Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Berlin/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2023 [1].

Mount Berlin edit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in Antarctica, and the only one in Marie Byrd Land with ongoing geothermal activity. In the past, especially before about 10,000 years, a number of volcanic eruptions have taken place there and have dispersed tephra across Antarctica. The volcano partly developed under ice and features ice-volcanic landforms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass
(t · c) buidhe 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga edit

  • Link tephra on first mention in body
  • Comment: Mount Berlin ... Brandenberger Bluff ... Kraut Rocks ... and they're all named after people? That's some decent geographical humour right there
    Aye, all people based names. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Marie Byrd Land Volcanic Province on first mention in body
  • "Volcanic activity appears to take place in three phases, an early mafic phase" - might be worth linking mafic again here as it pulled me up
  • "were classified as "possibly or potentially active" by LeMasurier 1990" - in 1990?
    No, it refers to the publication date hence no "in". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Got you - then I'd suggest something like "in the 1990 Antarctic Research Series by LeMasurier et al." since "LeMasurier 1990" jars for me Mujinga (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that emplaced cinder cones and lava flows,[16] and Plinian eruptions[47] intense explosive eruptions,[48]" - sorry I edited this to remove the "/" but now it needs something else between "eruptions" and "intense"
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    works for me! Mujinga (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " intense explosive eruptions,[48] which generated eruption columns up to 40 kilometres (25 mi) high. Such intense eruptions would" - 2x intense eruptions
  • "The eruption history of Mount Berlin is recorded in outcrops on Mount Berlin" - 2x mount berlin
  • "and in marine sediment cores[58] from the Southern Ocean" - perhaps "in the Southern Ocean?" not sure
    Sediment cores are taken from an ocean, so I'd say "from". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure thank for the explanation Mujinga (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Correlated deposits at Siple Ice Dome indicate that this eruption was intense and deposited tephra over large areas" - link Siple Dome?
  • "Steaming ice towers" are these the same as "Fumarolic ice tower", which says "Mount Berlin is another Antarctic volcanic mountain that produced such towers"?
    Aye, but "steaming" is more descriptive and "fumarolic" more accurate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't clear, I should have put Fumarolic ice tower instead of "Fumarolic ice tower", but it's linked so that's all good Mujinga (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been prospected for the potential to obtain geothermal power.[84]" - interesting, by who?
    Looks like by Philip R. Kyle in the book. I am not sure "prospecting" is the best word, as it implies on-site presence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'assessed'? 'evaluated'? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yup these would be better, I was expecting you to say it was prospected by the US or similar Mujinga (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox: "Last eruption 8350 BC" - should that be "Last eruption 8,350±5,300 BC" as in body? Actually in body it doesn't say it was BC?
  • Note d needs a full stop? Mujinga (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, except as noted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus a few quick replies Mujinga (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did I miss this?! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, support on prose Mujinga (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • "a rate of about 1 centimetre per year (0.39 in/year)". Just a suggestion, but it may help a general reader - who might otherwise be inclined to think "So? My fingernails grow faster than that" - grasp what this means by adding something like 'or approximately 80 km over the past 8,200 years, since the last eruption' or whatever.
    That's unfortunately a bit SYNTH. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ignimbrites are rare in Marie Byrd Land; the outcrop on the southeastern flank of Mount Berlin is a rare exception." Is it possible to avoid using "rare" twice in one sentence?
    Yes, it's possible, and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by LeMasurier 1990". Is there a missing 'in'?
    No, b/c that's the publication date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rift has been ..." "The rift" or 'The Rift'?
    I think in these cases one uses lowercase. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which means that having said "which is variously interpreted as a rift[29] or as a plate boundary" you immediately describe it as a rift in Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps 'This feature ...' or something similarly neutral?
?
Sorry, missed that. At least on Wikipedia Rift is uppercase, and in light of this example I would not categorically assume that putting it in uppercase implies that it must be a rift. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "The rift" is saying that it is a rift, 'The Rift' is merely referring to its common name.
Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "trachyte" at first mention in the article.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A long term trend in iron and sulfur of the tephras may indicate a long term trend towards". Repeat of "long term trend". I realise that editing it out could be tricky.
    Does "tendency" work better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking.
  • Just to be clear, there are no known eruptions between 2.7 million 571,000 years ago?
    Aye. There probably was activity, but its output was buried under more recent eruptions or eroded away. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After 25,500 years ago it shifted to Mount Berlin proper". Would "it" refer to the activity which "also occurred on the flanks of Mount Berlin", ie as well as the activity on Merrem Peak, or to the activity which "then took place at Merrem Peak between 571,000 and 141,000 years ago"? PS Or, I suppose, both.
    Volcanic activity in general, but I already used "activity". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I think 'activity shifted to Mount Berlin proper' works in this case, and it removes the ambiguity.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite their size, the eruptions at Mount Berlin did not significantly impact the climate." Is it known, or hypothesized, why?
    Will need to consult the source, but I figure it's because the tephra would tend to be trapped over Antarctica, and the ice already reflects sunlight well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is megadust?
    That's explained precisely nowhere, seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a word can be included in an article which even the author can't define. How about 'Distinctive layers in ice cores have ...' or similar?
Did an impromptu translation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between marine isotope stage 6 and 5." Should stage be plural?
    Plural. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tephras in the Vostok ice cores". Could we unpack this a little? Perhaps 'Tephras in the ice cores taken at the Russian Vostok research station in Princess Elizabeth Land' or similar?
    Did something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "with an interval of 15 years" mean?
    It's not entirely clear from the source, so I took this out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chronology": I thought this section was great, but any chance of a map showing at least the places with multiple mentions?
    It can be done, I've put a draft in, but how do I state the sauces for the coordinates? In a footnote? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I never bother, on a "sky is blue" basis, and have never been challenged. I also find it faster and usually faster to generate my own maps. My notes at User:Gog the Mild/Misc#Maps may help if you want to trial this. (Both of the maps there are from FAs.)
I've put in such a map taking inspiration from yours, using Wikipedia's own coordinates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the last paragraph of "Chronology" in prose, rather than two bullet points?
    Because unlike the eruptions above, even the sources are cautious about assigning these to Berlin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you standardise on either BC or BCE?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "8,350±5,300 BC". They are really giving a range of 13,650 - 3,050 BC? (That seems so broad as to be pointless.)
    Yes, they do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Marine Isotope Stage 5 interglacial"; "marine isotope stage 6 and 5." Could you standardise the use of initial upper/lower-case letters.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting and well written. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, a couple of queries above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the map. Just the rift issue left. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neat. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass edit

  • All references are nicely formatted, and of high quality
  • Spot checks:
    fn 59, 61, 72, 82 - okay
  • Nice article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Esculenta edit

  • "Mount Berlin is a 3,478 metres (11,411 ft) high" This phrasing meeds an adjectival form (parameter adj=on). There are several examples through the article, please audit.
    I think I got all of these, although I am not sure if that's grammatically correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "a c. 20-kilometre-wide (12 mi)" uses "c." for circa, which is commonly used in historical contexts. For the average reader (to which this lead should be geared) it's probably better expressed as "approximately" or "about" for clarity.
    Done and also the occurrence in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mountain with parasitic vents that consists of two coalesced volcanoes; Berlin proper with the" it's grammatically incorrect with a semicolon there (colon would work), but maybe the sentence would benefit from restructuring …
  • … "Berlin proper with the 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) wide Berlin Crater and Merrem Peak with a 2.5 by 1 kilometre (1.55 mi × 0.62 mi) wide crater, 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) away from Berlin." This sentence might be reformulated for better readability. For instance: "Berlin proper features the 2-kilometre (1.2 mi) wide Berlin Crater, while Merrem Peak, located 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) away, has a 2.5 by 1 kilometre (1.55 mi × 0.62 mi) crater."
    The colon is in now. Going to need a second opinion on splitting, though, as it seems like it would be considerably wordier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has a volume of 2,000 km3" What does "It" refer to? The last thing discussed is trachyte, the dominant volcanic rock.
    Rearranged. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a tephra? Yeah, I see there's a link, but this is the lead and there shouldn't be undefined/low context words in there that the reader has to click away to learn.
    Footnoted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tephra layers were formed by explosive eruptions/Plinian eruptions" this and/or slash to describe the eruption seems awkward; could it not be written more elegantly?
    Tried it, but I can't find a formulation that isn't either SYNTH or cherry-picks sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How about something like this: "The tephra layers were formed through a combination of effusive and intense explosive or Plinian eruptions, which were particularly active over the last 100,000 years, producing high eruption columns and distributing tephra widely across Antarctica and the southern Pacific Ocean."
    Mmm, the effusive eruptions didn't generate tephra layers. Upon reflection, I went for a different solution, it's somewhat cherry-picky but Plinian eruptions are a type of explosive eruptions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • link volcanic rock, and BCE in the 2nd image caption
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lead image has me confused – are we looking at the highest point, or from the highest point?
    Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead says that MB is 210 km from the Amundsen sea (what part of the Amundsen Sea, it doesn't say), but this distance is not given in the article text, which says it's 100 kilometres inland from the Hobbs Coast of the Amundsen Sea. Shouldn't be in the lead if it's not in the article, cited.
  • it's interesting how 2,000 km3 = 500 cu mi in the lead, but when dealing with a tenth of that number, 200 cubic kilometres = 48 cu mi.
    Wow. No idea how I didn't notice this error before; fixed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • is this article in AE ("hypothesized") or BE ("metres")?
    It's supposed to be the latter, but I am ESL and so don't always notice the spelling differences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to parasitic vent and its redirect to "parasitic cone" bugs me. As I'm sure you well know, the vent is the opening through which volcanic materials are expelled, while the cone is the structure that forms around the vent due to the ejected material. So the interested reader who wants to know more about the cool-sounding "parasitic vent" gets led to the parasitic cone article, where the phrase "parasitic vent" does not occur (yep that article's crap), and leads to newbie reader not knowing if the terms are equivalent (the crap article mentions vents, but what's "parasitic" about them?). You seem to be one of the geology/volcano experts around here – perhaps you could use your powers to fix that problem for your future article links, and future readers? (I know, not strictly FAC-related, but a general suggestion)
    There is apparently space for a dedicated article but I tend to write more on specific volcanoes than such general articles. It seems like maybe swapping the article and the redirect would be warranted, seeing as a parasitic cone is by necessity built on a parasitic vent; what say you Volcanoguy? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable but volcanic vent also redirects to volcano. Volcanoguy 21:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, volcano is a very broad-scope article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's just from the lead. I see from a quick read that the entire article could use a thorough copyedit for nits like these, but to prevent this from becoming a lengthy peer review I'll end my commentary here and wish the nominator luck. Issues aren't enough to oppose, but I'm generally underwhelmed by the article quality. Esculenta (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered the issues and also attempted to mend some others. Do you think that The volcano is covered by glaciers, and thus only a few rocky outcrops occur on the mountain, although the volcano is considered to be well-exposed compared to other volcanoes in the region can be split in some way? Same question for and generated distinct deposits when eruption characteristics changed. Also I can't tell how to make the "in" go away in "1 metre (3 ft 3 in)" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, sentences can be readily simplified by splitting them, so the newbie reader doesn't have to parse so much info in one gulp. "The volcano is covered by glaciers, resulting in only a few rocky outcrops being visible on the mountain. Despite this, the volcano is considered to be well-exposed in comparison to other volcanoes in the region." and another split: "They were formed by pyroclastic fallout during eruptions, which mantled the topography. As eruption characteristics changed, these processes generated distinct deposits." BTW "mantled" is not a common verb (outside of geological discussions), so it would be good if there's a stop there for the reader to assimilate that. Esculenta (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And is this what you mean: 1 metre (3 ft)? Esculenta (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm here, another pet peeve: "about 1 centimetre per year (0.39 in/year)" there's no reason for there to be two significant figures in the output if the input is "about 1"; the answer implies a false precision. Esculenta (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that was what I meant. Installed it for both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Dealt with some potential nits in the description section) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Esculenta, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really only reviewed the lead in full, so I can't support. I've got a full plate on wiki and IRL, so can't commit to a full review at this time. I'll perhaps revisit for a complete review if I find a chunk of time to dig into the article, but can't guarantee it. Esculenta (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Volcanoguy edit

I might not be able to review this article due to computer issues but I'm putting this here just in case. Volcanoguy 21:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Volcanoguy, this nom has been open a month so quick check if you'd still like to review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "Mount Berlin is a 3,478-metre (11,411 ft) high glacier-covered volcano". Should this be "Mount Berlin is a 3,478-metre-high (11,411 ft), glacier-covered volcano"?
    Mm, not sure that we can assume knowledge of what the meters mean. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously referring to the elevation. Volcanoguy 20:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I prefer the current version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's problematic how it is but maybe it should be clarified that 3,478 metres (11,411 ft) is the elevation. Height can mean several things. Volcanoguy 06:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but this is a marginal thing IMHO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The volcano began erupting during the Pliocene and was active into the late Pleistocene-Holocene." Why not use "late Quaternary" instead of "late Pleistocene-Holocene"?
    Quaternary is a very broad term that has also been applied to purely Pleistocene volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the Holocene and late Pleistocene are late Quaternary. The article already makes it clear that Mount Berlin was active during the late Pleistocene and Holocene. Volcanoguy 21:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saying late Quaternary however does not make it clear that activity lasted into the Holocene. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is "late Pleistocene-Holocene" supposed to mean Mount Berlin was active at the boundary of these two epochs or that Mount Berlin was active during both late Pleistocene and Holocene? Volcanoguy 03:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The latter, but both interpretations are factually correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geography and geomorphology
  • "These craters are aligned east-west". Should this be an en dash rather than a hyphen?
    Not a dash/hyphen expert, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:DASH, dashes are used "in compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between". Volcanoguy 22:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added an en dash. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nonvolcanic features include incipient cirques on the northern and western side." Non-volcanic?
    Nonvolcanic is slightly more frequently used on Google. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
  • "Many of these volcanoes form distinct volcanic chains, such as the Executive Committee Range where volcanic activity has shifted at a rate of about 1 centimetre per year (0.4 in/year)." Is there a specific direction this volcanic activity has been shifting?
  • Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Activity in the Marie Byrd Land Volcanic Province began during the middle Miocene and continued into the later Quaternary, with argon-argon dating yielding ages as young as 8,200 years." I would suggest slightly rewording this sentence to "Activity in the Marie Byrd Land Volcanic Province began during the middle Miocene and continued into the later Quaternary; argon-argon dating has yielded ages as young as 8,200 years."
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four volcanoes in the Marie Byrd Land volcanic province". Missing the capitalization of "volcanic province".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The West Antarctic Rift has been volcanically and tectonically active over the past 30-25 million years." En dash instead of hyphen?
    Not a dash/hyphen expert, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Volcanoguy 22:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added an en dash. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some lava flows feature levee-like forms at their margins." Levee currently links to an article having to do with rivers rather than volcanoes.
    That's because they resemble river levees. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both welded and unwelded, pyroclastic and tuffaceous breccias are present." I don't think a comma is necessary here.
    Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A long term trend in iron and sulfur" Long-term?
    A poorly explained change in the frequency of sulfur and iron. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a hyphen between "long" and "term". Volcanoguy 20:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eruption history
  • "The volcano underwent a surge in activity between 35,000/40,000 – 18,000/20,000 years ago." "And" would probably be better here instead of a hyphen.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It may correspond to a 443,000±52,000 years old lava at Merrem Peak." Awkward wording.
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tephras in the Vostok Station ice cores of East Antarctica deposited 406,000 years ago may come from Mount Berlin." May have came from Mount Berlin.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Potassium-argon dating there and at Kraut Rocks has produced ages of 630,000±30,000 and 620,000±50,000 years, respectively." I'm not sure if "produced" is the right word here. Maybe yielded?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It may correspond to a 141,400±5,400 deposit at Merrem Peak." This should be reworded somehow to make it clear that "141,400±5,400" is a date.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 141,700 years old tephra layer at Vostok has been related to this Mount Moulton tephra." A 141,700-year-old tephra layer.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 28,500 year old tephra layer at Mount Erebus and in two ice cores of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet." A 28,500-year-old tephra layer.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tephra layers found both close to and away from Mount Berlin and a lava flow appear to have been produced during an extended eruption about 10,500±2,500 years ago." I would suggest rewording this sentence to "A lava flow and tephra layers found both close to and away from Mount Berlin appear to have been produced during an extended eruption about 10,500±2,500 years ago."
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A number of tephra layers between 18,100 and 55,400 years old, found in Siple Dome ice cores, resemble these of Mount Berlin". Those instead of these?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Last eruption and present-day activity
  • "The date of the last eruption of Mount Berlin is unclear but the Global Volcanism Program gives 10,300±5,300 BP as the date of the last eruption." "Last eruption" and "last known eruption" are not particularly synonymous.
    While I think last known is implicit in the GVP indication, I am not sure it's explicit enough to say so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that there could have been more recent eruptions that haven't been identified. Given the fact that Mount Berlin is mostly covered with ice there could very well be younger volcanic rocks that haven't been found or dated. So to say that 10,300 ± 5,300 BP is the date of the last eruption may not be the case. Volcanoguy 20:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but I don't know whether GVP knows or has reasons to treat it as the last eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't; the GVP treats it as the "last known eruption" is what I'm trying to get at here. Volcanoguy 21:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All this time, and I didn't notice that the GVP pages say last "known" eruption; correction now in in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These geothermal environments may host geothermal habitats similar to these in Victoria Land and at Deception Island". Similar to "those" in Victoria Land and at Deception Island.
    Forgot to note that this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 23:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, have you addressed all of these? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pending feedback from Volcanoguy on some, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Volcanoguy 23:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

  • "It is a about 20-kilometre-wide (12 mi) mountain": looks like some editing debris?
    Yeah, something happened to the lead. I've cleared it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest removing the self-links to Berlin Crater
  • "The edifice emerges 2.1 kilometres (1.3 mi)[11] from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet." I don't know what this distance refers to. The associated note says that the ice sheet is piled up against the side of the volcanic, so there appears to be no horizontal distance between them.
    Aye, but there is a vertical distance between the summit of Berlin and the WAIS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but the text doesn't make it clear that that's the distance being given. I would take "the edifice emerges" to refer to the point where the rock emerges from the ice. Since the note clarifies the relationship between the edifice and the WAIS, I don't think you need this at all, but if you keep it it should be clear what it refers to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to me "emerging X meters" is clearly meant to refer to the emergence i.e the vertical coordinate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I follow you. The volcano has an elevation of 3.478 km at its peak; the highest point of WAIS on its flank is 1.4 km; so the difference between those two is 2.1km. How about "Mount Berlin's peak is 2.1 km above the highest local elevation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, OK, that's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These craters are aligned in east-west direction": suggest either "These craters are aligned east-west", or "These craters are aligned in an east-west direction".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The entire edifice has a length of about 20 kilometres (12 mi)." Given that we said it consists of two edifices, suggest making this "The entire combined edifice".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some lava flows feature levees." What does this refer to? The link goes to an an article that does not explain the term's use in this context.
    Expanded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a tendency towards more primitive magma compositions": I had a look at the magma article to try to understand this use of "primitive"; as far as I can tell it refers to the composition of the original melt. Is that correct? If so, how can that apply when it appears there is no single magma chamber?
    Footnoted this, it's a technical term to define magma chemistry and is strictly speaking a spectrum rather than a yes-no thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Activity began during the middle Miocene and continued into the later Quaternary, with argon-argon dating yielding ages as young as 8,200 years": It wouldn't hurt to make it clear these dates don't apply specifically to Mount Berlin. Perhaps "Activity in the province" to address the first part, and give the location of the dating in the second half?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really necessary, but it would be interesting to know if the tephra layers have been found in ice cores in the northern hemisphere.
    Yes, but not from Antarctic volcanoes. Oruanui might have produced a bi-polar tephra layer, though, but it's in New Zealand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears the eruptions in the "Chronology" section are more or less chronological; any reason not to switch the first two entries to make them conform?
    Can't think of one, so that's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a 443,000±52,000 lava" seems an abbreviated form of words?
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "7,768 BCE": all your other dates are essentially BP dates; I think it would be better to be consistent. There's another BC date in the final section.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have a similar composition even if no exact match is found": the phrasing seems odd. I assume this means "have a similar composition though no exact match has been found"; if so I'd use that form of words.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been evaluated for the potential to obtain geothermal power": any interesting conclusions from the evaluation?
    No, unfortunately not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me like this statement from the same page (p.120) could be summarized as a conclusion: "Being isolated and extensively covered with ice, these volcanoes are unlikely to have any significant economic value as geothermal resources" (rather than leaving the reader hanging). Esculenta (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree with Esculenta that a brief summary statement to the effect that there is little chance of exploiting the volcanoes for geothermal power would be helpful but that's not worth holding up support for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:53, 18 November 2023 (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/Mount_Berlin/archive1&oldid=1187394729"