Talk:Axial Seamount

Category:Oregon (?)

Does this article really belong in Oregon or sub-category? The subject is 300 miles from any place in Oregon. Backspace (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Probaby not. ResMar 14:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely it does. Its on-site study is staged from Newport, Oregon, and it is directly west of Portland. If it does anything dramatic, it will definitely affect Oregon: seismologically, emissions, weather, and the place where all the reporters will flock to. —EncMstr (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Expansion

With a wealth of scientific papers regarding its eruption, this is looking to be an easy GA :) ResMar 02:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 Doing.... ResMar 02:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll pick this up again. ResMar 16:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

And again! My oh my. ResMar 02:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Axial Seamount/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Tectonic setting

• "This position that is not yet entirely understood." - something missing here?

Meant as an introduction to the second para, moved it there now. ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• "pointing out that the high density of the chain's seamounts, which often overlap, runs counter to the long trail a hotspot would normally produce" - not clear to me

The local area is covered in seamounts small and large, as you can see from the infobox image; as opposed to other chains, which are more widely distributed. In fact I avoided saying "chains" entirely, as it is not one proper, using "group" instead. I've reworded for clarity. ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• "polysemous" does this mean or relate to Polysemy?

Linked it. ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

1998

• average 0.6°C - needs conversion

Done. ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 eruption

• Why is a paper linked in the article, instead of a footnote citation?

Because it's important enough for it. ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ecology

• "named CASM (Canadian American Seamount Expedition)" - shouldn't it be the other way around? - Canadian American Seamount Expedition (CASM)

Done. ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• "between 300 and 550 °C (572 and 1,022 °F) " and "35 °C (95 °F), approximately 30 °C (86 °F) " - do there have to spaces between number and degree here? (I know its a template - so there's no way around that?)

Yeah, although it's possible to do without the template, I think this looks fine...ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• I personally don't like curly quotes but there's no rule that I know of.

It's a template :S ResMar 22:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Altogether a wonderful article! I made some edits that you are free to change.[1]
• Temporarily on hold.

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2015 eruption

It is erupting again! See overview here and scientific details here. 15.234.212.124 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I'll put it on my to-do. ResMar 00:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The Prediction

(The bulk of a) removed post:

Someone wants the article to claim that the 2011 eruption "fulfilled the prediction" of a 16 year eruption cycle. First, there was no such prediction. The paper makes a cautious claim, specifying various caveats. Second, an interval of 13 years does not and cannot fulfil a prediction of a 16 year cycle in any case.

I agree with the premise that banned editors are banned and should not edit; but I think this allegation is worth investigating. Restoring incorrect material is, after all, clearly not in the reader's best interests. At face value, it does appear that some of the claims need verification- certainly the maths behind the time-cycle doesn't seem to add up. Thoughts? — fortunavelut luna 11:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

In fact 13 years is about 80% of the "recurrence interval of ~ 16 years between eruptions at Axial" predicted by the cited paper, so I don't see a problem with the existing wording. If anyone who is allowed to edit wishes to re-word it, please go ahead. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I see in any case the ~16y claim is now outdated, because of the subsequent 2015 eruption. I have updated the article. Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)