Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wōdejebato/archive1

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) 15:44, 8 November 2018 [1].

Wōdejebato edit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a guyot in the Marshall Islands close to the Pikinni Atoll (better known as "Bikini") of nuclear tests and controversy fame. It was discovered in 1944 and is among the best researched seamounts of this type. These seamounts are believed to form when volcanic islands become atolls and these then move through waters which for whatever reason do not support the persistence of coral reefs (and their Mesozoic precursors), causing the atoll to drown. Currently Lōʻihi Seamount seamount is the only FA we have on submarine mountains. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk edit

Looks interesting, will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like there are a lot of duplinks, try this script to highlight them:[2]
An intro this short should probably not have more than three paragraphs.
Since the Bathymetry image is the only one that actually shows Wōdejebato, I wonder if it could be placed in the infobox?
"Wōdejebato was formerly called Sylvania" So when was the name changed, and by who?
"a ship which was involved in its first mapping." When?
"Later, rocks were dredged" When?
You should state in what ocean this is located, also in the intro.
How is the word pronounced?

Took action on these. Did read through sources for reason of the rename and didn't find anything explicit. The GEBCO gazetteer doesn't even know about this seamount. Not sure how to get a pronunciation here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"until 2,500 metres (8,200 ft) depth" Until at?
Is this suppsoed to be UK or US English? The location would indicate US, but you have metres and kilometres.
"Aptian and Albian 115-94 million years ago" Add these are ages, and probably that they were during the early Cretaceous period.
"only forbrief" Seems space is needed.

Um, not sure if I understand what "until at" means. I mostly write in UK English and did here as well (Wōdejebato is not really strongly tied to the US). Got the other issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "until 2,500 metres (8,200 ft) depth", I'd expect it to say "until at 2,500 metres (8,200 ft) depth". Also, seems "early Cretaceous" wasn't added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Based on fossil data" Of what kind? Drilled microfossils?
"when the most recent lavas were erupted." Is "were" really needed here?
"contemporaneously to Wōdejebato" With?
There are a lot of technical terms here, in other articles, equivalent terms would be asked to be explained in text.
"Vegetation[89] including ferns and fungi[90] grew on the exposed island," When?
"Skeletal shapes have been recognized in the limestones as well" What is meant by this? Actual skeletons? Fossils?

Got these as well as the ones I missed yesterday. Regarding technical terms, I don't think the article is too bad with them, although the problem is that many of them don't lend themselves to short explanations. Are there specific terms you are concerned about? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terms like phreatomagmatic, diagenetically, parasitic cone. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cretaceous, crust, and foraminifera are overlinked.

Got the overlinks and some technical terms. I'll see to make a pass through the article for technical terms, unless someone wants to make a laundry list of terms in need of explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"unlike Wōdejebato Pikinni" I think a comma is needed here.
"rudist reefs covered formed an atoll or atoll-like structure, covering" Seems there is some verb weirdness here.
I think the intro could mentioned it was named for a god.

Indeed; got these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good to me now, could still be nice to find out the circumstance around the namimg, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Suggest scaling up the bathymetric and hotspots maps

File:Pacific_Basin_Island_Geography_Hotspots.jpg: what is the source of the data in this map?

File:Marine-microfossils-major_hg.jpg: is a link available to confirm that licensing? Not seeing it at given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Increased the size of the bathymetric map. The hotspot map has no source and upon looking closely it seems wrong too: It attributes Tuvalu neé Ellice Islands to the Macdonald hotspot but as discussed in Arago hotspot it's actually that hotspot which is most likely responsible for the birth of Tuvalu; I've thus removed it. Re the foraminifera image it looks like the uploader is one of the authors of the book (c.f commons:User:Hgrobe) that is the source and that they licensed it during the upload to Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From Cas Liber edit

Reading now, notes to follow.....

It would be helpful to include some base stats in the lead - how big/high/wide it is, how far beneath sea level and how far it is from Bikini atoll. Also maybe specifying it is in the northern Marshall Islands

~~I'd not leave "guyot" without a more accessible explanation in the first sentence of the lead (tablemount is easier to understand from the get-go as its components instantly give an idea what it is.~~

~~Article would be more accessible if it had date ranges rather than (or even as well as) epochs I suspect.~~

~~Have there been no sea probes exploring it at all? i.e. what about current fauna and flora on it? If we don't know, then some discussion would be good.~~

...many of these seamounts were formerly atolls, which today still exist, for example at Pikinni. some of which still exist? Or split and "some still exist"? as one would think "formerly" implies a category that excludes still extant atolls....?

More later...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll action these and any follow up comments this evening. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got most of these things. Re sea probes: One of the most interesting facts about the seafloor is that we know less about it than about the surface of the Moon, and of the seamount series I've been writing (Wōdejebato, Limalok, Allison Guyot, Horizon Guyot and Resolution Guyot, plus Lo-En, MIT Guyot, Ruwitūn̄tūn̄ and Takuyo-Daisan) only Horizon has been investigated for its present-day life. Hence why Wōdejebato has nothing to say about it. Re epochs I've done some clarification, would the other epoch names merit similar editing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is one more needing a date in the lead - also I think something got mussed up in the editing of my other issue raised above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

'~~'Wōdejebato originated in the Southern Hemisphere and was moved by plate tectonics into the northern hemisphere - caps or no caps?~~

Got these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. There are some repeated words but I can't see how they could be changed without losing meaning. Hence I can't at the moment see anything actionable, but others still might. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I provided a pre-FAC review for this, so I have few remaining comments. A couple of points before I support:

A number of hotspots such as the Macdonald hotspot, the Rarotonga hotspot, the Rurutu hotspot and the Society hotspot may have been involved in the formation of Wōdejebato: suggest "The Macdonald, Rarotonga, Rurutu, and Society hotspots may have been involved in its formation." There's a similar sentence at the end of the "Composition" subsection; I'd recommend the same shortening there.
I think you can eliminate note b. I'd put "(a nuclear bomb test)" after the mention of Operation Crossroads in the main text, and just cut the second sentence; you already have "using mainly seismic data" in the body, which is all that's needed.
The first sentence of "Local setting" has footnote [1] after the word "the", which seems odd. Is that really the right placement for that citation? Similarly in the next paragraph, "[1]" follows the word "a".
the passage of the seamount through the equatorial upwelling zone[93] where the water was too hot: too hot for what? If this refers to the harmful influence of equatorial waters mentioned as implied in the next sentence, I'd attach that phrase to the following sentence instead: "...through the equatorial upwelling zone. The water in this region may have been too hot for the reef to survive: other guyots..."

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got all of these comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asked for at the top of WT:FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose Anything else needed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Wugapodes edit

I hope to go through this a little more thoroughly tomorrow, it generally looks like a wonderful article. If I felt like I could easily fix something myself, I boldly did so, but feel free to revert any of them and we can discuss it. Here are my thoughts and changes based on my review of the sourcing so far:

Inline citation should use a consistent style. Currently it is a mix of shortened footnotes and long form citations. The long form citations should be part of the "Sources" section and the inline citation be a shortened footnote. It can be the other way as well, if you like that better, but it should be consistent.
I spot checked the claim about Wōdejebato being evaluated for mining which was cited to Masuda, et al. (1991). I rearranged the paragraph to better align with the source. Before it had a semicolon which implied that it was under evaluation for mining ferromanganese, but the source evaluated it for a number of mineral resources present there, so I think it goes better as a separate sentence after the entire crust composition is described. The main claim is correct however.
The two citations to Wilson and Opdyke (1996) are supported by their source and the pages are correct.
The citation to Hein, et al. (1988) is supported by its source at the given page.
A mostly aesthetic point: I don't like that articles that are in Haggerty, et al. (1995) are listed as an indented sublist. I think it's better to have one alphabetized list, rather than a list within a list. The long form citations are meant to be scanned quickly, and the indentation pulls focus as well as interrupting the alphabetization of the other sources.

I plan to come back and give more detailed attention to the formatting and quality of sourcing, but what I see so far looks good. Of my comments, only the first one needs action, so once the inline citations are consistent I should be able to support pending my look at the formatting. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 08:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that a large number of images don't have alt text or the alt text field is empty. MOS:ACCIM advises the use of alt text for all non-decorative images, even if it's just "See caption" it makes the images more useful to readers using screen readers. See WP:ALT for suggestions on how to write helpful alt text. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 08:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, in order:

You know, I believed that such a combination between "shortened footnotes" and "long form citations" was acceptable when some sources need several page numbers and others don't c.f Ubinas. I can do this change but I am a little confused.
I think part of the problem with that was that "ferromanganese crust" is not all that consistently used, but the correction you applied sounds good.
Ugh. That was done in this edit, I've restored the previous format but left some of the other changes in.
Added some ALT text but I am not sure if it works on Infobox Seamount maps. Also applied the same fixes to Limalok, Allison Guyot, Horizon Guyot, Resolution Guyot and 1257 Samalas eruption

Wugapodes Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You do seem to be right about mixing shortened footnotes and long form citations, so I've struck that suggestion. I've taken a look at the formatting:

There was variation in the use of hyphens or dashes for page number ranges, so for those shortened footnotes which used hyphens, I changed them to dashes.
The "Sources" section is a mixture of CS1 and CS2 style, {{Citation}} uses CS1 parameters but the output format is CS2 while {{Cite book}}, for example, is CS1. One style should be chosen so that the formatting of the citations is consistent.

Thanks for adding the alt text, you did a very good job with it! The sources are of high quality, and though I'm no expert, the sourcing seems to be a good survey of the literature given the diversity of languages and publication years. Once the citation style of the "Sources" section is resolved I will support. Jo-Jo Eumerus Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: I think I got the CS2-->CS1 change. And thanks for the comment on the sources, too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good to me, Support. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 19:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.