Jump to content

Talk:Anahim hotspot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 03:23, 8 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Volcanoes}}, {{WikiProject Canada}}, {{WikiProject Geology}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Good articleAnahim hotspot has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 18, 2008Good article nomineeListed

GA class within reach?

[edit]

I'm not much of a rating guy, but can anybody with more background comment on whether Good article status is within reach for this article? What would need to be added/fixed to make it a good candidate? Black Tusk 01:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For an FA...

[edit]

This article really doesn't need much for either FA or GA:

  • References
  • One or two images

Really a good article. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article need more than pictures: they need to be comprehensive and well written. Here are some samples: Mount St. Helens, Mauna Loa, Yosemite National Park, and Geology of the Lassen volcanic area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are very significant differences between GA and FA. GA requires that coverage of the subject is broad, whereas FA requires it to be comprehensive. GA requires the prose to be comprehensible, no major grammar or spelling mistakes, and consistent with the major points of the Manual of Style. FA requires the prose to be of a professional standard and to conform fully with the MoS. A lot of work remains to be done before this article would make a plausible FA candidate IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to add more infomation and photos of course, but I can't see this article reaching FA anytime soon. An earthquake map would be useful for the seismology section. Black Tusk (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this was more towards becoming a GA. --Meldshal42 (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAC

[edit]

I think I'm going to nominate this article for GA status. Its really quite good. ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please review the article? ~Meldshal42 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

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

Quite a bit work left to do on this article yet I think; in particular the referencing needs to be tightened up. Here are my detailed observations:

  • All the references need to be double checked, to make certain that they support what's being claimed. For instance, "This in turn has re-raised the antipodal pair impact hypothesis, the idea that pairs of opposite hotspots may result from the impact of a large meteor." Apart from being a non-sequitor, as the subject being discussed immediately before that sentence was tectonic plate movement, the reference provided says nothing at all about the antipodal pair impact hypothesis so far as I can see.
  • Can you explain what makes "An Internet Fly Fishing Magazine" (ref #7) a reliable source for this subject?
i don't quite see what's wrong with this site. ~The information is accurate. I an remove the reference if you like. ~Meldshal42 19:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where a book is being cited, the full publication details ought to be included, not just a link to google books.
  • You should give full details – author (where available), publisher, last accessdate – for all web references.
  • The lead needs to be expanded to better summarise the article.
  • A hotspot is a location on the Earth's surface that has experienced active volcanism for a long period of time. This theory was first suggested by the Canadian geologist John Tuzo Wilson in 1963." What theory? The preceding sentence simply defines a hotspot; Wilson's theory was an attempt to explain the formation of volcanic islands was it not?
  • Why is geochemistry capitalised in Petrology and Geochemistry?
  • As the tectonic plate drifts across the hotspot, it creates new volcanoes and generally leave unmistakable evidence ...". Plate is singular. I think the whole Background section needs to be rewritten.
  • About 13 and 12 million years ago, the Anahim hotspot created a peralkaline volcanic complex on the coast of British Columbia, now heavily eroded to from the ~20 km (12 mi) long Bella Bella and ~6 km (4 mi) long Gale Passage dike swarms. Which is it? To or from?
  • The converging dikes may mark the arrival of the Anahim hotspot". What does "arrival" mean in this context?
  • "During the early to middle Miocene, the central Coast Mountains were favored thermally-driven uplift arising from the Miocene passage of the Anahim hotspot beneath the range, and response to convergence in late Miocene-Pliocene time." What on earth is that supposed to mean?

reworded. ~Meldshal42 20:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A sequence of 40-60-m-thick ...". Don't need the hyphen between "m" and "thick", missing imperial conversion.
  • Metric to imperial conversions missing in 3.8 million to 80,000 BP.
  • ... pulled the volcanoes away from the hotspot's magmatic source at a rate of 2 to 3.3 centimetres per year .... Missing conversion.
  • Volcanism appears to have ceased in the western parts of the Anahim Volcanic Belt, but if the suggestion is correct .... What suggestion?
  • "No theory is close to airtight." Language is too informal for an encyclopedia entry.
  • The deepest deposits near the cones is (>3 m) and thin to less than a few centimetres only a few kilometres away ...". Doesn't seem to make sense.
  • "Part of the controversy is due to the rather sudden appearance of the hotspot in the geologic record." This rather sudden appearance ought to have been explained earlier, in 13 to 12 million BP.
  • The last paragraph of Seismology needs to be sourced. Who says that the ash would cause an aircraft's engines to fail within a minute?
  • Hotspots record changes in tectonic plate motions ...". Don't they simply record tectonic plate motions? "Motions" carries certain scatological overtones. Might "movement" be better?

I'm putting this article on hold, to allow time for these issues to be addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully no one minds, but I have used a strike-though of the above text to indicate what I have fixed. --Burntnickel (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed some of the problems listed above, but some of your suggestions are incorrect. John Tuzo Wilson proposed the hotspot theory to help explain the formation of volcanic chains such as the Hawaiian Islands. As a result, the hotspot theory has been used elsewhere to help explain similar formations such as the Anahim hotspot. See Tuzo Wilson Seamounts. As for the lead, what can be explained? See the Iceland hotspot which is GA and has the same problem. I'll leave the reference problem for someone else because I'm no expert. Black Tusk 20:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite open to negotiation on any of the points that I have raised. So far as Wilson is concerned, it is hardly a theory that a hotspot is a hotspot. His theory concerned the formation of volcanic islands so far as I am aware; how does that relate to the Anihim hotspot? As for the lead, it must summarise the article. A single sentence doesn't cut it I'm afraid. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's that much of a problem maybe the Tuzo Wilson and impact sentences should be removed. I don't know what else should be explained in the lead, a hotspot is a hotspot. Black Tusk 00:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need summarise this hotspot, not hotspots in general. What's the history of this hot spot, its future? The lead has to summarise the article. I won't be moving on this point, and if the lead isn't improved I will fail this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I mean. The future and history is already mentioned in the article. I'm currently working on the lead. Black Tusk 2:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that Black Tusk has greatly improved the lead. I think it is ready for GA now, no? All those minor things are not really needed for a GA. ~Meldshal42 20:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not ready for GA, not until all the points raised have been addressed. I am pleased to see the work that's being done on this article though, and I very much hope that it will soon be ready to be listed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "Internet Fly Fishing Magazine" is a reliable source because the geologic infomation is correct. I know because I have a book with the same infomation. Black Tusk 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too may indents, so I'll start back on the left side. I don't think we can conclude that the "Internet Fly Fishing Magazine" is a reliable source just because it is correct. Perhaps the book you mention might be a better source to use than the currently cited web page? --Burntnickel (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's the only reference I can find on the net that can support the Rainbow, Ilgachuz and Itcha Range eruptions. Black Tusk 21:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus Fatuarum, what do you mean by: This rather sudden appearance ought to have been explained earlier? The appearance of the Anahim hotspot is already mentioned; The converging dikes may mark the first appearance of the Anahim hotspot. --Black Tusk (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that the hotspot's sudden appearance appears to be remarkable, and even controversial according to the Origins section, so it was surprising not to see it mentioned earlier. But it's no big deal if you don't agree, it's just a minor point. BTW, I'm quite impressed with the new lead, very nice job. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It seems like the origins of this hotspot is unknown, therefore I think it would probaly be hard to explain. But I think most hotspots have sudden appearances and unknown origins actually, so it's probably a normal subject with hotspots. Is the "Internet Fly Fishing Magazine" a reliable source for this subject since I explined why it's being used? Hope it is nevertheless I won't know what else to use as a reference. --Black Tusk (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you say that you had a book with the same information in it? That would be a better source. It's kinda hard to think of a fly-fishing site as a reliable source for geological information. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added the book reference. --Black Tusk (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this really matter on the GA outcome of this article?

No theory is close to airtight.

Ireally think its a minro thing that doesn't really matter at the moment. ~Meldshal42 20:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this source reliable? It looks to me like a student project. Epbr123 (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the infomation is reliable. It's from scientists that study the area. It also includes references. Black Tusk (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It really does look like a student project. [1]. Epbr123 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's students associated with the Geological Survey of Canada per here (i.e. specialists). But if there's references supporting the infomation it's most likely reliable; some references supporting the infomation are used in the article. Black Tusk (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this GA nomination now. I really think the editors have done a fantastic job over the last week or so, and that they're all to be congratulated on what they've achieved. The referencing has improved out of all recognition, there's now a proper lead ... I could wax on and on, but the bottom line is that I think this is now a pretty fine article, and I'm going to list it as a GA. Congratulations! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anahim hotspot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No on WP:Earthquakes

[edit]

We are not going to go around and add WP:Earthquakes to all articles that we have that are known "earthquake zones". That would literally mean adding hundreds of articles under the WP:Earthquakes umbrella. I don't think we want that. WP:Geology and WP:Vocanoes are fine for this one. Dawnseeker2000

@Dawnseeker2000: You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. You say "we're not interested". Who is not interested? If you are not interested then I suggest you leave the project. I have been a member of WP:Earthquakes since it's foundation. "We're not going to add all the other articles that we have on earthquake zones to WP:Earthquakes, are we"? As of fact we already have from the start. Take a look through Category:Seismic zones. Is the Anahim hotspot a notable seismic zone? Yes and the number of reliable sources confirms this. Volcanoguy 23:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
VolcanoGuy, I'm not deliberately trying to step on your toes, so please retract that statement. What defines an earthquake zone? If this is one, why are there hundreds of other articles on valleys, basins, trenches, ranges, etc. that are not under the WP:Earthquakes umbrella?. I would say that is because no one sees the necessity to classify them that way or because they have seen that that is a good classification method but haven't wanted to engage in the tagging work.
I say, no. It's not that the best way to classify geological regions and let's not include ares that have earthquakes in the project. For this article, there are better, more applicable projects that make more sense. WP:Geology is the parent and WP:Volcanoes is more applicable. If the 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes swarm of sub 4.0 events were tectonic, then maybe, but using this as a model for inclusion into WP:Earthquakes would mean, for uniformity, we'd have to include probably hundreds of other geological features or regions into the WikiProject. WP:Earthquakes really isn't necessary on this one, nor is it necessary on Basin and Range Province or Puget Sound or Imperial Valley. Let's keep it as simple and uniform as possible.
I'm serious, I may come off a little abrasive at times, but there's no malice here. Not trying to step on your toes, and I hope you still don't hold this against me. Dawnseeker2000 00:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawnseeker2000: According to the United States Geological Survey, a seismic zone is:
1. A region on a map in which a common level of seismic design is required. This concept is obsolete.
2. An area of seismicity probably sharing a common cause. Example: "The New Madrid Seismic Zone."
3. A region on a map for which a common areal rate of seismicity is assumed for the purpose of calculating probabilistic ground motions.
The Anahim hotspot clearly falls under definition #2 because its seismicity is related to the movement of magma. The hundreds of articles on valleys, basins, trenches, ranges, etc. are not included because most of them do not have content about earthquakes. Articles about faults are within the scope of WP Earthquakes because faults are sources of earthquakes just as hotspots are sources of volcano tectonic earthquakes. Therefore I do not see a good reason why hotspot articles should not be included. Volcanoguy 14:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you think is best. My only intention a couple of years ago (as I'm sure you probably saw) was to unify how we apply the Wikiproject hierarchy. It's fine if there are exceptions to the changes that were made in 2016. Dawnseeker2000 22:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anahim hotspot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anahim hotspot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anahim_hotspot&oldid=1204830890"