Talk:NW Rota-1

NW Rota-1 has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 8, 2020. (Reviewed version).

A fact from NW Rota-1 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 May 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the first observed underwater explosive volcanic eruption (example pictured) occurred in 2004 at NW Rota-1?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NW Rota-1.

Wikipedia

Volcanoes Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Seamounts (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Seamounts, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SeamountsWikipedia:WikiProject SeamountsTemplate:WikiProject SeamountsSeamounts

Micronesia: Northern Mariana Islands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MicronesiaTemplate:WikiProject MicronesiaMicronesia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Northern Mariana Islands work group.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:NW Rota-1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 01:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the cover image before or after 2009 landslide?
Before, it seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worth mentioning? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it made a large difference that would show up on such an image, so no IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It was discovered through its hydrothermal activity in 2003 and has been observed to be erupting underwater, the first time that submarine explosive eruptions have been directly witnessed." - were both of these events in 2003? If these are separate events (discovery and the direct witnessing) then I'd put it as two sentences
Apparently not, so rewrote this sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The seamount rises to 517 metres (1,696 ft) depth and is capped off by a ridge." - I think I know what this means, but I'm not really sure, especially the ridge part, "rises to... depth".
Hmm. Formulating this depth thing in seamount articles is a bit hard; I've rewritten the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was a missing word, you had "The summit of the lies at", so I added "seamount" in there, but it also appears later in the sentence. It's clearer though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It was discovered to be hydrothermally active by NOAA in 2003[1] and first mapped by the remotely operated vehicle (ROV) ROPOS in 2004." - considering this is the start of the body of the article, I think you should add the subject matter instead of the vague "It", and go into more detail. This section feels incomplete, and the article is unclear if the feature was discovered before 2003, or if that was the year it was just found to be active
Replaced the "it" but I didn't see much more information on the research history ... the vast majority of underwater mountains are name- and featureless and bathymetric map resolution (especially in the past) was so low and error-prone that I wouldn't assume that the existence of this seamount was known before 2003. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Hydrophones have been placed at the summit[2] and vent during several dives" - any more info on these?
Not that much, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you mention which dives placed them? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit too detailed for an article on such a topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there were only a few dives, and if the observational history of this volcano is as short as it seems, then I don't think it's too much, but I won't be picky abnot it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"NW Rota-1 is the first volcano where submarine explosive eruptions have been directly observed.[" - again when
Added, but wording or tense might need work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Could you reorder the sentence? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that new comma might do the trick on its own. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The intensity of the eruptions is dampened by being underwater" - could you use a different word than "dampened" when referring to something underwater?
Sorry, but my vocabulary is failing me on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Diminished"? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It is part of the Mariana Trench Marine National Monument." --> "has been a part of the ...monument since" when? Or say, "established in XXXX" year
The sources do not specify the former, but the latter is 2009; added it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't abbreviate km or m after their first usage, but you always abbreviate feet. I think there's something in WP:MOSUNITS about that.
The biggest thing there is that since this topic is US-related, Imperial units need to go first ... which I've done. Also added some un-abbreviations; perhaps I missed some. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"from a 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) wide foot at 2,700–2,800 metres (8,900–9,200 ft) depth to 517 metres (1,696 ft) below sea level." - You lost me at "wide foot". Could you put this in more context? Like "The base of NW Rota 1 lies along a..."
See, I was thinking that "foot" makes it clear it's the lower part, but I've changed it to "base". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" Normal faults cut across the volcano[2] and bound the summit ridge." - this sounds technical
Yes, it's technical. I am not sure it can be made un-technical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about "bound"? The "cut" seems like a normal verb, but I usually think of "bound" as related to "bind", like constricting, and I don't think that's what it means. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here it's supposed to mean "boundarize". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Rock and lava outcrops[10] and cemented breccia are also found;[11] the outcrops are part of the core of the volcano." - this could be stronger with all of the refs at the end, so the text isn't disrupted by the numbers. Also, that's the only time you mention core in the article. Could you be a bit clearer?
Replaced with "inner structure". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"An inactive peak is located 500 metres (1,600 ft) northwest from the main summit at 600 metres (2,000 ft) depth.[" - maybe I'm reading it wrong, but you mention the peak, and it's at 600 m depth, but earlier in the paragraph you said it rises to 517 m depth. Am I reading that wrong? It seems contradictory, 600 or 517 m depth
Well, it's an inactive peak (600) separate from the main summit (517). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be a peak if it's at 600 ft depth, which is lower than the main summit? Isn't there only one peak? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's the point. There is a main summit and a secondary peak. At least in most articles I read "peak" does not always imply "the highest part of a larger whole". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article Summit says that it is a " point on a surface that is higher in elevation than all points immediately adjacent to it. The topographic terms acme, apex, peak (mountain peak), and zenith are synonymous." it also says "Summits near a higher peak, with some prominence or isolation, but not reaching a certain cutoff value for the quantities, are often considered subsummits (or subpeaks) of the higher peak, and are considered part of the same mountain". IDK, I've always read "peak" to imply the highest part of a larger whole. I haven't heard "subsummit" before, but is there another term than "peak" you can use? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've turned it to "summit". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"where diffuse hydrothermal degassing takes place" - can you link to something here?
The closest thing we have is outgassing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is that accurate? Yea, it needs some sort of link, otherwise it's too jargon heavy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Is "venting" clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd that you go from Brimstone Pit to Fault Shrimp then back to Brimstone Pit
That's because Brimstone Pit is the most important thing so goes first, but putting the second mention of that in second place would yield a disjointed section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's most important, then you should have a dedicated paragraph on Brimstone Pit, and avoid having the list in bullet points. Then you could mention the Fault Shrimp in the same paragraph as the other vents, unless that would be inappropriate. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that works better with a list; I haven't had much positive experience with trying to wedge a chronology into a paragraph. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"This landslide had a volume of about 0.53 cubic kilometres (0.13 cu mi)[12] or 0.034 cubic kilometres (0.0082 cu mi)" - why the 0.53 or 0.034 for the same unit? That doesn't make sense
Because the two sources disagree on the volume. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That needs to be made clearer in the text. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that can be made much clearer; all what the sources have are two different volume measurements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you have two different volume measurements needs to be clearer. The "or" is quite unclear that it means there are two different measurements. You could say "had a volume of at least 0.034 cubic kilometres, although X person estimated the volume even higher at 0.53 cubic kilometres", or something. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. When rereading the sources I noticed that these are both from the same source. I've written some in-text attribution as I don't understand what the two estimates come from. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The interaction between these fluids and the mantle "fertilizes" the latter and results in volcanic activity." - why the quotes?
To emphasize that it's a technical term that resembles the colloquial term fertilizer but doesn't mean exactly that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then could you explain it without requiring the quotes? The quote bit made me wonder if it was a description by someone. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think w/o quote marks it works better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Compared to ocean island volcanoes volcanoes these volcanoes are longer lived and produce more gas-rich magma." O.O
Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The Mariana Arc contains 52[8]-60 submarine volcanoes,[30] about five times more than emergent ones" - what do you mean emergent ones?
"Emergent" ones are those which form islands or are located on islands. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say that. Could you add that? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The caldera West Rota and Esmeralda Bank lie due south and northeast of NW Rota-1, respectively." - how far?
The map doesn't say this exactly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "suite"?
"Suite" means a family of rocks with similar composition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, any chance for a link? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only item is a single line on the disambig suite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So could you reword it to use a less technical term? You use the term "suite" three times without ever explaining it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is "CO2 flux"
Basically, the amount of CO2 degassing from a volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, any chance for a link? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can, although here outgassing might work better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well you either need to link "flux" somewhere or explain it better, it's a bit jargony. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You call the section "Exhalations", but the first sentence mentions "emits", which makes me wonder if the section should be called "emissions". What's the proper terminology in volcanos?
I don't think either is clearly incorrect, but "emissions" is a bit too generic and sounds like it could include lava flows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do other volcano articles handle this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think exhalations is more commonly used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The water in the plumes is acidic[44] and enriched in aluminum,[47] the helium isotope helium-3, iron, manganese,[44] phosphorus, silicon and sulfur are enriched in the plumes" - this sentence mentions "enriched" twice. Also, it would be more useful if the refs were at the end of the sentence, which would eliminate two refs
Sorry, but I don't know of any good synonym. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence could be stronger split up, with the refs at the end. It just seems a bit technical. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It is the first volcano known to vent alunite minerals" - seems worth adding to the lead
I think that's perhaps a bit too minor for the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First sentence of Biology would also be better with the refs at the end, so not to disturb the flow of the text
What happened in 2014 - "Activity appears to be continuous but variable over this time[6] and until 2014"
In 2014, presumably a dive found the volcano inactive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you get verification on that? The article seems incomplete with most of the sources listed only going til 2010. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence however is grounded on a 2017 source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the article is lacking here. Did the 2014 dive find it inactive or not? That's worth adding. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So that's my review. The article was an interesting read, and it seemed largely complete. I don't think my issues will take too long to complete. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I am a little wary of shuffling the references as it makes source checking a bit hard. Otherwise, answered the queries left. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be picky, but I believe the article should more service the readers than for the source checkers. There's nothing wrong with having two refs at the end of the sentence. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to a few comments. I'm sorry to be picky, but a few are related to jargon issues, and I wouldn't be comfortable passing it as a GA without these terms being clearer. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I think I got the remaining issues cleared up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on the article! I'm happy to pass the GAN now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

The white sulfur bubbles rise behind carbon dioxide bubbles

... that in 2004 an underwater explosive volcanic eruption (pictured) was for the first time observed, at NW Rota-1 volcano?

Improved to Good Article status by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 20:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Reviewed: Tourist tax

For clarity, I'd suggest rewording to something like "the first observed underwater volcanic eruption occurred at NW Rota-1 in 2004" - changes it to active voice and "for the first time observed" is kind of awkward phrasing. Also, the article lead says it was the first explosive eruption observed underwater - does that mean that there were other kinds of eruptions underwater seen before? If so, you might want to mention that specifically. Haven't done a DYK review before, so won't sign off one way or the other. creffett (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "explosive". I am a little concerned that the active voice formulation might imply that it was the first eruption at that volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGF for the offline academic source relied on for the hook. New GA status deals with most of the other tests, image is in public domain, and Earwig finds nothing except the titles of the articles cited. I broadly agree that an active voice would be better, but the fact stated seems clear enough, and there is no DYK rule on the voice of the main verb in a hook. (Not yet, anyway.) Good to go, but I have an idea the hook will be edited somewhere along the way before it gets where it is going. Moonraker (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonraker:Template:Did you know nominations/Tourist tax is the QPQ since I forgot to do it immediately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding me, Jo-Jo Eumerus, so I can add QPQ done. Moonraker (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came by to promote this. I would just like confirmation that the image is of the NW Rota-1 underwater volcano; this is not clear from the Commons page. (As it is clear that the green-toned picture to the left of it in the article is of the NW Rota-1 volcano.) I also suggest writing the hook this way:
ALT0a: ... that scientists [or oceanographers?] observed an underwater explosive volcanic eruption (pictured) for the first time in 2004, at NW Rota-1 volcano? Yoninah (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: Resolved the file issue; seems like it was uploaded under the wrong name. I've renamed it on Commons and here (you may notice the edit). ALT0a is perhaps better with "scientists". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Restoring tick for ALT0a per Moonraker's review. Yoninah (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]