Talk:Iceland hotspot

Good Article?

This must have been reviewed ages ago, it's shocking that a relatively short article with no inline-citations could get GA status. The Anahim hotspot is even better than this article and it's rated B class. Black Tusk 04:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

From the history, it was given the good article tag in late 2005. Inline cites have come into fashion since then. I agree it doesn't seem to meet current standards. -- Avenue (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

More fundamentally, throughout the article the observed "hotspot" evidence is confused with one possible cause, a "plume". Recent work by people such as Anderson and Foulger opens up other possible causes. The article seems considerably removed from GA quality; it could benefit by distinguishing between observed hotspot (facts) and the various possible causes (hypotheses). Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's probably better if the article would be rated start class insted of GA class. I have seen other volcano articles that don't seem to meet current standards, such as Mount Baker and Mount Nyiragongo; they are relatively short and have very few inline-citations. Black Tusk 03:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just re-structured the article to separate observation (hotspot etc.) from possible theories (plume etc.). All the original material should still be there, but re-ordered, structurally prepared for expansion and development. Also the plume theory already has its own article, Iceland plume, so I've cross-referenced that. Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Iceland hotspot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of May 10, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. Sasata (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Article is poorly referenced, with only one in-line citation. There is a short list of research papers in the "Further reading" section, but it's unclear if any information from those papers were used in this article.
• Several weasel phrases especially need to be cited, eg. "It is believed that...", "Studies suggest that...", "It is suggested that..."
• Additionally, the article is not broad in its coverage, and does not represent a good overview of the information available on the topic. A quick scan of the ISI Web of Knowledge (a scholarly research database) shows there are dozens of research papers available about the Icelandic Hotspot that should be used as source material for this article.

Recommend Merger

I recommend a merger of Iceland hotspot into Iceland plume (or vice-versa), as both appear to deal with the same phenomena. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.171.199 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree - just what I cam here to say. 86.140.128.144 (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely agree about the principle of merging, although I suggest the other way: merging the plume article into the hotspot article. The hotspot is the feature being described, so I suggest that be the main article. The plume, by contrast, is a hypothesised mechanism (there are other candidates) by which that feature may be explained, so ought to be subsidiary to the main. So I have added merge templates to the top of both articles. Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Relative motion

Quote: "It is proposed that the line Grímsvötn volcano to Surtsey shows the movement of the Eurasian Plate" (North-South orientation). I do not like this concept, as the Eurasian Plate and the North American Plate are moving relative to each other in a East-West orientation. I'd prefer the notion that the Reykjanes Ridge and Iceland's West Volcanic Zone is inactive rift in the future, and Iceland's West Volcanic Zone is a borning rift. So the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is moving its place. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

After Plate velocities in hotspot reference frame: electronic supplement (PDF). p. 111. Retrieved 2010-04-23. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help), the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is moving westwards. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Asteroid impact leading to plume ?

There was when I were a young lad some suggestion that asteroid impact might be causal for the icelandic volcanicity - it sounds liek someone else also heard that tale [1] Then I found this [2] which suggests that asteroid impact might cause a mantle plume - which would resolve the major problem with attributing the Iceland anomaly to a fixed plume - the lack of evidence for a hotspot track.

Are there any better references to that theory - I can find a bunch of hits in the first few pages with a google search of iceland hotspot asteroid

EdwardLane (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly my apologies for slightly editing your comment above. (Such 'talk page' practice as I have just done is usually frowned upon, but was necessary in this case to recover the links you had provided, but that weren't displaying.)

To business: Does the asteroid idea have any serious academic backing? Theories change; that's fine. For instance, for ages it was almost universally accepted that hotspots were caused by deep mantle plumes. More recently this has been questioned, and shallow-cause alternative theories put forward. Naturally this gives rise to resistance and debate. The important point here, though, is that the people raising the questions (Gillian Foulger, etc.) are serious academic (and practical!) geophysicists, well-respected in their field. Because of this respect, their alternative ideas, initially fringe, merit mention here on Wikipedia. Returning to asteroids... the key point is whether there is any serious, well-respected support for this theory. If so, then feel free to add it, including citations to the peer-reviewed published work on the topic.

Hope that helps. Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't undertand this :-(

Resolved

"As well as being a region wierdest but best of higher temperature than the surrounding mantle..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taliska (talk • contribs) 13:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

'Twas a bit of vandalism - fixed. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)