonate platforms that rose above the sea surface..." ends with [44].
Eventually found a solution of the problem. Seems like a mistake I made when transferring material from Resolution Guyot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine.
  • "an origin as a carbonate platform[81][was considered unlikely]". Couldn't find that in [81]. It says that they are probably volcanic deposits. Also, "carbonate deposits" is confusing; why not something like "deposition of debris from organisms"? It sounds clearer.
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The seamount was close to the sea surface for at least 6 million years.[88]" The source is more explicit, saying it was above the sea surface.
    Rewrote this; if memory serves when I wrote this sentence I had not gone through all the sources and some of them did not say that Horizon was an island. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.

  • "During the Deep Sea Drilling Project, the drill cores called Site 171 and Site 44 were taken on Horizon Guyot in 1971 and 1969, respectively;" Why not order the other way around, i.e. Site 44 and Site 171 in 1969 and 1971?
    Reversed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Year for Site 313?
    ​ Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other guyots in the Mid-Pacific Mountains are Sio South, Darwin, Thomas, Heezen, Allen, Caprina, Jacqueline and Allison.[16]" Sources also mention Resolution Guyot. Also [16] lists others that you haven't mentioned (eg. Huevo). If only notable ones were intended, it should be indicated in the sentence. Anyway, Resolution guyot seems notable, you've created an article for that.
    The omission of Huevo and Resolution is because it's not entirely clear from that source whether they are one and the same. I'be noticed that sometimes the same name is applied to more than one feature or that a name changes (as Resolution Guyot itself is an example of this). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay if the guyot is same, still it is certain that there is one more notable guyot in the region, i.e. Resolution Guyot.
OK; added Resolution then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean is that material from rock surface of the guyot or from the later deposits?
That list encompasses all layers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Sorry, I got a bit slow on this. I still need a couple days to finish reading and source checking. I hope to finish it by Monday. Apologies for the delay. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX:Addressed the outstanding problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes estimates are two but the age is one. For example, I wouldn't say "Jo-jo Eumerus' ages have been reported by Wikipedia to be either 25 years or 100 years" ;)

That's all I could find. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 09:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did these and pinged you on one point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, age issue is up to you. I am Supporting. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 10:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I'm going to add this to the Urgents list, but it will need to be archived soon if it does not receive some additional reviews. --Laser brain (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Solicited comments a bit on this; I am also thinking to write a more general note (that is also including the other FACses on User:Deckiller/FAC urgents) on WT:FAC as that did work in one past instance at getting two out of three past the finishing line. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
Then go with the singular then. (Or rephrase it yourself without "time".)
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deposited on the exposed rocks of Horizon Guyot" IMO this may read better as 'deposited on exposed rocks.' I think that we can trust the reader to understand where these rocks are.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and is a 35 kilometres (22 mi)–70 kilometres (43 mi) wide and over 300 kilometres (190 mi) long ridge" Optional: 'and is a ridge 35 kilometres (22 mi)–70 kilometres (43 mi) wide and over 300 kilometres (190 mi).'
Awaiting a comment.
Enacted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.
I understand that. If it can be dated to the nearest thousand years then fine, let's give it. To date to the nearest thousand years and then give an error bar covering 600,000 years seems silly to me, regardless of whether the source is equally silly. Possibly you could put a footnote next to 251.902 explaining its significance and how the date of the start of the Mesozoic is dated?
OK, first off I see that the 0.3 was a typo; the actual precision is 0.024. Second, I did find a source for a note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many of these seamounts were formerly atolls, which today still exist" This comes across a little oddly - "were formally"; "which today still exist". Could it be rephrased?
    Struck out the second part. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Fringing reefs may have developed on the volcanoes, which then became barrier reefs as the volcano subsided and turned into an atoll,[47] and which surround a lagoon or tidal flat" Could this be rephrased to be a little clearer? Possibly by being broken into two (or more) sentences?
    Rewrote this a bit, is it clearer now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's better.
"small part"?
That reads rather oddly, like it emphasizes the subdivision of the area at the expense of its nature. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • which describes the formation of chains of volcanoes which get progressively older along the length of the chain, with an active volcano only at one end of the system. This volcano lies on a spot of the lithosphere heated from below; as the plate moves the volcano is moved away from the heat source and volcanic activity ceases, producing a chain of volcanoes that get progressively older away from the currently active one" To me this seems to say the same thing twice. Could it be contracted to a single explanation?
    I am not sure about this part. There are some competing theories on how progressively older chains form so I was thinking that spelling out the mechanism was important. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with that. Let's park it for now and get the trivia redolved.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:Thanks for the review; responded and processed some points. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff.
Yes.
  • "The seamount was close to the sea surface for at least 6 million years; prior to 1973 there was no evidence that Horizon Guyot had ever formed an island." Could the second part of this be phrased positively? Eg something like 'in 19xx evidence was first discovered that Horizon Guyot had at one time formed an island, overturning earlier theories that it had never risen above sea level'?
    Rewrote this, is it clearer now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nicely nuanced.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:This second batch also replied to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
Apologies. My PC froze and I saved in a hurry. You're not supposed to be following up so promptly ;-) . Continued below. I shall start going through your responses tomorrow.
  • "cold bottom waters and strong bottom currents which trigger erosion" Optional: I would use 'sea-bottom' in both cases.
  • "cold bottom waters and strong bottom currents which trigger erosion" Is it the waters or the currents which trigger the erosion; and in either case, what is the mechanism?
    Redid this as the source isn't clear on the mechanism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.
It was a rhetorical question :-) . Virtually no reader will know that. So it needs replacing with plain English, or explaining in line, or explaining in a footnote.
Reworded to be clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. (But outcrop is a perfectly good active verb.)

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Nice work. A few remaining comments above for you to think about. Sort them and I will have another read through. And think if there is a better way to explain the conveyor belt mechanism. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:Thanks, replied to these comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hotspot theory
[edit]
OK. Rereading I am less unhappy with your wording than I was first time around. And I have isolated what I am unhappy with. So, how about something like

The formation of many such seamounts has been explained by the hotspot theory.[54] According to this theory, an active volcano lies on a spot of the lithosphere heated from below; as the plate above this hotspot moves, the volcano is moved away from the heat source and volcanic activity ceases. The hotspot will then heat the area of the plate now above it, producing another active volcano. In this way, a chain of volcanoes that get progressively older away from the currently active one is generated.[55] With some exceptions, radiometric dating of the Mid-Pacific Mountains has yielded evidence of an eastward movement of volcanism which is consistent with the hotspot theory

I certainly don't insist on these words, but hopefully you can see where I am going. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:I've applied that text; it seems like it resolves the duplication issue nicely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • "100.5 – 89.8 million years ago and another stage has been dated to have occurred 88-82 million years ago" Inconsistent use of dashes. The MoS suggests that en dashes are used "in ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through" and that "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space." See MOS:ENTO.
    Added spaces on the 88-82. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. On a reread, that's all I can find. It's a grand explanation of the feature, and barring images and sourcing, which I haven't looked at, meets the FA criteria. So I shall support and leave you to look at that dash. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]

Apologies in advance as I am not a particularly good reviewer, but I am trying to improve. I am completely unfamiliar with this subject area, but I hope my comments below provide some assistance:

  • I have a question about this sentence: "at first it was believed that they had sunk below the water in the Precambrian (over 541 ± 1 million years ago)". Should there be a comma after the phrase "at first"? I have the same question for this part: "At first the formation of the terraces was also attributed to volcanic activity".
    I don't think it's strictly necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe a comma is needed after the word "Oligocene" in this part: "During the Eocene and Oligocene older foraminifera were redeposited".
    Added, although I am not sure if it's strictly necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I only commented on it as other sentences with similar phrases have a comma, like "During the Second World War, it was discovered that the seafloor of the Western Pacific Ocean was dotted with numerous flat-topped seamounts." and "During the Cretaceous, carbonates accumulated on Horizon Guyot". Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wikilink for "landsliding" is currently in this part: "this also results in sediments accumulating to form steep slopes that undergo landsliding.". However, the word "landsliding" was mentioned in this earlier part: "Landsliding is probably triggered by earthquakes". I believe the wikilink should be moved up to the earlier instance of the word.
    Moved the link up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question for this image caption: "Location in the North Pacific". Would it not be better to use the full phrase "North Pacific Ocean"? If the literature/sources use "North Pacific", then it is fine, but I was just curious about why the word "ocean" was omitted here.
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part: "In certain areas boulders and cobbles cover the seafloor". Should there be a comma after "areas"? From my understanding, this article is written in British English, and as an American editor, I am unfamiliar with how comma use may differ so apologies if a comma is not necessary. That is why I ask about commas, because it could a British English convention to not use commas in these instances.
    I am not really certain myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question for this part: "the former forms seismically reflective layers within the sediment cap". Would it not be better to just say "chert" rather than "the former"? I generally avoid using the former/the latter so it could be a personal preference on my part. I just do not see a real reason for "the former" as there is not a lot of repetition of the word "chert" in that part, and it would be a little more clear to the reader (at least in my opinion).
    Yeah, it probably reads better with "chert" spelled out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part: "In the saddle between the summit platforms it is about 500 metres (1,600 ft) thick". Should there be a comma after the word "platforms"? Apologies for all the comma questions.
    No, I am pretty sure that here a comma would be inappropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think there is anything in the MOS on this, but I am curious on why the citations in the final paragraph of the "Composition" section are not in numeric order.
    Changed them around. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I hope my comments are helpful. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Aoba47, replied to the arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all good if you do not have the time. It was an interesting article to read, and it was nice to read something outside of normal comfort zone. Have a good time traveling! Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Horizon_Guyot/archive1&oldid=912493225"