Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Limalok/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) 16:04, 20 December 2018 [1].

Limalok

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another underwater mountain in the Marshall Islands which was formerly an atoll, similar to the other recent FA Wōdejebato, and has a similar history although it is located in a different part of the Marshall Islands: It's a former volcano in French Polynesia which became first an atoll as plate tectonics moved it north, then it disappeared below the water and is now a seamount at the southeastern end of the Marshall Islands. It's somewhat less known than Wōdejebato but IMO there is enough material on this seamount for featured article status as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A little postscript: While this is my fifth FAC it's the first one where I didn't ask for a pre-FAC prose review so that might need some more prose reviewing than my previous nomination. If folks think that its prose needs more rewriting than what can/should be done in a FAC, just say so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Support by Ceoil

[edit]

Will say so, Jo-Jo, and while my feeling is that this will pass, as you mention it will need a steer re prose. This is my first geography article review, so be patient :)

  • Overall its not phrasing so much as the claims seem jumbled up and hard to follow at times - I note your FAC blurb here (which I just read) is clearer than the lead (which I have spent the last hour trying to tease apart). Go figure, but maybe think of a reader who is slightly less intelligent and technically proficient than you have been aiming for.
  • Much improved. I'm a bit confused by it lies southeast of Mili Atoll and Knox Atoll which rise above sea level and is joined to them through a volcanic ridge - is it Mili or Knox Atoll that is joined to them. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need footnote "e" (Among the species of foraminife) with its I dont know how many red links
  • "Footnote e" originally was part of the article text but I moved it down as it's almost certainly of no interest to most readers. I don't think it's really needed although someone with keen interest in foraminifera may be interested. Do we think it's useful for them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead: Can you trim File:Micronesia and Marshall islands bathymetry.pdf so it does have the illegible text to the right
  • After the volcanic episode - can we say eruption or activity or something, rather than episode, as it seems obtuse
  • Lead: "a phase of erosion" - needs explanation; what happened and over how many years
  • Similar with "which then became barrier reefs " - over what length of period
  • Sometimes volcanic activity occurred - dont like "sometimes" as it gives no approximation of frequency
  • The source does not specify how frequently renewed volcanism occurs, and it'd be difficult to tell anyway as most seamounts have not been researched enough. Hence "sometimes". I don't like the weasel wording either but that's all I can do.
  • modified by phosphate - vague, explain the effect of the modification.
  • After a hiatus - vague, x million years presumably.
  • - drowned 48 ± 2 million years ago (during the Eocene) - above in the blurb you make this much clearer re the sequence, also drop the (brackets).
  • Thermal subsidence lowered the drowned seamount to its present depth - "further lowered"; can we not say "drowned" again; submerged is another word but maybe just "seamount"
  • The seafloor beneath Limalok is 152
  • where the carbonate platforms were lifted above sea level erosional features such as channels and blue holes developed - maybe more that the rising of the platforms can be seen in above sea level features....
  • I am a bit confused on what maybe more that the rising of the platforms can be seen in above sea level features.... means. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doh! That wasn't meant verbatim. What I, and I hope you, mean is that the impact of the rising platforms is evident on the landscape, as seen in features such as...It was the "sea level erosional" combination that confused me. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pacific Ocean seafloor, especially the parts that are of Mesozoic age - didn't check but presume seafloor has already been linked (yes extreme nick-picking)
  • the region of the Marshall Islands was located in the region of present-day French Polynesia during the time of active volcanism. Both regions display - prose: vary the language, here region(s) appears 3 times
  • Limalok was one of the seamounts targeted for drilling during the Ocean Drilling Program;[6] the low recovery rates during the oil excavation have made it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history - Understand that drilling would impact the physical formation, but why you attribute low recovery rates (I assume yield, but that makes it even more puzzling) whatever they are, is unclear.
  • But how did "not all material is pulled up" make "it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history" - I suspect sources are jumbled here, or at least there is an unexplained technical connection. Ceoil (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limalok has erupted basaltic rocks[10] which have been classified as alkali basalts,[41] basanite[34] and nephelinite.[42] Minerals contained in the rocks are apatite,[43] augite,[36] biotite,[43] clinopyroxene, olivine,[44] nepheline[43] and plagioclase,[44] and there are ultramafic xenoliths.[45] - holy moley. Please please please trim this down, and do we not have one single source that can be used to back each of the individual rock and mineral claims....it seems unlikely that only one of each would be mentioned in each available source, and an accusation of ref stacking could be made
Yes please. Ceoil (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They have been trimmed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Working through these, a few notes:

[Nevermind, moved them underneath every comment in Ceoil's list]

Also, Ceoil, the seamount was drilled for drill cores, not for oil. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NP. will revisit in a few days. Sorry for posting several hundred times on this page; was distracted. Ceoil (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
S'OK. Also, per your edit summary I've moved each of my replies below the bullet it is addressing so that it's clear what I've done and what not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. that makes it much easier from this side. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of backtracked hotspot locations, the first hotspot; "hotspot" x2 and dont like "In terms of".
  • Catching up on your work since last weekend. Looking better, but my overall impression is that it remains slight, in part because you are assuming that the general reader is familiar with all the technical blue links, and you are not walking them through enough. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ​ I got the most recent things done. Regarding the technical terms, I think I'll need to put in footnotes or in-text explanation for at least some of them (I was thinking "flood basalt", "Ocean Drilling Project", "Volcaniclastic", "blue holes", "fringing reefs", "hotspot", "lithospheric", "crystal fractionation", "cementation", "diagenetic", "breccia", "paleomagnetism", "oncoids", "rhodoliths", "hardgrounds", "photic zone"), are there other parts which are problematic? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Given the quick responses, hope to be able to close out this review today or tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I think I got these now. Some sections are really meant for more technical readers so I didn't expand in there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that "the low recovery rates" in "low recovery rates[e] during the drilling for drill cores have made it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history" means yield, but once again, how does this connect with "made it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history". This encapsulates my remaining issue with the page; you have made great strides wrt to prose, but there are still some (to me) logical gaps. I note, you seem to prefer putting these in notes, I prefer in the article body; as a casual lay reader, when I'm reading a page and something doesn't makes immediate sense, I don't go to the footnotes, I click out and google. Footnotes should be (to me) for interesting asides, not making basic connections. Re some sections are for technical people only, the article is 2000 odd words long, so a ten minute read; I don't think that "are really meant for more technical readers so I didn't expand in there" cuts it or is wise; maybe in an article twice this size with a very delineated TOC. I'm beginning to suspect we are talking past each other. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like that ("we are talking past each other") might be the case. To me it sounded like you were complaining about overly technical text which is a concern other people have noted with my writing in the past. I did try to mend the logical gap now in the drill core statement; does it work now and are there additional things that need explanation?
The reason why I put the explanations in footnotes is mainly because I know (from User talk:Iridescent) that some readers read an article offline so they can't click on a link or google a term. And because in many instances trying to explain a term inline would jerk the flow of the conversation.
When I was talking about the "more technical readers" section I was thinking "Composition". I've added explanations for some terms but I can't find any definition for "fractional crystallization" other than the one on our page on it.
Ceoil Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait a few days to let other reviewers weigh in, and see how it pans out. Note I take the points in your last post, but not totally convinced. Re technical terms, its sometimes helpful to include a snipit form the lead sentence of the linked article to give the reader grounding. I'm still leaning support however, have really enjoyed the article, and learned a lot. Ceoil (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: We have a few minor differences in preference around the presentation of technical terms, but they are that only -preferences, and as the nominator, the primary author of the article, has made their case thoughtfully and after consideration throughout this review, that's good enough for me. Ceoil (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the non-lead maps
  • Suggest using the specific USGS tag for the lead image
Upscaled one map, removed the other as mentioned above. I've removed the hotspot map for the same reason that it was removed in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wōdejebato/archive1; for some reason I didn't remove it from Limalok after that. Changed the tags. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

[edit]

Will post these asap. ceranthor 00:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts from a first pass:

ceranthor 17:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​ Actioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass:

  • From footnote b: "Between 66 and 66 million years ago." - uh...
  • "south[3]-eastern " - why hyphenated instead of just saying "southeastern"?
  • Nitpick, but date ranges should all have endashes rather than hyphens (e.g. "152[20]-158 million years old,[21]")
  • "A number of hotspots such as the Macdonald hotspot, the Rarotonga hotspot, the Rurutu hotspot and Society hotspot may have been involved in the formation of Limalok." - lots of "hotspot" in one sentence
  • Refs look reliable. Going to try and do some spot checks tomorrow.
  • Arnaud-Vanneau is hyphenated in one ref but not in others.
  • Stay consistent with using people's initials or full names. Don't switch between the two.

ceranthor 23:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor Did most of these, but I can't find the spelled out initials for some and have to run now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did a few more. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third pass, reference comments only:

  • Some of the sources still have full names, while others just use initials for first/middle names. You should be consistent throughout.
  • Spotcheck 1: "Limalok was formerly known as Harrie Guyot[3] and is also known as Harriet Guyot;[4] Limalok was a traditional chieftess of Mile Atoll.[5]" - 3, 4, and 5 all match
  • Spotcheck 2: " Mili Atoll is located 53.7 kilometres (33.4 mi) from Limalok,[3] between the two lies Knox Atoll as well.[13]" - 3 and 13 match (side note: this is a run-on sentence! :))
  • Spotcheck 3: " Volcanogenic sandstones[53] and traces of hydrothermal alteration also exist on Limalok.[49]" - 53 and 49 match
  • Spotcheck 4: "Argon-argon dating has yielded ages of 69.2[63] and 68.2 ± 0.5 million years ago on volcanic rocks dredged from Limalok,[64] Mili Atoll is probably not much younger than Limalok.[65] " - 63, 64, and 65 match - this is also a run-on, though, without a semi-colon! One slight note about the ref vs. the article here. The article says "Mili Atoll is probably not much younger than Limalok[65]", but the source actually refers to "the edifice beneath Mili Atoll"
  • Spotcheck 5: "Until the Miocene, sedimentation on Limalok was hindered probably by strong currents.[94]" - matches ref

More prose comments shortly - want to make sure I didn't miss other run-ons! ;) ceranthor 19:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - on prose and references. ceranthor 22:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert if I mess anything up.

  • The name was used for one of the seamounts targeted during the Ocean Drilling Program: this makes it sound as though it's unclear whether the targeted seamount was actually the subject of this article.
  • the size of the two volcanoes and their connection have been compared to Tahiti: not sure what this is telling me. If it's just saying that the combination of Mili Atoll plus Limalok would make an island about the size of Tahiti, then it doesn't seem worth including unless I'm missing something.
  • It is not clear whether the Cretaceous guyots were atolls in the present-day sense but many of these seamounts were, which today still exist. I don't follow the second half of this. If it's not clear whether the Cretaceous guyots were atolls, how can we say many of them were? And what does the last part refer to -- the seamounts which still exist were atolls? What seamounts don't still exist?
    I did strip out the last sentence and also moved a bit of it around. It seems like the source calls Limalok explicitly an atoll but then says It is not certain that these Cretaceous guyots had a true atoll morphology during much of their development. advice on how to word it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the "during much of their development" qualification mean that they were atolls during some of their development? If so I think you can just cut the sentence starting "Whether" in that paragraph (that sentence is incomplete in any case) and also cut "or atoll-like landforms" from the next sentence. If it appears the source is saying we can't be sure if any given guyot was ever actually an atoll, rather than just an atoll-like landform, then some more rephrasing will be needed. I was thinking about that and noticed that our articles on fringing reefs and atolls indicates that a barrier reef is not the same as an atoll, so I'm now wondering if we need to change "which were then replaced by barrier reefs as the volcanoes subsided and turned into atolls"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie:It would need some more rewriting - per the source the issue is that atolls by definition have an enclosing barrier such as Eniwetok while for many guyots it's not clear whether they had an enclosing barrier or a barrier on just one side of the platform. Also, need to remember that I've written this same text in Allison Guyot, Horizon Guyot and Resolution Guyot so I'll need to install any rewrite there as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the article discusses the question of whether an atoll was present in the "Platform carbonates and reefs" section, I'd say we can cut this discussion down. How about just cutting the sentence starting "Whether"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved it down to a note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the hotspot theory, which discusses the formation...: "discusses" seems too weak a word; it explains the formation, though "explain" has been used earlier in that sentence so some rephrasing would be necessary.
  • I'm not keen on the way that paragraph is structured -- it starts by saying that the formation of Limalok has been explained by the hotspot theory, but then it says Marshall Island seamounts don't appear to have originated from "such simple age-progressive hotspot volcanism", and then describes a multi-hotspot explanation. This is a little back-and-forth, and it would be nice if we could lead the reader through it more linearly. Here's a possible rewrite of the first couple of sentences of that paragraph that attempts to fix those points.
    The formation of many seamounts has been explained with the hotspot theory, in which a "hot spot" rising from the mantle leads to 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, as the plate moves over the hotspot. Seamounts and islands in the Marshall Islands do not appear to have originated from simple age-progressive hotspot volcanism as the age progressions in the individual island and seamount chains are often inconsistent with this explanation.
    I've adopted that text with the sources inserted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on reconstructions, the first hotspot..." is a bit vague; can we make it "Reconstructions of the area's geological history suggest that..." or something like that?
  • About 8 hotspots have formed a large number of islands and seamounts in that region, with disparate geochemistries, that geological province has been called "South Pacific Isotopic and Thermal Anomaly" or DUPAL anomaly. Run-on sentence. How about "...with disparate geochemistries; the region has been called..."?
  • Carbonate, clay, manganese phosphate Crust materials and mudstones have been found in boreholes...: should there be a comma before "Crust"? And I assume that should be lower case?
    Actually, no, there shouldn't be a comma as they are explicitly "manganese phosphate crusts". Unfortunately manganese crusts which would include the phosphate variant is a redlink. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The volcanic rocks were emplaced in the form of breccia, pebbles encased within sediments, but especially as lava flows: I'm not following the intention here. If the lava flows are the main source of the volcanic rocks, shouldn't we mention those first, or at least put a qualification such as "partly emplaced" in the mention of breccia?

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved some issues and commented on others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • After the activity[69] and erosion of the volcanic island...: "the activity" is vague; I assume this means volcanic activity? If so, how about "After the shield volcano was formed and subsequently eroded..."?
    Reworded that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Better, but now I think we can compress a bit since 57.5 mya is Paleocene. I think "stage of volcanic activity" is a bit wordy, and in fact, given that we say above that the erosion follows the formation of the volcano (a point that's fairly obvious to the reader anyway) I think we can cut it. How about this for the first couple of sentences: "The erosion of the volcanic island was followed after some time by the beginning of carbonate platform growth. Sedimentation began in the Paleocene with one or two events in which the seamount was submerged; the start of sedimentation has been dated to about 57.5 ± 2.5 million years ago." This assumes that those two soruces (Arnaud & Vanneau and Jenkyns & Wilson) can be combined like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like, so done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • although the existence of evidence for such an emersion has been debated: a bit wordy, but I'm hesitant to reword without the source in front of me. Can we just say "although the evidence for this has been contested"?
    The text of the source (which at least to me looks publicly accessible) is Schlanger et al. (1987) postulated that Eocene sea-level changes, apparently derived from the eustacy curves of Vail et al. (1977), resulted in emergence and later resubmergence of the carbonate platform. Lincoln (1990) attempted to constrain the history of emergence and subsidence across this carbonate platform by examining the carbon and oxygen isotope compositions of the limestones in Dredges KK81-4 and KK81-6. Analyses on both the primary fossil components (foraminifers and red algae) and the cements failed to support the existence of a subaerial exposure event affecting the limestones capping Limalok, nor did they provide any additional information on when or why this carbonate platform failed. I don't think any other source has a definitive answer to this question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Should we be so definite as we are now then? We say "Periodically, the platform emerged above sea level leading to its erosion", which is subsequently qualified, with a citation to a different source. How about "It is possible that the platform periodically emerged above sea level, leading to its erosion", cut the "although" clause, and cite to both Arnaud & Vanneau and Bergerson? Saying "although the existence of evidence for such an emersion has been debated" doesn't really give the reader any more information than "possibly". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Did this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • recording the and lasting through: something wrong here.
    I see you cut "the", but shouldn't it just be "and lasting through"? What does "recording" mean here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie:It means that while the Limalok carbonate platform continued to thrive during the PETM, carbonate deposits were nevertheless influenced by it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I think the phrasing is a bit opaque; readers who don't understand that these deposition sequences provide a climatic record will not follow this, and it would also help them to know what the PETM is. How about "The deposition of the platform lasted about 10 million years, spanning the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a period of about 20,000 years in which atmospheric carbon dioxide levels dramatically increased. Drill core evidence shows that the PETM had little impact on carbonate deposition at Limalok, implying there was little change to ocean pH and temperature at that time." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie:I've applied a modified version of that proposal, with the explanation of PETM in a footnote as IMO it would otherwise have undue weight. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks fine, though I think you could add "and temperature"; the source mentions both temperature and pH. Not a big deal though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other lifeforms were as well as: also here.
  • Its seamount is the most recent carbonate platform in the region to submerge, whereas the similar platform at neighbouring Mili Atoll is still active. Not sure what this means. Mili Atoll is not submerged yet, so "active" means "still accumulating carbonate"? And platform here means seamount?
    No, platform here means "carbonate platform, formed by biological activities similar to coral reefs". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Drowning..." section, does "drowning" refer to the point at which the platform is too far below sea level for further carbonate deposition? I think a definition would be good if so.
    Yes, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Better. How about this: "A carbonate platform is said to 'drown' when sedimentation can no longer keep up with relative rises in sea level, and carbonate deposition stops. Limalok drowned during the early-middle Eocene, soon after the start of the Lutetian, 48 ± 2 million years ago. It is the most recent carbonate platform in the region to submerge: the similar platform at neighbouring Mili Atoll is still depositing carbonate." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "modified by phosphate" mean?

-- That's mostly it for a first pass; I need to re-read the last section but would like to get your responses to these points first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 16 December 2018 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Limalok/archive1&oldid=1138465747"