Talk:Monowai (seamount)

Monowai 2008

Just a comment, but: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4455483a10.html indicates this volcano is currently erupting. I removed the references to "Last erupted in 2006" as a result of this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.128.114 (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This website is definitely non-academic. "Big acoustic event" is not an eruption. See also National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research website. I couldn't find there any info about supposed eruption. When confirmed by professional sources, I would not have problem with it. - Darwinek (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry, so fine -- we'll wait for an "academic" confirmation of an eruption before updating the latest eruption date. But note that while it's often desirable, there is no requirement in Wikipedia for footnotes to be from peer-reviewed academic sources. The news report quotes academics, and the news report refers to an eruption in progress. The one area in which it falls short is that it doesn't directly quote an academic saying "an eruption is in progress". — Myasuda (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, better wait for that. You know, I always try to keep eruption dates on reliable level. I revert every week anonymous IPs inserting revelations about "new eruptions" from "reliable sources" like CNN and other news. Not every activity is an eruption, most common mistake is that when volcano is spewing ash it is an eruption. It looks spectacular on tv news but it is not an eruption even if nice blonde journalists tell so. :) Eruption are an "events that involve explosive ejections of fragmental material, the effusion of liquid lava, or both." This, as for now, doesn't apply here. - Darwinek (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is then, given the relative obscurity of the volcano, it may be some time before the information can be accurately cited. In which case the information on Wiki will clearly be wrong until then (presuming that the media site is right of course). Could a note be added that media have reported activity and this is yet to be confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambic (talk • contribs) 08:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, this kind of note would be fair. Wording should mention only "activity", since active volcano doesn't have to be erupting, which seems to be this case. - Darwinek (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Winter 2011

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18040658 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Future island?

With the rising frequency and strength of eruptive activity near the seamount and its location on an active seismic ridge, this looks like something that could very likely produce an island in the next few decades. it's likely that NZ seismologists would have tried to research that angle, so could someone look for that kind of scientific assessment? 83.254.151.33 (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Discovery date

Courtesy ping to Schwede66.

I am not sure that (depending on what constitutes discovery) is appropriately supported by the article content. Several sources give different dates for the discovery of Monowai and I suspect that the 1877 - 1977 discrepancy is due to a typo somewhere but it's nowhere explicitly flagged as such. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The lead sentence, as it was, appeared to make no sense to me: "The seamount was discovered in 1877 - 1977" What does a 100-year range mean in terms of discovering something? I had to read the article before I could figure out that there seems to be uncertainty how you define discovery, or maybe there were different dates recorded in different sources. Feel free to reword it as you wish; I'm not wedded to my copyedit. But it has to be something more meaningful than what was there before. Schwede66 17:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

​ Well, looking at sources did not clarify the argument that much. I've reworded the text so that it makes sense and is free of OR. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

That reads better. Thanks! Schwede66 22:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ganesha811:Greetings, is that review done? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'd say so, just the issues listed below to be fixed. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Second sentence of lead is a somewhat confusing run-on and should be split into at least two sentences, maybe 3, rephrased. Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC) "Discovered at some point between 1877 and 1977" in lead is confusing and raises more questions than it answers - incorporate some history from discovery section or remove reference to discovery in lead Redid that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Second paragraph of lead should be incorporated earlier, perhaps when the Kermadec volcanic arc is first mentioned. Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC) 'Discovery and research history' should be reworked, especially the first sentence, which drags on. Clarify date of discovery of various features - a 100-year-approximation is both implausible and confusing. I've attempted a rework. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC) 'Geography and structure / regional' is good, nice section In 'Eruption history', add commas around 'for example' or remove phrase altogether. Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Last sentence of 'Eruption history', "Monowai may be... in the world" is both notable and interesting and should be incorporated into the lead Done, perhaps it could be moved up in the lead though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass. No issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass. No issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass - if 1877-1977 thing is fixed, that is.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. No issues. Checked against major sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass. No major issues or areas of topic uncovered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. Covers subject well.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass. No issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass. Most work done in February. No edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass. No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, although an additional image would be nice if one is available, perhaps of topography or similar. @Ganesha811:I'll look at some more images. Also, I shall note that as I found out some new sources were recently published and will need to be added; you may want to wait with passing this until I've added them, which may be today or tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC) @Ganesha811:Noting that this is now ready for a re-review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC) @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, thanks, will look through tomorrow. Ganesha811 (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

Pass! Issues fixed - made some last-minute copyedits myself. Congrats to @Jo-Jo Eumerus: and everyone else who worked on this article. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Monowai volcano is growing so quickly that it frequently collapses, generating landslides? The frequency of these slides at Monowai (two in 9 years) also far exceeds the frequency of large debris avalanches at other volcanoes, which is estimated to be only once every 102–104 years. Undoubtedly, this is due to the eruption frequency at Monowai,>

• Reviewed: Space National Guard

Improved to Good Article status by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 20:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC).

• A GA doesn't need much further review, and the article is fine (I flipped a few notes)--but, and I hate to be nitpicky, the hook: the "growing so quickly" bit is not clear to me--the citation given doesn't address growth. There's "rapid rates of growth" in Watts et al, but I don't see it in Chadwick et al--possibly because it's pretty technical. Jo-Jo Eumerus, help me out please. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Drmies:Part of that information is actually in Ronde et al., p.514, I am not sure why Chadwick et al. say "eruption frequency" instead; Monowai is one of the most active submarine volcanoes in the world but it's their magma output that's really remarkable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• Jo-Jo Eumerus, that's what I mentioned as "Watts et al"--you have Ronde as lead author? I suppose you are pointing to the sentence "The resulting collapse and growth..."? Drmies (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• The ref toolbar does do strange things to lead authors, I wouldn't overinterpret this. Basically Watts et al AKA Ronde et al says that Monowai has a huge magma output rate for a volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• (At least your toolbar works--I have to do all this stuff by hand, which sucks when you're writing about sciency topics. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)