Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allison Guyot/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 February 2019 [1].

Allison Guyot

edit
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a seamount again. This article is about Allison Guyot, a seamount in the central Pacific Ocean and part of a group of sunken mountains known as the Mid-Pacific Mountains. Its history in some aspects resembles that of my previous FACes Limalok and Wōdejebato; it originally formed as a volcanic island that eventually was eroded down and became an atoll or atoll-like structure. Notably, fossils of vertebrates including crocodiles have been found, indicating that during its 12-million year atoll phase. About 99 million years ago it drowned for reasons unknown and lies underwater ever since. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
Could state they're mainly teeth then? FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
​Added one mention. The sources seem to be confident that they can infer that they are crocodilian teeth; given all the extinct animals you have written about you are probably better qualified than I to say whether that's a reasonable assumption or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be possible to classify teeth below the level of just "crocodilian", but as the abstract you used doesn't seem to do so, not much you can do. But since it is only an abstract, it is possible there will come a paper that goes more in depth. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably something we might wait for, but on a quick search I didn't find anything more specific. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy of a mention, you can do it any way you like. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added it to the footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Making a note for myself to act on these comments, as I missed them this morning during my watchlist pass. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see at least three "ization" endings as well. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are dealth with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

edit

To add to Funkmonk's quibbles, a few of my own Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz

edit
  • It seems very likely that the Allison guyot was named after Edwin Chester Allison (1925-1971) a geologist at San Diego State College. A bio is here: http://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/memorials/v03/Allison-EC.pdf He was involved in naming the Darwin Guyot. A species of molluscs has also been named after him. I hope this helps in your search for a source.
  • What is the depth below the ocean surface of the Allison Guyot?

- Aa77zz (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. @Aa77zz:Tried that source, but no luck: There is nothing readily findable that connects this Allison with this seamount. I guess it might be contained in some gazzetteer but the only ones I know don't discuss the toponym or are offline owing to the United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019.
It's probably less than 1500m considering the map in https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joerg_Mutterlose2/publication/230892248_Calcareous_Nannofossil_Biostratigraphy_of_Site_865_Allison_Guyot_Central_Pacific_Ocean_A_Tropical_Paleogene_Reference_Section/links/57a84a4608ae455e85478c44/Calcareous-Nannofossil-Biostratigraphy-of-Site-865-Allison-Guyot-Central-Pacific-Ocean-A-Tropical-Paleogene-Reference-Section.pdf but there is no explicit value. The oft-quoted number "1530m" refers to the drill core, not the minimum depth. So, would "less than 1500m deep" work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Lingzhi

edit
  • twelve instances of "Missing pagenums for book chapter". They all seem to be Proceedings. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lingzhi2: Yes, but that's because I am using more than one page from them; the page numbers are given in the actual ref. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. What I meant was, in each article's entrance in the Sources section you might wanna list the page range for that entire article. For ex ample: Baker, Castillo, Condliffe (May 1995) seems to go from 245 to 261. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lingzhi2: Ah, OK. Added some pagenumbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions)
    Good, tks. Sorry I was unclear, ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK so I'm out of my depth (no pun intended) but do "anoxic" and "implying reduction" mean the same thing? The former somehow sounds stronger than the latter. Ours: "pyrite indicates that anoxic environments existed on Allison Guyot". Sager & Tarduno: "Pyrite is present, implying reduction, but pervasive bioturbation throughout most of this section indicates that the waters contained sufficient oxygen for shallow infaunal activity" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am checking sources' correspondence to sources, looking at refs cited multiple times. So for each source I mention below, I checked 4 or 5 or more facts:
    • Sager & Tarduno OK aside from query above.
    • Swinburne & Masse OK.
    • Baker, Castillo & Condliffe p. 250 OK.
    • "the deposition of carbonate platforms and a[75] limestone[7] platform grew on the guyot[75]" Does the first note [75] here go with "carbonate platforms" or "limestone platform"? Does the second [75] cover both kinds of platform, or the word "grew", or what?
    • Winterer, E.L.; Sager, W.W. 1995 p. 532 OK
  • @Sarastro1: Pending answers to the minor questions above, I am feeling pretty sanguine about "source reliability etc".  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Aye, "anoxic" and "implying reduction" in the specific context of environmental conditions means the same thing; oxygen is the biggest source of oxidative power in natural environments so its presence or absence does indicate whether they are oxidizing or reducing. See this for example
    I've moved the ref you asked about a little to make it clearer; "limestone platform" is a "carbonate platform" in this context as well.
    @Lingzhi2:Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support tho I was deeply disappointed to learn that Allison Guyot is not the lead singer for an all-female punk band. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
@Nikkimaria: Added a bit about Eniwetok/Bikini; regarding the hotspot caption, I dunno, can we have unreferenced captions at FA level? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Captions are subject to the same rules around referencing as the rest of the article, but so are diagrams - if you feel that caption requires sourcing, I would suggest then the diagram would as well. Unless the caption is incorrect? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The caption is correct, but it'd have no source in this (Allison Guyot) article. That makes me wonder. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure I understand the issue. The caption explains to the reader what is seen in the diagram. The diagram is currently in this article. If the caption, if added here, would be considered unverified (unsourced and requiring sourcing), then surely the diagram is also unverified? That's what I mean by, if one needs sourcing then the other would as well - whether the caption is changed or not, if we accept the logic that we would need to source the caption then we should source the diagram nevertheless. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The reason the image was included was in order to illustrate the hotspot concept without having to rely on text. I've added a source to the filepage since the file didn't have a source explaining where the concept comes from; now the question would be whether the caption would need a separate source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With a source on the image description page I don't think we'd need an additional source in the caption, although the source you've provided seems to be saying it's just a theory? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:It's pretty much accepted as an explanation for hotspots, although for some hotspots other explanations have been advanced - the reason the source is qualified is because it comes from 1971 when the mantle plume theory had just been formulated. As far as Allison is concerned, the sense I get is that it is the most commonly given theory and that other explanations don't appear to have been proposed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've added that caption. Any outstanding issue left? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit

I'm copyediting as I go through; revert if I make a mess of anything.

  • The sequence of events in the lead seems a bit too compressed. According to the account in the body, the island rapidly subsided after its first emergence, to the point where the platform was completely below sea-level, and then either the platform was raised above the sea again, probably killing the reef so that further subsidence drowned the guyot completely, or else equatorial heat or upwelling stopped the carbonate growth. In the lead there's no mention of the subsidence necessary to drop the platform to the point where an atoll-like structure is possible. Also, this sentence: The platform emerged above sea level at some time in the Albian and Turonian ages before drowning about 99 ± 2 million years ago for reasons unknown; it is possible that the emergence damaged the reefs seems to use "emerged" to refer to the original emergence, but "emergence" later in the sentence to refer to the possible additional raising of the platform that may have killed the reefs. Surely those are two separate events that should not be conflated like this?
Aye, rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In trying to find dates for the drill cores I found this page; I think you have everything from it from other sources, but wanted to pass it along in case. Do you know the date of the drilling? From the sources it's clearly no later than 1993, but I couldn't get the exact date. It's a minor point so no need to go hunting for it.
Added a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of a bathymetric map? The map in this is the sort of thing I was thinking of. I had a look in USGS sources and couldn't find anything.
    No dice; there be plenty of maps but none is freely licensed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You list cores 865, 865A, and 865B, but as far as I can tell from the source (Bralower & Mutterlose 1995), the site is 865 and the cores are 865A, 865B, and 865C.
​Remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
​Oh ow. Now actually fixed that part. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-- More tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-- That's everything I can see on a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most points struck above; a couple are left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think Lingzhi2 has covered the formatting of sources, but have we had a review for source reliability etc? Sarastro (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to sign off on source reliability. The article is almost entirely sourced to suitable scientific articles; there are a couple of web pages, which are appropriate sources for the material they cite. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for me. Did spot checks, above. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit
IB & lead
  • That's possibly the most pointless IB I think I've ever seen, given it has one field which is a repeat of something an inch above it. Is there anything that could be done to make it more useful – moving the map into it would be a start.
    The infobox is literally only there because there is no other way to make the coordinates appear otherwise in the top right corner. I've filled the infobox back up but I hope that someone can fix the {{Location map}} template so that it doesn't blow up when I add a |display=intitle to it. "Infobox formatting" is just behind "citation formatting" when it comes to my "things about Wikipedia that drive me batty" list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what you mean - it can be so overly complicated that newbies are scared to go near them as they break too easily. Just for future reference, adding |display=title into standalone a co-ord template {{Coord|18.26|N|179.33|E||display=title}} (like this) will put them at co-ordinates the top of the page. RexxS would be the one to work out how to drop the map in without problems - he's more 'code'-minded than me (not that that's difficult!) - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - the documentation for that infobox leaves a little to be desired. I've moved the location map into the infobox for you and tidied the references out of the coordinates in the title. Hope that's okay, if not, please feel free to revert. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we change the solidus into words (per WP:SLASH)? "...is a guyot (or tablemount) ..." or similar would work;
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we include conversions here (or are there different rules for scientific or geological works)?
    See Mike Christie's comment below. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Name
Local setting

That's it, and I'm leaning heavily toward supporting. I don't have a scientific background, so I may be pointing at things that are done differently for these type of articles (for which my apologies) – my review is based on prose and the MoS only, ad per my cop-out statement. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that I asked Jo-Jo to take out the conversions; as you guessed, they're not needed for scientific articles, and they can clutter up the text. I think it's best to get rid of them where the MoS allows us to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, excellent - thanks for the info. I'm not a huge fan of them (although they can be useful sometimes), so it's a bonus finding out they're not needed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: I think I got your outstanding concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Happy that this meets the criteria on the grounds of prose. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

edit

I expect to support, but have a few quibbles. These are from the lead for tonight, will get to the rest over the weekend.

Then say "at that point" for clarity. "commenced" reads odd to my ears. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a "later". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you could avoid "Guyot is a guyot" that would be great. Either way, we don't agree on a number of points, so crashing out neutral. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil and Sarastro1:Did address some of the other concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, now supporting, good work. Ceoil (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose from Ian

edit

I started going over the article with a view to promotion but decided I'd rather recuse from coord duties and review, mainly for prose/style as I know very little about geology...

Lead
Name and research history
Geography and geology
  • The Mid-Pacific Mountains contain seamounts formed when the Barremian and Albian (between ca. 129.4 – ca. 125 and between ca. 113 – 100.5 million years ago, respectively) ages were covered by limestones.) -- um, we do mean Barremian was ca. 129.4 – ca. 125 million years ago, and Albian was ca. 113 – 100.5 million years ago, don't we? I would spell out "million years ago" for the first-mentioned as well as the latter because I didn't parse that correctly the first time.
    I think I got this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also how can an age be covered with limestones?
    Fixed that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Geological history

I think that's about it but please check my copyedit in case I've misunderstood anything, which is quite possible. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Ian Rose: Your copyedit seems fine, I've answered the other queries as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, appreciate all that, good to find something on who the real name honours. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 25 February 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/Allison_Guyot/archive1&oldid=1138454258"