Talk:Kohala (mountain)

Last eruption

I've seen two different dates given for Kohala's last eruption: 120,000 years ago, which is what we currently say in our article, and 60,000 years ago (e.g. here). These seem to originate in two papers, from 1969 and 1972 respectively: doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1969)80[2597:PAOLOK]2.0.CO;2 and doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1972)83[3731:PAOLFT]2.0.CO;2. Does anyone has access to these? It would be nice to understand the discrepancy. -- Avenue (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

60,000 appears to be the older figure, but I'm guessing. The newer USGS website says it last erupted "240,000 to 120,000 years ago" and that link is dated 1998 so I would go with it until we find out more details. Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Checked out the Atlas of Hawaii (1998) which says Kohala's "oldest lava is 460,000 years old and its postshield lava is as recent as 60,000 years old." The Atlas also says Kohla "last erupted more than 60,000 years ago" and attributes the statement to geologist Christina Heliker, although it looks like she just edited the material. Viriditas (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

USGS still uses the 60,000 figure[1] (looks like they were quoting the Atlas) so why this page? NPS still uses 60,000.[2] Viriditas (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

HCV uses the 120,000 figure, so I would go with that as it was last updated in 2005.[3] Bingo. They list their sources. :) Viriditas (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I had seen most of those. The HCV table doesn't help; it cites Wright and Pierson (1992), whose Appendix 1 gives a similar table without any citations. But I have found another source (Dekker et al, cited in the Atlas of Hawaii) that summarises the papers I mentioned above, as follows: "Ages on 12 samples from the Hawi Volcanics (MacDougall, 1969; MacDougall and Swanson, 1972) range from 0.261 ± 0.005 to 0.061 ± 0.001 Ma." So it seems that 60,000 years ago is correct. I'll add it to the article soon. -- Avenue (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

HCV is up to date as of 2005, and there has been recent research (McMurtry and Tappin, 2004?) that may lead to answers. I'm not at a computer right now (typing from cell) so I can't pursue this until later, but going with older data seems a bit odd. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Avenue, I think I have tracked this down and you may need to revert your changes. Please see USGS Open-File Report 2007 1089. My mobile device won't let me paste the URL, but you should be able to track down the most recent data with that title. I haven't had time to finish reading it but the figure looks like it comes from Wolfe and Morris, 1996 among other places. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; page 41 of the pamphlet for USGS Open-File Report 2007-1089 does suggest there are reasonable grounds for scepticism about at least some of the earlier dates. I'll revert my changes completely for now. I think we should at least mention the earlier dates, however, unless Wolfe and Morris (or someone else) was able to conclusively dismiss them. I'll look into that tomorrow. -- Avenue (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: Need to check Clague, 1998 and Jones, 1995. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a para devoted to the inconsistancy among dates. ResMar 19:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Red links

I'm embarrassed that Waimanu Valley doesn't have an article. I'll try to get to it later tonight, or if someone wants to beat me to the punch, go ahead. Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oldest

How can Kohala be the oldest volcano of Hawaii if Māhukona was the first volcano to form part of Hawaii? Black Tusk (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a meaningful distinction here between the five volcanoes that currently form part of the island (i.e. protrude above the water) and those that are either too old (Māhukona) or too young (Lo'ihi) to do so. -- Avenue (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

But shouldn't Māhukona be mentioned? And will Kohala go through the stage that Haleakala on Maui has gone through?Guanlongwucaii (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Guanlongwucaii

These are valid points. For the second, we have no clue. For the first, I've added a note saying that. ResMar 02:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Overall: I feel that the prose could benefit from copy editing,to clarify and render the subject concisely and succinctly. Use of jargon is inevitable in this subject matter but further explanation is necessary in the Geology section, without necessarily lengthening it. Place yourself in the shoes of the Wikipedia reader, rather than an expert. Wikilinking is good but does not render explanation unnecessary. It is nearly there but could benefit from a fresh look, perhaps someone who has not been involved too heavily in editing.

Uh, am I supposed to recruit someone? oO ResMar 21:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Viriditas if he can't copyedit it for me, knowing him he'll help me out here :) ResMar 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

1. • That would be good. Or you could try the guild of copyeditors Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And wait 2 months? Heck no. ResMar 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

After asking a few people I finally found someone who says they can do it shortly, User:Diannaa. ResMar 02:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

1. b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Check out

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • OK

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • I believe that the article would benefit from a section on the natural history and ecology of the volcano. Tree types are mentioned in passing, but there is much more, surely? This stands out to me as a major gap in coverage. This could include the undersea natural history in close proximity. Y

There is a general lack if resources on the volcano. I can dig up something I think but nothing related directly to the volcano, more stuff on North, South districts. ResMar 21:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok the Ecology section is up. Are you suggesting I split Natural history from Geology? ResMar 14:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

1. • I feel that the Districts section could do with some slight expansion. At present there is one large section and one very small section, it seems rather unbalanced. Is there any archaeology that could be cited and historical records to shown human habitation on the volcano, commercial exploitation if any? Y

Find me some and I will add it. Either there is ver litle or I suck at finding refs. (probably both)ResMar 21:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Its status as a tourist hotspot certainly doesn't help...ResMar 21:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this still an issue?

1. b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • OK

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • OK

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I will place this on hold. Please place any comments here, I have watchlisted the page. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

   OK, I think the article now meets the criteria, passing as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes! A review. Darn, I was hoping it was wide enough scope...ResMar 21:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

1. • I found these with just a moment's googling. You do have to be prepared to do some work to make a good article, it isn't easy: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. there is loads more. You can always access journals at a librarry. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

First one added. Second one I'm adding, but dunno even though it's the Kohala center it's not focused specifically on Kohala.

The third one doesn't fit in anywhere in the article, and doesn't contain enough info to warrent a new section without more stuff...3/4 of the page is refs and what the paper is meant to cover...ResMar 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes it is called an abstract, you need to get to library and download the whole pare which gives an extremely detailed study of agricyulture on Kohala. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ooch, 4 is better. ResMar 00:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

5 is totally unrelated to Kohala. South Kona is nowhere near the districts of Kohala. Again, just because it's by the Kohala Center doesn't mean anything. ResMar 00:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

6 is all jargony, but I got one useful sentance out of it, that the high N2O rate of soil at Kohala facilitates root growth. Just cause it's "old" doesn't mean ALL the soil on Kohala is old; this study seems very narrow to me. ResMar 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

7 is good. ResMar 00:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's all the easy ones down, now to tackle the big boys, 4, and 7...ResMar 00:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC) And 7 is done! I've created the section Ecology, and split off conservation organizations/water use into Human history. ~2 days to finish out that part too. That's a mighty good source! ResMar 00:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok done with that too...it actually wasn't as good as I thought, it spent a lot of time discussing the difference between two agricultural things, and studying data on the three "sections." ResMar 22:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

GA review continued

OK, many improvements have been made but there are still some concerns.

• Section History: The volcano is so old that it experienced, and recorded, a reversal of magnetic polarity (a change in the orientation of Earth's magnetic field so that the positions of the North and South poles interchange) that happened 780,000 years ago., this needs a citation.

Cited at end of para. On PDF, § Kohala, P 2. Do you mean a defenition of what reversed-polarity is?N Not done

There is nothing on pages 41-3 of Geologic Map of the State of Hawai‘i that supports taht assertion. There is mention that the submarine Hola Ridge suffered such a reversal.

Yes it is. The paragraph below the one you are talking about talks about the reversed polarity of the Pololu Volcanics, a flow unit of Kohala's volcanics. ResMar 14:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I missed that. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• In 2004, unknown marine fossils were found at the base of the volcano 6 km (4 mi) inshore. What does the phrase unknown marine fossils mean here? If they have been discovered, then they are known. Do you mean previously unknown?

Ae. no one knew how they got there. ResMar 14:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Changed to "unidentified". Hope that makes it clear. ResMar 15:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ecology: Estimates on the water capacity of the forest range from 3,000 L (3,000,000 cm3) to 15,000 L (15,000,000 cm3) per hectare. - consistency, earlier we have sq miles mentioned , now hectares and litres.

1 h (0.001 sq mi). 3000 - 15000 -> 3 000 000 - 15 000 000. That is unnecessarily bulky. 3 to 5 million isn't a number to be put into perspective; 3000 is. ResMar 14:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and it's a non-repeating decimal too: 1 h (0.0013899677707528 sq mi)...

Suggest you read up on the converte template usage, all sorts of paramenter can be used. I changed to USgal and litres to maintain consistency. using teh converet template to show the realtionship between litr=tres and cubic millimetres is pointless. The definition of a litre is in cubic millimetres.

• Human history: Its use has since been taken over by by ranch, farm, and domestic use. - clumsy and unclear.

Changed. ResMar 15:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• A portion of the ditch became a tourist attraction until it was damaged from the 2006 Hawaii earthquake, centered just southwest of the mountain. - damaged from?

Damaged by. ResMar 15:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Lead: WP:LEAD states:The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should be no more than four paragraphs.. Please adjust accordingly. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Merged standalone sentance into main. ResMar 15:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)N Not done

Lead still stands at 5 paragraphs. Please read WP:LEAD

How about now. ResMar 14:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overall: Good structure now, but prose style is still generally poor. I thought that copy-editing had been done? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It was, twice. I can't work with general "prose needs improvement" comments, I can only work with specific issues. ResMar 14:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. If writing a good article for Wikipedia, then one should be able to write good prose and be able and capable of analysing faults in the writing style. Otherwise the exercise is pointless. Suggest that you get good copy-editors to look over any further articles that you submit. I have made some more copy-edits to improving spelling and prose style. I could now judge it as just meeting the "reasonably well written" criteria. So just the citation re the magnetic polarity reversal and the lead to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ow. oO ResMar 14:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, all done. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit & Fact-checking by Awickert

This will be a running tally of things I'm concerned about... I may address them in time myself in time, and I would appreciate if others would do so as well, Awickert (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Geology

2nd paragraph under history: "...780,000 years old, the age of the oldest known lava flows. Older lava dated from the toe of the ridge was estimated to be roughly between 1.1 and 1.2 million years." seems contradictory. Awickert (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it means that the rocks with reverse polarity are the oldest on the mountain that have been conclusively dated. The older rocks have been dated through estimates and less conclusive means. I have made the problem go away by deleting the phrase "the age of the oldest known lava flows". --Diannaa (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

I believe all your initial concernshave been adressed. It's gotten a copyedit for clarity, and I've added two sections to the article under Human history/Ecology. ResMar 15:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Human history

I think there should only be a summary here of human activity as it is. Demographics for example should go into the Kohala, Hawaii article and the CDPs in the area. Mentioning crops etc. due to soil and rain effects makes sense, but other human history should go elsewhere. (They do need to beefed up; I have been avoidng CDP articles because any changes with diacritics get reverted.) The districts are not exactly aligned with the volcano today; e.g. Waipiʻo Valley is actually in the Hamakua district, and the South Kohala District has the beaches and resorts west of the saddle, but that is just today's political boundaries. I did correct a few mistakes yesterday. I would just take out the link to Hawaii County Department of Water Supply since there is not a lot notable on them, I think. Kohala Center is relevant, although they do projects down through Kona. The archeological sites such as Lapakahi State Historical Park, the Kohala Historical Sites State Monument and Pololū Valley are generally along the coast. There should be something about the sugar plantations; I am developing an article about one interesting one: Bond District. This needs to be followed by an article on the Kohala Ditch, a massive aqueduct project, but just summarizing all this here makes sense to me. The feature you might want to work in with a link is Upolu Point since it talks about the northermost point and the channel to Maui.

Also I noticed someone took out the link to Hawi, Hawaii but left in the Kapaʻau one? Botht these towns do use the Kamehameha connection to attract tourists, but the real birthplace is on a bumpy dirt road on a barren plain away from the highway, in Kohala Historical Sites State Monument. The other aspect that might be relevant to geology is the effect of the mountain on the trade winds (vs. the other way 'round, effect of winds on mountain, which is described). That is, the trades get funneled through the ʻAlenuihāhā Channel (might mention that?) producing a source of wind power (although I do not think there are commercial wind farms due to the low population, just many famers have one windmill), and a dangerous navigational hazard (called the "wall of death" by locals). As I recall it was where Captain Cook lost a mast, and had to return to where he was killed. source, for example W Nowicki (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, much more complete now. I merged the two sections on irrigation and added the "flumin" tour link. Also added a link to the monument and the 2006 earthquake. It caused major damage in the area, and that article even has a pciture of a landslide in progress in Waipiʻo valley. W Nowicki (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So is it good to go???? ResMar 01:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)