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

  • Looks interesting, my first thought was which kind of crocodilian fossils have been found, are the sources any more specific? FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently the fossils consist mainly of crocodile teeth and the sources do not specify further; probably it's difficult to get an exact taxonomy from just that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • Pelagic is duplinked in the intro, and Albian is duplinked in the article body.
    Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Allison Guyot was formerly named "Navoceano Guyot" What does this mean, and when/why was it changed?
    It was apparently an informal name given here but that source does not specify much. I did look at the GEBCO gazzetteer to find out and apparently it doesn't know any "Allison Guyot"; and now it redirects from http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/gazetteer/ to the helpful https://governmentshutdown.noaa.gov/. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the name "Hamilton Guyot" is incorrect" Why is it incorrect, and who has called it that?
    The source is not terribly specific; from reading other sources discussing "Hamilton Guyot" it seems like it has inconsistent coordinates, which are spread out and thus may refer to more than one volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These drill cores were part of a larger project to investigate and clarify the history of the flat topped submarine mountains in the Pacific Ocean" when and by who?
    According to this page it was apparently a multinational project and according to it seems like it ran between 1983 and 2003 which is endorsed by the timeline here. Worthy of a whole sentence or as a footnote? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 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]
  • It seems odd the name section doesn't mention what "Allison" refers to.
    Same problem(s) as with "Navoceano" above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in what is present-day French Polynesia" Only stated in intro, which should not have unique info.
    Changed to "Southern Pacific". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volcanic activity has been dated to have occurred" Has/have looks clunky here. Is dated?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "located in hostile waters" Seems a bit loaded, like sailor terminology. But does it really make sense in this context?
    Yes, in the sense that the waters (nutrient rich, overly hot etc.) were unfavourable for coral reef persistence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pelagic sedimentation commenced on the seamount and led to the deposition of pelagic sediments" Not sure you need the last "pelagic", when you already established it is about pelagic sedimentation in the beginning.
    ​Got this one as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 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]
  • Support - looks good to me now, though I wish there was more context for the names. But if the sources don't explain them, not much you can do... FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One extra thing I just noticed, it appears this is supposed to be US English ("ize" is used), but you say metres and kilometres, which is UK English. Seems a conversion parameter should be added to the templates. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @FunkMonk: It's supposed to be in UK English, actually. I've fixed these two instances, but I am not sure if there are more. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:40, 10 February 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]

  • Trapezoidal—link?
    Link added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of hotspots such as the Easter hotspot, the Marquesas hotspot and the Society hotspot—perhaps reduce the repetition by piping to read A number of hotspots such as the Easter, Marquesas and Society hotspots?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • manganese has accumulated in the upper layers—manganese compounds, the pure metal never occurs native
    Sure, but manganese can still accumulate even when not pure and the source does not specify this point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a "rudist", nether linked nor explained?
    Um, it is actually linked at the first mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 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

  • "Allison Guyot may have resembled Eniwetok in the past" - during what period? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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]

  • Not a requirement for FA, but I don't think there's any need for conversions when the article is on a scientific topic.
    Done anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Molokai Fracture Zone forms a ridge which passes close to Allison Guyot and intersects another ridge at the seamount: if it passes close to the guyot it doesn't actually go through it, so how can it intersect another ridge at the seamount? Should it be "...near the seamount"?
    The source is somewhat unhelpful(ly illustrated) about where exactly the ridges intersect. I am not sure if it's "near" or "under" the seamount. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions)
    Per this it doesn't look like it can be specified very exactly, and in fact that map makes it look as though the MFZ stops before it reaches the Mid-Pacific Mountains. If we can't be sure where it intersects and we don't have the name of the other ridge I'm not sure it's worth mentioning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The diagram has two primary trends that must be addressed because this is the site of another orthogonal intersection of megatrends. Allison Guyot is where the Molokai Fracture Zone, bearing 235°, and an unnamed ridge of the Tubai/Mamua megatrend bearing 335° intersect. The orthogonal intersection of the fracture zones was in existence by 110-Ma (Table 1), because Allison Guyot has been dated at that time. implies that its intersection is relevant to the guyot's existence; it's just not entirely clear where the intersection lies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Jo-Jo, I think that source justifies saying the ridges intersect "at" Allison Guyot, which would read more smoothly. Up to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ​ Added a word to make it flow better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there are some differences to present-day reef systems,[32][33] many of these seamounts were formerly atolls, which today still exist. I don't understand what this is telling me. What still exists? Other atolls? And why "While"?
    ​Rewrote this a bit to make it clearer. The point was that atolls still exist but there atolls were somewhat different from present-day reefs, but I am not sure how to clearly word it; I've removed it for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 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,[34] and which surround a lagoon or tidal flat. What surrounds a lagoon or tidal flat? Barrier reefs? If so I'd suggest "Fringing reefs may have developed on the volcanoes, and as the volcanoes subsided these became the barrier reefs of an atoll, surrounding a lagoon or tidal flat".
    Reworded a little; used a different wording. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited this a bit since we should be consistent with singular or plural for volcano(es); feel free to tweak again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two sentences starting "The crust underneath..." and "Continued subsidence..." seem out of place; I'd move them up before the previous sentence, so that the explanation of subsidence comes before the first mention of it. And it says the seamounts tend to subside, but this is true even before they drown, so it's not just seamounts, right? It's the original volcano too?
    Yes, reordered a little. Might need another looking over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little repetition in the next paragraph with "progressively older" twice.
    Remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily an issue, but I'm curious: you start the composition section with "One drill core...has found", which immediately makes me wonder since I know there were three cores. Were the other two cores not analyzed? Or not reported? If we have data from more than one it seems odd to report just one.
    To my understanding, only one of the three drill cores was a deep core and only the deep core was used for this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would "crocodiles" be better as "crocodilians", since the former refers to the modern species?
    Yes, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • claystone have been found: "has been found", surely, unless "claystone" is a geological plural?
    Remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a platform grew on Allison Guyot as limestone was deposited on the rapidly subsiding Allison Guyot during the Albian: repeats "Allison guyot", which was in the previous sentence too.
    De-repetition-ed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's improved, but I think it could be compressed a bit more. How about: "It was in equatorial waters suitable for the deposition of carbonate platforms and a limestone platform grew on the guyot as it rapidly subsided during the Albian."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Added it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would an increase in nutrients hamper the growth of the platforms?
    Added an explanation, but I wonder if it's be better off in a footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think it would be. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ​ Moved to footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Composition" section gives the drill core data, and then in the "Drowning" section we get a different measurement of the depth of the pelagic sediment. This might be the same point as the one above about just citing a single drill core, but surely these should agree?
    Apparently the "drowning" data refer to the original thickness, not the one we can measure today; added a footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • sea currents, which have formed the large mound of pelagic sediment: I don't follow this -- why/how would sea currents form a mound of sediment? And saying "the" mound makes it appear it's already been mentioned, which is not the case unless we're referring to the layer of sediment, rather than a mound.
    Actually, the mount is mentioned farther up; "it is covered by a large sediment mound". As for the question, sea currents move sediments around. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I recall suggesting in the FAC for Limalok that an inline definition of drowning be added. Now I've read several of these articles I know more than a lay reader would, so I forgot to suggest doing it here too, but I think it would be worth it.
    Added a sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 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
  • "while the name "Hamilton Guyot" is incorrect": something of a curve-ball, as this is the only mention of this in the entire article – I'm sure there are lots of names that are incorrect!
    I was thinking the same but apparently the source thinks it's important to point out that "hamilton guyot" isn't the same thing. Probably because they get often confused. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link seamount?
    Done, in the lead section where it is mentioned first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This seamount is the source ... volcanic structure of the seamount": replacing one of the "seamounts" with a synonym?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Local setting
  • you have seamounts linked here (which should be moved up);
    Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "north-northwest and east-northeast direction": I keep reading this to see if it should be "directions" or not: I can't decide, so will leave it to you to cast your eye over it again
    Added the plural, although I confess that I don't know what would be correct here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  • or it was located in hostile waters - hostile?
    "Hostile" in the sense of "unfavourable", sometimes "hostile" is used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    unfavourable is clearer and does't carry loaded continuations for the lay reader. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Point. Changed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • pelagic sedimentation commenced on the seamount and led to the deposition of sediments including. "sediments" x 2. Used either 'formed' or 'grew', rather than 'commenced'
    No, because the sedimentation started at that point and is a process, not an one time event. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • The platform emerged above sea level during the Albian and Turonian ages - is their a more scientific term for guyots re-submerging that we can link to.
    No, unfortunately not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a hiatus - Does 'hiatus' signify a natural stage in such a features' life cycle, also, would specify the length of time involved here, ie "After a hiatus lasting xx million years (+/-1x), which extended until....the Paleocene". Would help ground readers.
    Altered that sentence, as I am thinking that limestone deposition counts as "sedimentation". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The seamount rises 1.5 kilometres[27] from a seafloor about 130 – 119 million years old,[13] and the sea floor is close to a 128 million years old magnetic lineation.[28] - This makes no sense; which seafloor(s). Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allison Guyot was formerly named "Navoceano Guyot"[2] while the name "Hamilton Guyot" is incorrect.[3] - Cant pares this Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded this a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allison Guyot is a guyot[3] (also known as tablemount[16]) with an outline resembling a trapezoid[11 "Allison Guyot has...and has a radios"....(out line is wish washy)
    Er, I don't agree, it seems like an appropriate term to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall this section seems over referenced (there are several cites per claim), as is if you are not sure how it fits together, and are carpet bombing. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ceoil: Nah, the problem is that the information is spread between various pages of the same source or different sources talking about the same thing, so one has to put a lot of references or write incoherent text. Also, I am pretty sure that one does not put "the" before a proper name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 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
  • I'm wondering if we can avoid the second para beginning with "It"; I don't want to repeat "Allison Guyot" and you use "The platform" in the third para but perhaps there's another option?
    Tried "tablemount". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "circa" in the lead but "ca." later on -- pls standardise throughout the article.
    Standardized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Name and research history
  • I know you must be getting tired of people querying "Hamilton Guyot" but here goes... Since just saying it's incorrect and leaving it there will always beg the question (as is evident from this FAC!) is it worth recasting as something like: The name "Hamilton Guyot" has also been used but is incorrect;[3] Hamilton Guyot is separate formation in the Mid-Pacific Mountains.Side-by-side records in SeaMount Catalog
    Added that. And while looking for this info I also found out that GNS has the etymology of the seamount recorded ... added that too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five citations (plus a footnote for good measure!) in the second sentence -- wow, do none of the sources cover more than one snippet of info here?
    No, they are quite dispersed but I took out one unnecessary ref. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the same occasion" sounds awfully clunky -- can we substitute "operation" for "occasion"?
    Yes, and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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
  • The interior was not protected from the sea and the sector of the platform that was investigated by drill cores apparently became increasingly accessible to it over time. -- just to confirm, I assume "it" refers to the sea?
    Yes, that refers to the sea. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • generally Allison Guyot at that time resembled the present-day Bikini and Eniwetok atolls in terms of morphology when it was emergent. -- the last bit of this sentence doesn't read well to me; I assume "it" refers to Allison but grammatically it seems to refer to morphology...
    Expanded that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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"