Talk:Protector Shoal

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 23:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Starting review. RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "The seamount erupted in March 1962" needs to be stated in the body.

  Er, it is - the pumice raft was erupted a few days before 14th March 1962. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's still not entirely clear. I guess in probably erupted a few days before, what you're trying to say is "It certainly erupted, but it's not clear exactly when; probably a few days before", so please rephrase to make that clear. RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  I've recast this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• The interactive map doesn't add anything useful. The hemisphere image at the top works well to show the reader where the shoal is; the map however is just a featureless blue field that doesn't add anything. I'd delete it.

  Hmm, not sure how to remove the map and the hemisphere image shows Zavodovski, not Protector Shoal. Removed that image instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know how to remove the map either, but it really is useless. Perhaps you could ask on the infobox talk page? The hemisphere image was exactly the right thing; you should put it back. RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Well, the hemisphere map is simply wrong as Protector Shoal is located at some distance from Zavodovski, outside of the red circle. So I won't readd it. But I'll ask on the infobox map. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• You mostly use metric as the primary unit and convert to imperial, but reverse this for the Height field. Pick one way and be consistent.

  Done. ~~

• Jo-Jo Eumerus For the map, how would you feel about (with the coords properly tweaked to get them right):

• That works better; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Geography and geomorphology

• "about seven distinct seamounts[1] that are unofficially named[2] after ships:[14]" why do you say "unofficially"? Collins et al. 2022 says "eight large seamounts, all named after ships.", nothing about it being unofficial. Also, why "about seven", when the the source says "eight"?

  Because another seamount was discovered later. The names are unofficial because sometimes scientists name features for convenience - but unless they are recognized by the IHO, they aren't official names. And these names aren't official yet, I didn't find them in the SCUFN/IHO/GEBCO archives. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Then how about, "referred to in the literature as ..."? RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• "initially it was thought that "Protector Shoal" was a 27 metres (89 ft) deep seamount", "adjective=true" (or something like that) in the {{convert}} will get you "meter" instead of "meters". Likewise with "2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi)" and a few other similar places.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's producing Error in convert: Ignored invalid option "adjective=true" errors. I should have emphasized the "or something like that" part :-). Looking at Template:Convert#Adjective: a 10-mile distance, it looks like what you really want is adj=on. RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Composition

• Consider combining this with the preceding Geology section. I don't think breaking it out into its own short sub-section adds anything.

  Eh, I think it's long enough for a section, 'specially since the rest of the higher-level section isn't that much longer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  I don't feel strongly either way, so this is fine. RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

1962 eruption

• "which was probably erupted a few days before", I assume this should be "which had probably..."

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Other

• Not a WP:GACR, but I recommend adding alt text to all images per MOS:ALT.
• No issues spotted with copyright.
• Article is appropriately cited to what appear to be reliable sources.
• Images all appear to be appropriately licenced.
• No other issues spotted with WP:GACR

OK, this passes now. I still want to get the map to show up properly in the infobox (see thread on Template talk:Infobox seamount), but I can't justify holding up GA approval over that. This is a nice article about an interesting subject, thanks for submitting it. RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that pumices erupted by the Protector Shoal volcano in 1962 floated to Australia and South America?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dubliany, Rivne Oblast

Improved to Good Article status by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 16:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Protector Shoal; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: - Not yet
Overall: 2603:7000:2101:AA00:40CC:69A5:9E1E:16CB (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Pretty sure that Tierra del Fuego is considered part of South America. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm open to being convinced. But the wp article it links to says it is "an archipelago off the southernmost tip of the South American mainland." I don't see this article or that one stating that it is in fact itself part of South America, rather than off of it. What do you know, not in either article, that makes you pretty sure? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:59D9:28DE:BCC:4796 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

South America does show it on its map and discusses it as part of South America. Contrast with e.g the Galapagos, which are sometimes considered part of Oceania. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If this article were to have a ref that supported that aspect of the hook directly, I would be happy to put a check mark on that requirement.2603:7000:2101:AA00:894B:9C69:E769:856B (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Technically, I also need to provide the QPQ still. Often when I am done writing an article I don't have steam to do the QPQ review. I've put a sentence in, keeping in mind that the pumice has to first get past South America before it can get to TDF. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Added QPQ. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer's last edit was in November, so a new reviewer is needed. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Starting review. Zeete (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Promoted to Good Article on 11/22/23, DYK check reports over 10,700 characters, well cited, neutral, earwig reports violation possible (over 40%) for three sources, long name matches on citations, others reported violation unlikely, QPQ done, hook interesting, length checked ok, cited.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: While the title of reference Risso, Scasso & Aparicio 2002 is definite, the Abstract says "most likely". Is there a more definite conclusion in the article? I can only access the preview. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The source does not even consider any origination other than at Protector Shoal, ruling out Deception Island on compositional grounds. I don't remember any other source disagreeing with Risso 2002. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the explanation. Good to go. Interesting article about the seamount and pumice blocks. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)