Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive3

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:21, 4 August 2010 [1].

List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain[edit]

Featured list removal candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive1

Nominator(s): ResMar, Awickert (talk)

The final bearth of the sorting problems is finally finished, and I combed over the last nom and fixed everything everyone suggested. Hopefully, third time is the charm. ...man I wish I didn't have to nom so many times >.>

Support - With a few suggestions. The nominator's hard work is evident, but they need to understand that a lot is expected of featured content. ;) ceranthor 23:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The third lead paragraph needs splitting or some work. The sentence mentioning George Bush doesn't flow into the information before it: I'd appreciate it if you could fine a way to fix it, as it doesn't read well in its present state.

Well they are two seperate points on the same section, so I split them into two paragraphs. ResMar 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it is the closest to the hotspot, this volcanically active region is the youngest part of the chain, with ages ranging from 400,000 years[2] to 5.1 million years.[3] - I assume you're referring to the age of volcanic rock, but the general reader doesn't know that. It's a nitpick, sure, but worth changing.

Age as in first eruption/oldest rock. ResMar 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The oldest and most heavily eroded part of the chain are the Emperor seamounts, which stand at between 39[6] and 85 million years in age.[7 - verb tense agreement "part" and "are" don't work ;)

Grammerphile :) ResMar 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you can include some notes on those three seamounts? Anything would be appreciated, the blanks aren't consistent with the rest of the article.

There's hardly anything to say about them, which is why they are blank. Nothing but name coordinates really cuz they're not that well studied. ResMar 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...And by that I mean that their existance is "hey look a seamount! Seems pretty prominent. Lets name it after Frank, because we want to be original." ResMar 23:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As I found my concerns from the previous have been addressed, so I will support. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A nice and extensive list. Volcanoguy 07:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 13:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt Good progress from last time around!. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 19:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reg. the blank notes: please indicate the specific age range for each vulcano, I dont want to figure it out myself.

Done. ResMar 15:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe i dont understand the dating method but what does this mean: "K-Ar 298,000±25,000 to 310,000±31,000"? A range of ranges seems a bit excessive.

I could replace the ± with a ~ marker. It would be shorter, but you would lose the uncertainty curve.

I don't understand you. You have here "K-Ar 298,000±25,000 to 310,000±31,000"? a range of two ranges, going from 273,000 to 341,000? Why do you not present a single range, 305,000 +/- 35,000 or whatever it is giving said range. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 15:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the K-Ar range a confidence interval? If so cd you indicate what level of alpha is used?

That's a good idea, but I've no clue. The reference doesn't mention it...best go case by case. ResMar 14:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it say what the range is? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 15:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. Actually, looking it over again, the refs your refer to are offline, and I think they were added by User:Awickert, whose on break right now; I can email him to check. ResMar 21:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember if it was me who added that one. But anyway, in the abstract, it says that the two dates were from different cones, so I changed it to "and". The dates are averages of K-Ar dates obtained from each cone. The +/- is 2-sigma. Awickert (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note on the 2-level confidence interval. For the other ones, no such thing is mentioned. Hope it helps, ResMar 04:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Remaining quibbles fixed. I would rephrase the note on CI to:"The date lies within the date-range with a confidence level of 95%." Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 13:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the phrase to reflect the meaning of "standard deviation". Awickert (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current phrasing is out-right wrong. 95% of data is not within the date range. The correct description is that in 95 out of 100 estimates (as single point) the date will be within the date-range. Loosely (not correctly): If you have 20 volcanoes in the list one of the date estimates would be outside the given range. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 14:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One issue: the Sharp paper is being attributed to 2 sigma error, but it is actually the Clague paper that we were talking about above. I can't check what the error is in the Sharp paper right now, because I'm at the airport and the internet is slow enough that it's taken several minutes to load the "edit" page here, but this will need to be fixed. Awickert (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there are two Clauges, ref 19 and ref 47. Which one do you mean? Having their error ranges is nice and everything but utterly useless really, cuz they're referenced two times and once, respectivevly, and like that I can make a 20-note notes column with refs like that. We really neeed Sharpe, that's the big one. ResMar 15:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Clague that the above discussion was about. I'm not suggesting removing Sharp; it's that you put the info on standard deviations from the Clague article on the dates with the Sharp ref. (Maybe this will help: the link that you emailed me was the Sharp article, but it is actually the Clague article being discussed above). Awickert (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm not quite understanding you here, are you saying I should put the deviation note from Clauge 19 on Sharpe as well? ResMar 02:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite actually: Clague instead of Sharp. You fixed it already, Awickert (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In Safari, Age col doesn't sort correctly.

Age is sorted by clean number, if it doesn't work at this point nothing will. ResMar 00:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"~ 120,000-1 million[18]" should use en-dash for range per WP:DASH.

Ooooooh, improper dash, article-destroying problem! :) Fixed. ResMar 00:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good to me (and I know it pretty well at this point :) ), Awickert (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hawaiian archipelago table – just my opinion, but when sorting by age, shouldn't Hualālai (300,000 years) be first, followed by Kīlauea (300,000–600,000), and then Lōʻihi Seamount (400,000)? Also, shouldn't Kohala come before Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea? It seems logical that ~ 120,000–1 million would precede 700,000–1 million and ~1 million. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of an illustration of how inaccurate dating is. It's hard to date a volcao: the oldest dated rock is almost never the age of the volcano itself, and the most accurate number would require records of its first eruption (like in the case of Paracutin). Pure logic (and an understanding of hotspot plate tectonics) states that the closer the volcano is to the hotspot, the younger it is. Therefore the near-hotspot order is Loihi-Kilauea-Mauna Loa-Hualalai-Mauna Kea-Kohala-Mahukona. The table is sorted by the age of each relative to one another (which is something everyone agrees on; coordinates are hard numbers ;) ) rather then those given by dating. ResMar 20:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.