Talk:Gaussberg

Dubious

The article claims that Gaussberg is the only Antarctic volcano situated on the Antarctic Shield. However, since the Antarctic Shield is an old and stable part of continental lithosphere that has existed for at least 1 billion years, there is a high probability that there are old Precambrian volcanoes buried under the East Antarctic ice sheet. Precambrian volcanoes have been found in shields elsewhere on Earth. Volcanoguy 23:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there are such volcanics, although I don't think that even under an ice sheet would Precambrian volcanoes remain intact - only volcanic rock formations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Calderas and diatremes can remain intact for billions of years (e.g. Sturgeon Lake Caldera in Canada and the Argyle diatreme in Western Australia). Volcanoguy 17:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I really do not get the impression that these two are "intact" in the normal sense of the word. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

By "intact" I meant not diminished. Yes Precambrian volcanoes have been heavily eroded but that doesn't mean none exist anymore. This is especially true for calderas because the collapse structure can still be present and for diatremes because the pipe extends below the surface. Volcanoguy 22:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't get the impression that anyone uses a definition of "intact" as broad as to encompass such volcanoes that have almost entirely lost their topographical signature. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 16:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so the last volcano didn't kill me... lets try another... I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Research history:
  • "help of a captive balloon" I think "tethered" would be a bit less jarring... "captive balloon" kinda makes me think of a balloon behind bars in a zoo...
    • You know, that's quite right - changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • "The mountain was investigated in 1912, by the 1911-1914 Australasian Antarctic Expedition," were these two separate investigations or is the comma after 1912 a typo?
    • Yes, mended it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Geology:
  • I took the liberty of linking "horst" to Horst (geology) as the plain term is a DAB page. If that's wrong, please fix.
    • No, that's right. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Eruption:
  • link for "aeromagnetic"?
    • Seems like it was already linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• As usual, I did some copyediting - please double check that I didn't introduce errors or seriously degrade meaning.
  • Checked, nothing problematic that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Nice little article, great work, just a few quibbles.
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

This one was pretty easy - you're slowly getting less jargony ... heh. Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Sauces needing re-review

For some reason, I had listed these but don't remember why. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)