Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Melbourne/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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 23 March 2022 [1].

Mount Melbourne edit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in Antarctica that erupted during the last few centuries. Ongoing fumarolic activity has led to the formation of a moss- and alga-based ecosystem that survives in areas kept ice-free by volcanic heat at a locality called Cryptogam Ridge, which has thus been declared a protected area. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:MountMelbourneMap.jpg File:MountMelbourne.jpg the claimed origin is completely plausible, but the source links are dead or don't lead to the image
  • File:Map of West Antarctic Rift (WARS).svg needs source for the info presented in the map

(t · c) buidhe 09:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Buidhe:Did the first, for the second it looks like the map was taken from here - reliable source but CC-BY-BC licenced, so I question the copyright status. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For File:Map of West Antarctic Rift (WARS).svg, do we know whether the external site or Commons posted the image first? (t · c) buidhe 17:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; Commons upload was in 2018 and the archive is from 2017. The hang-up is that the images aren't exactly identical. I'll see if I can ping BrucePL the uploader here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW pings work on me, no need for talkback unless that's easier for you. (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comment from Femke edit

  • The "As part of climate change, temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have increased while the interior continent has cooled" sentence is (no longer) correct. The source is too old for such a statement, and warming trends have switched since ~2000 (interior seems to have warmed last 30 years, while peninsula warming is reduced). I recently added some sources to Antarctica about climate trends there. Note that attribution is particularly uncertain for Antarctica. Femke (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a source I can use? JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 20:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, commented it out in the meantime. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see I've not yet included the newest IPCC report into Antarctica. Will give you a reference over the weekend. Femke (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not inactive edit

The lead lists the volcano as inactive (no citation). The typical classification (USGS) doesn't include inactive; it's either active, dormant, or extinct. Considering that it has fumarole activity I'd say active or at a minimum dormant; not inactive. BrucePL (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote this. By the way, BrucePL, can I ask whether File:Map of West Antarctic Rift (WARS).svg was taken from this website? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The map is my own work. ANDRILL, which I belonged to years back, made mods to it for a drilling project proposal that didn't get approved. The modified version was used in a research proposal that was unsuccessful. I see this is an archived website. I thought the project was offline. BrucePL (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe:Does that (^) answer your question about the copyright of that image? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking for the copyright, but a verifiable source for the information displayed on the image. I guess that's also answered, and you can list the archive site as a source on the Commons description page. (t · c) buidhe 10:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have done that, I've expanded a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

I have done a little copy editing as I went. Could you let me know if any of it causes you a problem.

  • "Mount Melbourne has mainly erupted trachyandesite and trachyte". I don't think "erupted" is the best verb here. Is there a synonym?
    "Produced" comes to mind but is a tiny little misleading. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ejected? Expelled? Discharged?
"Discharged" maybe but I don't think it's better than "erupted", the first two imply explosive activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My objection to erupted is that it implies explosive activity. Eg see Wiktionary "To eject something violently".
"Discharged" in the meantime implies non-explosive activity, so it has the same problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps again you need to use more words in order to communicate the appropriate nuance?
Sorry, but I don't think the tiny gain in clarity would justify the extra length. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tephra fall deposits" needs explaining inline per MOS:NOFORCELINK:" Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Leaving aside part of the 'explanation' being a red link!
    Pulled the link. For an inlined definition, would the one given on page 2 here work with that source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me.
And it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The volcano is uneroded and forms an almost-perfect cone[21] with a base area of 25 by 55 kilometres (16 mi × 34 mi).[22] Viewed from afar, Mount Melbourne has a nearly perfect cone-like profile". "an almost-perfect cone ... a nearly perfect cone-like".
    Yanked it from the first mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the eastern and southeastern flank". Should that be 'flanks'?
    Yes; done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arcuate" needs an in line explanation.
    I'll need some source help; good sources for such concepts are hard to come by. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I think everyone gets that. Eg I recall struggling to source "shock troops" and "light infantry". They are such obvious military terms they are rarely defined.
Added a definition but pending source since I don't know where to find one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So over to the nominator to accurately describe the phenomenon. Maybe you need to use more words in order to communicate the appropriate nuamce?
Well, does the definition work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and quickly disappear with the snow." I don't understand what is being communicated here.
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have deposited moraines; moraines and". Is it possible to avoid "moraines - moraines"?
    Attempted a pronoun replacement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both Pleistocene and Holocene glaciations". Could in line dates be provided.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that may have formed during the latest Pleistocene" is not likely to mean a lot to many readers.
    Not sure how to rewrite that... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it can't stand. I mean, as compared with a less-recent Pleistocene? How about 'formed during the past 4,000 years' or whatever.
That's in. Does it need a dash or something like that? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only the one you have given it, IMO.
That's done then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "another volcanic complex in the system". What system?
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of these volcanoes formed under ice"; "edifices that formed above and under ice". Do we need to be given the information twice in the same paragraph?
    Pulled first mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "palagonitized outcrops that expose dikes." An in line explanation please.
    That's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "alkaline volcanic province". And again please.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mainly near the coasts". Coasts plaural?
    Singularized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and commenced during the Oligocene." Which was when?
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whether the volcanism is caused by a mantle plume or by the tectonics of the West Antarctic Rift is unclear." I doubt that the average Wikipedia reader would make much sense of this.
    I have to admit that I don't see any better explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I am happy to make suggestions. Would you like a more complex explanation, retaining at least some plate tectonics, or a more summary, but hence basic, approach?
The latter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like 'It is unclear whether this is caused by a local hotspot beneath the area or a more general movement of tectonic plates in the area of the West Antarctic Rift'?
Put part of that in, but from what I can tell "more general movement of tectonic plates in the area of the West Antarctic Rift" isn't supported by the source. The source has a bit of a non sequitur problem when explaining the tectonic aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The latter is one of the largest continental rifts on Earth". What is a continental rift?
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a low-velocity anomaly". How might an anomaly have a velocity, and what do differing velocities signify?
    Explained in part; I don't think we can do much more without distraction. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a basement of Precambrian to Ordovician age". Ages in mya please.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Rennick Graben of Cretaceous age" And again.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Victoria Land Basin and the Polar 3 magnetic anomaly", Are the ages of either of these known?
    Not with certainty, I believe within the last 48 million years per doi:10.1029/2006GL027383. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which has been interpreted to be either a transform fault or a push-up structure formed by faulting." Is it Mount Melbourne or the Polar 3 anomaly which has been so interpreted?
    Rewrote this to clarify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a graben whose marginal faults are still active with earthquakes". An in line, non-technical explanation of the first part of this would be helpful.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The volcano appears to rise in a graben whose marginal faults are still active with earthquakes, on the eastern flank of Mount Melbourne." What is being referred to as "The volcano"?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Mount Melbourne appears to lie in a graben[m] whose marginal faults are still active with earthquakes, on the eastern flank of Mount Melbourne." It could now be read as MM being in a graben, which in turn is on MM!
Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recent offset on faults". Just checking that "on" isn't a typo.
    No, that's correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Thanks Jo-Jo. Some come backs above. I'll get on with the rest when I have time. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. In case you are interested, TRAPPIST-1 is another article which may need jargon explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that there are lots of articles which could do with jargon explanation. Any reason to single this one out?
Only that it is the next one in my list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed two, the third I am not sure how much more explanation we can add given that the WARS isn't well understood/explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part II edit
  • "gaseous components of the Mount Melbourne volcanic field magmas consist mainly of carbon dioxide." Should that be 'consisted'?
    Good question. The volcano is dormant and not extinct, so present tense may be appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which would mean that right now the magma of the Mount Melbourne volcanic field has a gaseous component. Is that correct?
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mount Melbourne was active between the last 3 and 2.7 million years". Is the word 'first' missing?
    Rewrote that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "10,000 ± 20,000" doesn't really work, does it?
    Well, yeah, sometimes radiometric dating produces these useless results. That's on the dating though, not the Wikipedia article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The last eruption was a few centuries ago". I don't see how 100-160 years ago can be described as "a few centuries ago".
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and away from the westerlies". Could we have an in line explanation of what this means.
    Added one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "might be evolving, yielding genetic variation". "yielding genetic variation" doesn't mean anything. Is there a missing 'increased'? If so, evolution does not normally and certainly not necessarily increase genetic variation. What does the source say?
    Detailed investigation of the C. pyriformis population also indicated that the genetic variation observed within this vegetative population is due to mutation occurringon Mt. Melbourne "yielding genetic variants"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Clever.
  • You end a section with "Nematodes and collembola complete its biota", but in the next section have "Other species associated with the vegetation are" which seems to contradict the "complete" part.
    Because that next section is about a different part of the volcano than the one discussed above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps replace "its" with the name of the part as an aid to the slow witted such as myself?
That's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ice towers reach ... They are also known as "ice towers" " reads a little oddly.
    I believe folks say "brain fart" when one mixes up a word. Put the correct one in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that is all I have. Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Volcanoguy edit

I don't have much to say other than the lead claiming Mount Melbourne as fumarolically inactive. The Geothermal activity section claims that the volcano contains fumaroles with no indication of them being inactive. For example, fumarole temperatures can reach 60 °C (140 °F), contrasting with the cold air. If there are fumaroles that can reach 60 °C then there is obviously at least some fumarolic activity. Volcanoguy 20:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How in Hathor's name did I forget to remove "in" there? Now done, but oy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Volcanoguy 21:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth edit

  • ""Melbourne". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution." in the sources is the same as "Global Volcanism Program, General Information" but this is not intuitive to the reader who can't use the little clicky links thing for SFN - we need to fix this somehow. AND this entry needs an accessdate and publication date (if known)
    Seems like we are currently only using General Information, which is the page one gets to from clicking the link in the sources, so I don't see it as a problem. Publication date is tough - https://volcano.si.edu/gvp_votw.cfm?vn=390015 gives two different dates and I am not sure how reliable they are when https://volcano.si.edu/gvp_votw.cfm?vn=243040 gives a date of 2013 for a volcano that erupted in 2022 (https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=243040). Access date is in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same issue for the short note "PDI 2022"...links to ""Pyroclastic Deposits I" (PDF). Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. Cornell University. Retrieved 7 March 2022." which is not findable without the clickies
  • And "Polar Record 2009" - this links to ""Recommendations from the 14th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, Rio De Janeiro 5–6 October 1987". Polar Record. 24 (149): 173–191. 2009. doi:10.1017/S0032247400009116. ISSN 1475-3057." which isn't going to be findable easy for folks without ability to hit the clickies.
  • "DGE 2014" links to ""graben". Dictionary Geotechnical Engineering/Wörterbuch GeoTechnik: English-German/Englisch-Deutsch. Springer: 616–616. 2014. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41714-6_71494." - not findable without using the clickies
    Wrote a more intuitive note for this and the two above, although I'll admit that I am not exactly certain what the issue is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is the short footnote was "DGE 2014" ... so the reader would look in the list of references in the "D"s, since it's "DGE". But the entry for this source is alphabetized under "graben". That's what all the ones above are about - the short footnotes are something that the reader would look in the alphabetical listing for under one letter, but they are listed under a totally different first bit - "PDI 2022" ... the reader is going to look under the Ps for a "PDI" but there is no "PDI" - it's actually "Pyroclastic Deposits I".... not intuitive. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • what makes www.peaklist.org a high quality reliable source? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 82#Mountain heights and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#Is Peakbagger.com a reliable source? touch/mention it but ...
    I am not seeing it either, so I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN or OCLCs for Badino, Meneghel Caves in the...?
    As far as I can tell, a conference proceeding like this one has neither. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antarctic Journal of the United States? Peer reviewed? What exactly IS this journal? If it's a journal, needs the same bibliographic information as the other journals used.
    Going by this it looks like a publication for Antarctic research that is called a "journal" but isn't really (added year, volume and issue information, which it seems to have). The three articles used are cited in the literature, not very frequently. Dana C Parker of the infrared article has numerous publications on the topic, including in regular journals, and the Willow Run Laboratories apparently has a reputation for research on infrared remote sensing. I can't find information on P. Hughes but L.A.Krissek has numerous publications on the topic, including in regular journals, and his webpage at OSU likewise mentions activity in the context of polar sedimentation - is it a problem that he published this only 3 years after his PhD? JR Keys, WC McIntosh and PR Kyle (USSCAR page) have numerous publications in the field of Antarctic geoscience and volcanology, including in regular journals. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of completeness, https://www.coldregions.org/vufind/Content/ajus-home does say that it wasn't peer reviewed, which is why I listed out the credentials of the authors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geyer, A. (2021). "Chapter 1.4 Antarctic volcanism: active volcanism overview". Geological Society, London, Memoirs. - is this source which appears to be a journal? Needs to be formated and give the same information as the other journal articles used.
    On this one, I'll need a second opinion: I've formatted it as a journal but the main webpage isn't certain on whether it's a book or a journal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double check ALL your books that they give publication location. Some do, some don't.
    I've opted to remove them and only leave them on conference articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you use ISSN for some journals, you'll need it for all. Suggest just not using it (it's not required or particularly helpful)
    Aye, removed them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harman, Jay R. (1987). "WESTERLIES, MIDDLE LATITUDE WEST WINDSWesterlies, middle-latitude west winds". Climatology. Springer US. pp. 922–928. ISBN 978-0-387-30749-7. - Per MOS:ALLCAPS, we don't use all capitals, even when the source does. Also ... seems to have a space issue there?
    Yes, removed the capitalized part since the rest does the work by itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kaminuma, Katsutada (2000). "A revaluation of the seismicity in the Antarctic". Polar Data Journal: 145–157." needs the full bibliographical data for a journal like the other journals have (volume, issue, etc If not doi/scid that's fine, but should have volume/etc)
    Apparently it doesn't have an issue, but it has a volume and DOI which I've added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Luporini, P.; Morbidoni, M., eds. (2004). Polarnet Technical Report. Proceedings of the Fifth PNRA Meeting on Antarctic Biology. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL REPORT SERIES. Messina: POLARNET COORDINATING UNIT. ISSN 1592-5064." All caps again.
    Decapped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations - all the things it is flagging have been checked and it's the big long journal titles and the article titles in them that are being flagged up mostly. Who knew scientific journal article titles were going to freak Earwig's tool out so much?
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

  • "The rim of the caldera is covered by volcanic ejecta including lapilli and lava bombs": according to our article on volcanic bombs, a volcanic bomb is molten, and it is termed a volcanic block when solidified, so is "lava bomb" the wrong term?
    No, I think "lava bomb" is also used for solidifed ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of the coasts are rocky": what does "coast" mean when referring to a volcano?
    It means the coastal areas around the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we make it "Some of the coastal areas around the volcano are rocky" in that case? And I guess I would expect a mountain to be rocky; does this just mean there is no ice covering this part of the volcano? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes (the no ice covering part) although volcanic coasts aren't always rocks (c.f atolls) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Any objection to using my suggested wording? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I made it "Some of the coastal areas around the volcano are ice-free and rocky". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The caldera hosts a névé": why "a" névé? As far as I can see "névé" means a type of snow; should this be "The caldera hosts névé"?
    It refers to Névé can also refer to the alpine region in which snowfall accumulates, becomes névé, and feeds a glacier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mount Melbourne's volume is 43 cubic miles, and the field of 60 exposed volcanoes has a total volume of 60 cubic miles. This seems so implausible that I'm guessing the two numbers refer to different types of rock, but I can't tell what the difference is from the article.
    Well, the volcano is part of a wider field, hence the difference. Such a volume is well within the ballpark size of these volcanic fields. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that unless I'm misinterpreting this, there are 60 volcanoes that are part of the volcanic field that includes Mount Melbourne, and 43 of the 60 cubic miles are taken up by the edifice of Mount Melbourne, meaning that the other 60 (or perhaps 59) volcanoes have a total volume of 17 cubic miles, which means they average less than a third of a cubic mile each. Is that really what this is saying? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Many cinder cones are considerably smaller than one cubic mile. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the map File:Map of West Antarctic Rift (WARS).svg is the dashed red line the West Antarctic Rift? If so I'd say so in the caption; without knowing that there's not much connection between the text and the image.
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We mention low seismic velocity areas below Mount Melbourne at two places in the first part of the "Geology" section, with different explanatory text; are these repetitive, or do they not refer to the same thing?
    Merged both mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mount Melbourne was active beginning 3[35]-2.7 million years ago.[87]" The internal citation makes it hard to read the range; I would move it to the end of the sentence. And on my screen that looks like a hyphen; I think it should be an en dash.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A grammatical point: you introduce a bullet list with "Additional tephra layers attributed to the volcano are:", but if you do that, so that the list items are to be treated as grammatically part of the introductory sentence, you need to rework the list elements slightly. For example the first one would become "which have been attributed". Over a complex list of six items this would strain the reader's attention span, so I would rejig the introductory sentence to avoid this.
    Grammatically they should be separate. Any idea on how to write this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you can just say "There are additional tephra layers attributed to the volcano:", without the verb, and then use the bullet points as they are now. The problem is the word "are" before the colon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Went for "There are additional tephra layers attributed to the volcano:" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the probably subglacial Adelie Penguin Rookery lava field": what does "probably subglacial" mean here?
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mario Zucchelli": you refer to this earlier in the article as just "Zucchelli"; I would be consistent.
    Added Mario. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hydrogen sulfide gas has been detected too but is not common, facilitating the development of vegetation": I read this as "Hydrogen sulfide gas (which has been detected too but is not common) facilitates the development of vegetation", but in fact I assume you mean the reverse, since it's toxic to vegetation. Suggest "Hydrogen sulfide gas has been detected, but is not common enough to hinder the development of vegetation".
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Temperatures not exceeding −30 °C (−22 °F) or of −6 to −20 °C (21 to −4 °F)" I assume the different values are because we have different sources, but the result reads very oddly, as if we don't know what the temperature readings were. Suggest "Maximum recorded temperatures at the summit have been recorded as −30 °C (−22 °F) [give dates, and/or source details] and −6 to −20 °C (21 to −4 °F) [give dates, and/or source details]". Or, perhaps simpler, just say "Sources disagree on the maximum recorded temperatures at the summit...".
    Rewritten this to go for the last option. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good, but we can't say "range between A to B"; it should be either "range between A and B" or "range from A to B". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Went with "between A and B". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vegetation on geothermally heated terrain is unusual in Antarctica but other occurs elsewhere, including on Bouvet, Deception Island, Mount Erebus and the South Sandwich Islands." The South Sandwich Island are not in Antarctica; I would cut them from the list or rephrase to clarify.
    The South Sandwich Islands are often considered along with Antarctic volcanoes, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some algae from Mount Melbourne were accidentally transferred to Deception Island or Mount Erebus": they don't know where they were transferred to? Then how do they know they were transferred?
    I dunno, accidental transfer of the algae Stigonema ocellatum and Chlorella cf. reniformis from MtMelbourne to thermally heated ground on MtErebus or Deception Island. is what the source says. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very odd. I'll strike, but in your shoes I think I might cut it. I don't like including material I can't fully explain. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mount Melbourne was recently active, is south of the Antarctic Circle thus has a polar night lasting 13 weeks,[168] and having soils that contain toxic elements such as mercury,[182] the volcano is distant from ecosystems that could be the source of colonization events and away from the westerlies[u], which may explain why the vegetation is species-poor." Too long and hard to parse; can you rephrase?
    Rephrased this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an improvement. Can we cut "is south of the Antarctic Circle"? It's effectively already stated above, and the point is the polar night which you mention in the next phrase. Then if the intended structure of the sentence is to have a list of reasons why vegetation is species poor, ending with "which may explain", I think the separation between the reasons needs to be consistent -- e.g.a comma in each case. How about "Mount Melbourne was recently active, has a polar night lasting 13 weeks, has soils containing toxic elements such as mercury, is distant from ecosystems that could be the source of colonization events, and lies away from the westerlies, which may explain why the vegetation is species-poor." Also, why are the westerlies relevant to this sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's supposed to be a list which is why it was one long sentence. I went with your rewrite; the westerlies can transport organisms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Genetic analysis has found that the mosses at Mount Melbourne might be evolving, yielding genetic variation." This seems vague enough to be not worth including. Or am I missing the point of the sentence?
    It means that mosses are evolving there and thus reproducing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if the mosses are there they're reproducing; evolution is not the same thing. And genetic variation is the mechanism of evolution so to say their evolution is yielding genetic variation is backwards, or at least tautological. Does the source imply that e.g. they are evolving to greater fitness for their environment? Or that they are speciating? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Detailed investigation of the C. pyriformis population also indicated that the genetic variation observed within this vegetative population is due to mutation occurringon Mt. Melbourne is what the source says. The implication is that the mosses are evolving at the site, they are not simply dying and being replaced by new imported mosses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is only talking about C. pyriformis, so we shouldn't make a statement about "mosses", since that would be taken to include all the moss species on the volcano. I see the implication, but that's not in the article, and a lay reader will not see it. Is there anything else in the source that covers this? If not, and the above sentence is all we have, how about "Genetic varation in the C. Pyriformis moss on the volcano has been found to be caused by mutation within the population"? I'd like to add "implying that the variation is not causing by mosses transported to the site", if you have a source that would support that implication. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That source talks about pyriformis, the other one (https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00300-004-0612-6.pdf) about Pohlia nutans hence "mosses". The Cambridge one discusses genetic variations from mutations not just at Melbourne but also at Erebus. I think "mutating" might be more accurate than "evolving" though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I made it "Genetic analysis has found that some mosses at Mount Melbourne are mutating, yielding genetic variation". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 20 March 2022 (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_Melbourne/archive1&oldid=1078909785"