Talk:Lōʻihi Seamount/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Name

Naming of this article as Lo'ihi seamount was inconsistent with the majority of Hawaiian articles that do not incorporate the ‘okina in the title. - Marshman 17:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Work

I've selected this article for my net workload. ResMar 17:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Is it ok if I add your name to a "maintained" tag at the top? Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that you've been uploading some really great images, but I have two questions: 1) Is there any reason you aren't uploading to Commons so that other language projects can use the images? Do you have any objection to moving these images to Commons? 2) The map you uploaded, File:MapLoihi.gif is a GIF image. Is it best practice to convert GIF's to a different file format before uploading to Wikipedia's servers? Viriditas (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Be careful about copying text directly from the sources to the article without using quotes. I've noticed that in some instances the text you have added comes directly from the sources cited. Remember to rewrite the text in your own words if you aren't quoting the source. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

- a)Sure you can add that note, I'm currently going out on the article to get it fit for DYK, currently at 4.65 expansion level
- b1)No, there is no reason I am not uploading to Commons, and I have no objection to moving them.
- b2)I guess so, OK I'll send it to the Graphichs Lab.
- c1) Yes, working on that too, having problems with having to dissapate the information acrros multiple sections.
- Too bad it's time for me to leave the computer. ResMar 00:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to be attracting a lot of administrator attention today. Becuase I've been pushing for 5x, I've done a sloppy job of rewriting refs so far. ResMar 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an admin. And don't worry, you're doing fine. I just wanted to bring these issues to your attention. Keep up the great work! Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh. 4 years sounds real admin-like. ResMar 00:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for any false impressions. These aren't the droids you are looking for. But to answer the question you asked on my talk page, yes, I'm from WP:HAWAII. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Droids, huh? Watch one wack you with a mop. ResMar 00:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, that might happen soon. Anyhoo, there's another issue I haven't brought up, namely image placement. It's not that important right now, but if you get a chance, try to distribute the images throughout the article; squeezing the text between images and infoboxes is generally discouraged. So for example, the Bathemetric mapping and 3D Rendering images could be moved lower. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done An issue also brouht up by Ceranathor on the Peer review. ResMar 16:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Loihi 3d.gif

Original Wikipedia file: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Loihi_3d.gif Source: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/HURL/images/loihi_3d.gif Image information: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/HURL/gallery.html

Text says it was funded by NOAA so adding {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Length of chain

This article says "Like all of the Hawaiian volcanoes, Loihi grew from eruptions along a 31 kilometres (31,000 m) long rift zone that runs northwest and southeast of the caldera, called the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain." I have a couple of concerns about this, firstly I thought the chain was much longer, more like the 5,800 kilometres that our article on the chain says. Secondly I think that Hawaii is much bigger than 31 km. My suspicion is that we should be saying something more like "Loihi like all of the Hawaiian volcanoes, and indeed the entire Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain grew from eruptions along rift zones, in the case of Loihi one 31 kilometres long that runs northwest and southeast of the caldera." Can one of our pet vulcanologists explain what I've missed? WereSpielChequers 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I came to this talkpage with the same query. We have an error here.--Wetman (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the article, and believe I've made a net improvement so would appreciate it if one of our experts runs an eye over that paragraph. WereSpielChequers 08:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, it's not the chain, it's the Hawaii hotspot. Thanks for spotting it! ResMar 19:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

In the future, please remember to rewrite the text before adding it to the article. I know you were in a hurry to get a DYK nomination, but this can lead to copyright problems when it comes up for GA-review. The current article still needs to be rewritten in your own words because it relies on exact text from the sources in too many places; Usually, you want to use quotes for exact text. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't think it's different enough yet? OK, I'll get to that. Right now I'm working on Evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes. ResMar 23:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I'll be out for most of the day. I'll check in with you later about the workgroup. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Are there any specific trouble areas you can point out so I can rewrite them? I modified the material from the "1996 Eruption" section. ResMar 23:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I can probably get to this now that Evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes is totally rewriten. ResMar 00:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

Image

Lead image discussion

The lead image in the seamount infobox is not Loihi, but the Big Island of Hawaii (see File:Hawaii Island topographic map-en-loihi.svg). Either File:Loihi 3d.gif or several other images would work. Is there a reason we are showing the Big Island as the lead image? I understand that you want to show people where Loihi is located, but I suspect the lead image would be better utilized with an image or map of just Loihi. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that the volcano icon is hard to see...I'll handle it. ResMar 23:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
You can just switch it around with another image. No need to remove anything from the article. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done
I like the idea of highlighting the location with a circle. Very nice! It would be even better with a corner insert of the actual seamount, but perhaps I go too far? Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...I can try. ResMar 16:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 Not done I'm sorry, but I can't do it. It slows my computer down like you don't know- and my comuputer is mad strong too! ResMar 17:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This isn't that important, but the images used in the Nature paper (and other diagrams) that you can view in Macdonald's book, for example, are more relevant to the topic that we have in the infobox right now. We could do something like a "zoom" insert, but this isn't something we need right away and can wait. It's not necessary for GA. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought about that, but that whould just destroy the point- the purpose of the map in the infobox is to help locate it relative to Hawaii.ResMar 20:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead text

Lead text discussion

Unique information should appear in the body first, and then in the lead if necessary. Please expand the lead section to at least two paragraphs, effectively summarizing the main points of the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Does the seamount project always put the coords in the lead? I find that really distracting, and we've already got the coords in the header and in the infobox. Do we also need it in the lead section? Wouldn't it be better to just describe in plain text, the geographical location? Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does. The lead sucks in general, I'm going to scrap it and rewrite it altogethor. ResMar 16:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
WOW, THAT IS JUST AMAZING- I was almost done rewriting it when my computer crashed DUMB TECHNOLOGY!!!!!
 Rewritten ResMar 17:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC) intro comepletely rewritten. Contact me if there are still problems with it. ResMar 17:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As Loihi's activity level builds, the height of the underwater volcano will increase and it will eventually breach sea level to become the newest Hawaiian island.
Is this the dominant theory, or is it also possible for it to merge with the island of Hawaii? If it is only one of two competing theories, we should describe both in the lead and body.} Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done ResMar 15:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not satisfied. There is some ambiguity here, and the sources talk about the process in more detail than we have now. Let's try and expand this part as it is very interesting and gives some insight into the theories behind the evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Mention your refs and I'll fix them. With 19, we're at the point that you can't just say "there's more info avalible" as I can't navigate and re-read all 19 or so. ResMar 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 1991 and 1996 eruptions are notable enough to mention in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done 1996 is mentioned. But not 1991, it's an earthquake swarm. ResMar 17:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks like the evidence for the submarine volcano didn't start coming in until 1978 and wasn't confirmed until 1980. The lead should mention this. Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done A not-so-obvious point from the NOAA site, though I think that book of yours is more detailed then I currently know. ResMar 00:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Loihi was rocked by a large eruption in 1966, the first ever recorded of an an active underwater volcano in Hawaii. The eruption was preceded by an earthquake swarm measuring 4000 hits, the largest of any Hawaiian volcanic eruptions.
    • Macdonald et al. 1983 says this was in March and April of 1952, not 1966. I'll put this on the list to verify. Strangely, I don't see this in the body. Remember, the lead needs to summarize the article. It looks like you were talking about the 1996 eruption, but typed 1966 by accident. Still, there's some confusion here. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of it. Macdonald's book was revised only in 1983, so he certainly wasn't talking about the 1996 event. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done You fixed it, I think. Who is this Macdonald dude, though; I can't add any of the isses brought up until you give me the ref. ResMar 16:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Gordon A. Macdonald, Volcanoes in the Sea (1983) [1970]. I will address this later today. It looks like we can expand the article with some information from this book, if it is correct. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Lots of information here needs to be added to the article. Macdonald, Malahoff, and others contributed early work. Some information can be found here but proceed carefully. I'm going to add it to the further reading section until you or I add it to the article as a reference. There's more about the history here. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Gosh that's a lot. I probably can't get to it today, I'll be mostly busy.
See, theres an inconsistancy among refs. MacDonald says 1978, this says 1970. ResMar 15:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done Handled, I think. ResMar 15:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done Hit 32 KB, up from ~24 only 20 or so edits ago! Now at 19 refs.
Discovery
Discovery disscussion
  • Still need to confirm when it was discovered, by whom, when it was verified and which researchers and papers are important. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Unknown. ResMar 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
This is important. I will try to help later tonight and tomorrow. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that it was knownj to exist since ancient times, but none of the sources directly mention anything of the sort. ResMar 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
They do mention it. You just have to look harder. :) The seamount was discovered by geologist K.O. Emery in 1955 and he named it "Loihi" (long) after the shape of the seamount. (Malahoff 1987). Oh, I just discovered that Emery only published it in 1955, and other writers claim that Macdonald deserves credit for discovering the seamount in 1952. As if this wasn't confusing enough. I'm adding this paper to the further reading section now. Viriditas (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Miscredited; Garcia states it was Macdonald, but that Emery was first to publish the new name. Plus, it was discovered by a US Geodata Hawaii-bathymetric expedition in 1940, not by Emery in 1955. ResMar 20:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly. First of all, Garcia has the benefit of hindsight, and he is discussing the history of research. Looking into the rear-view mirror of history, Garcia can observe the contributions of other researchers, perhaps those who have not received as much credit as they should. This situation occurs with practically every discovery, so this is nothing new and you will run into this in every article you edit. The way we deal with it is by listing the historical discoveries first, and then discussing any new views on the matter. Garcia's opinions on the matter, while interesting and notable, do not suddenly change the history books, nor were they meant to do that. What needs to be added is more of the history of the discovery. And yes, unfortunately, the first person to publish gets the credit. The number of examples illustrating this type of dispute is many, but there doesn't appear to be a dispute here. Proceed carefully. When in doubt, consult more than one source for comparison. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Resolved: All sources agree that Emery named the seamount, so I went with that description by citing Malahoff 1987, which we both knew would come in handy at some point. :) This is the best way to take Garcia's point into consideration. Yes, many sources claim he discovered it, but I'm finding discrepancies in so many sources regarding so many dates and figures, it's best to deal with them carefully. I'm still doing research on this, so this is subject to change. The Caltech source has some good information about Emery's "discovery", but I would like to find the source they are using so we can get better information. Viriditas (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • In 1996, Loihi was rocked by the first ever recorded eruption of an active underwater volcano in Hawaii
    • Maybe this should specify what kind of recording to avoid ambiguity. The USGS-HGO page says "An eruption at Loʻihi has yet to be observed."[1]. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
A ref issue, I think. ResMar 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done ResMar 21:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done Linked directly. ResMar 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Not done. Still another problem. Loihi is a seismically active submarine volcano with active hydrothermal vents, but not volcanically active at present. Shouldn't the article (and lead) say this? See also:[2] Viriditas (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Loihi Seamount represents an emerging Hawaiian volcano. It's not currently active in the short term, but it is active. The refs seem to paint two stories- 1996 was an eruption-no it aint-yes it was. Is "Possible eruption" a good term? It sounds so ambigious, and concidering the amount of text devoted to it... ResMar 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Lead and body should make it clear that the last eruption was in 1996. Current lead makes it sound like it is actively erupting like Kilauea, which it isn't. Viriditas (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Loihi last erupted in 1996. Is that ok? ResMar 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I rather like that. Very nice. :)Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Lead also needs to mention somewhere in the first paragraph: 1) Hotspot and its relation to the rest of the islands 2) Distance of summit (1000 m) below the ocean 3) Youngest or most recent volcano in Hawaii. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll get to it in my sandbox, I hope. ResMar 19:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done, I think. Hopefully the two lines I've added will address said concerns. ResMar 21:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Should also mention seamount in the lead. The average reader doesn't know what a seamount is and the lead (and body) should introduce the reader to the concept, however briefly. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I put it in brackets following "Submarine volcano." I think that that is enough, as I'm sure most readers know what "sumbarine" and "volcano" means. ResMar 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It is the newest volcano in the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain, a chain of volcanoes caused by the Hawaii hotspot that streatches over 5,800 km (3,604 mi) northwest of Loihi and the island of Hawaiʻi.
    • This makes it sound like the hotspot stretches that far, when it's just the chain, not the hotspot. A small copyedit will fix this, but it occurs to me, we should also briefly explain what makes the formation of volcanoes different in Hawaii versus others that form near plate boundaries. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I think I fixed it, but I also added a suggestion as an inline comment. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • In 1996, Loihi was rocked by the first ever directly observed eruption of an active underwater volcano in Hawaii
    • Can we please resolve this? I thought there was no "direct observation" when the eruption occurred. I'm confused. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • FYI... I've started expanding the lead section to three paragraphs so we can discuss more aspects of the article. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Loihi is expected to emerge above sea level in about 10,000-100,000 years.
    • What is the estimated growth rate, if known? The lead should mention how fast it is growing per year here and how the growth rate is considered to be fast due to the build up of pillow lava. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics

Characteristics disscussion

Do you think this can be expanded a bit with more prose? I think we should try and tell a story about the seamount, rather than rattle off data and facts. You could add some more information about the history to this section from the table you just added. That would help. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Another para or so. ResMar 23:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of this was copied from this link. Remember to rewrite all prose in your own words before adding it to any article. This section still reads poorly, so if you can think of any way to expand it or make it flow in a clear manner, that would help. Viriditas (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Naming
Naming disscussion
  • Loihi was named in 1955 by Maty Puakui and Martha Hohuhe of Bishop Museum in Hawaii, and Gordon Macdonald of the USGS's Hawaii Volcanism Observatory.[4] The name, meaning "long" in Hawaiian, is a reference to the seamount's elongated shape. The name was fist cited in a 1995 paper by fellow geologist Kenneth O. Emery, so he is often miscredited with its origin.
    • Slow down there, good buddy! :) Take your time to read and understand the sources you are using and make sure you are spelling their names correctly. :) Mary Kawena Pukui and Samuel Hoyt Elbert didn't name anything; they are linguists. In the source that you are using, Garcia states that they provided a popular definition, not a name. Also, Garcia's contention that Emery is given the credit erroneously is not entirely clear. Lastly, I had originally rewritten this using my own words in the infobox instead of the exact words used by the sources. That is preferred over copying words without quotations. Just slow down, take some time to read the source closer, and ask questions if you have them. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Merged this into "exploration" for now. I'll try and expand it later. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
In fact, I don't think there's more to it. It could stay where it is, merged. As for refs, at 21 or so refs it gets a bit difficult to navigate them all :) But Garcia's explanation made sense. Thanks for steamrolling my mistakes, I was all tied up adding information. I'm pretty sure +7K expand is good. ResMar 15:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Activity

Activity disscussion
  • Activity from the volcano has been recorded as far back as records go. Of the most recent, only one escalated into a full-blown volcanic eruption, in 1996.
    • Please specify how far back the records go (late 1950s, early 1960s I believe). Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know exactly, but from my understanding, the volcano has been active for the last few millenium, and by "before records were kept" I meant before the Hawaiians themselves kept track. ResMar 19:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course. What I mean is, when instruments first started recording activity in the region. The Macdonald source says something about the 1950s, but from what I understand the seamount wasn't confirmed until the late 1970s. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done Referenced from the NOAA site. ResMar 23:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Of the most recent what? Only one what escalated? That last sentence doesn't make sense. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done Fixed- of the most recent eruptions. ResMar 19:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Activity has been most recently recorded in 1986, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1995, 2001, 2002, 2005 and 2006.
    • This isn't very informative. Because there is data for each of these years, you are better off creating a table and adding it to the section. Plus, it will look great. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done See the table under Activity. However, it lists only volcanic and probable volcanic eruptions; adding all of the siesmic events would streatch a long way down, as those are recorded nearly biannually.
Wow, that looks great. You deserve some kind of award. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done Pat on the back! ResMar 18:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Nur04506.jpg - Black smokers of the type found on Loiʻhi.
    • Well, that's a nice image, but shouldn't we stick with Loihi images? Do we know for sure that image represents the one in Loihi? Considering all of the images we have to use, I don't think we need this. It's a bit too creative for my tastes, as it isn't an image of Loihi. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we're allowed to be creative. Plus, it illustrates the point. ResMar 20:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It depends. Do we have confirmation that those black smokers are similar to the ones in Loihi? Loihi is described in the literature as a unique place. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Exporation

Exploration disscussion
  • File:Loihi bot.jpg - A temperature probe being inserted into the vent orifice; note the extensive deposits of iron oxides surrounding the vent opening.
    • I've temporarily removed this as both the image and caption appear to be copyrighted. Please find the source. Viriditas (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Reference 14 appears to be wrong. I suspect it is supposed to link to one of the subpages. But which? It looks like ref 14 is a bad dupe of ref 16, which is correct. So 14 should be 16? Viriditas (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Ref 14's changed. Which one?
  • We have enough sources now (and historical data) to break the exploration section down by research project, although there is no hurry to do this. But it is definitely something that should be done at some point and will make the topic much more interesting. Viriditas (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Nah, not enough informaion. I'd put the threshhold at 2 paras per; but much of the explorations are little more then stubs. ResMar 00:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Garcia summarizes 50 years of Loihi research here. Viriditas (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Turns out this is the author's version of the paper. Another version was published, in Chemie der Erde - Geochemistry 66 (2006): 81-108, doi:10.1016/j.chemer.2005.09.002. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done, mostly. Pretty much done really. +7500 bytes. ResMar 00:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done Didn't get much on that, though. ResMar 00:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't want to reopen this other to say that it could use chronological subsections sorted by the name of the research project or team leaders. Viriditas (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Future exploration

Future exploration disscussion
  • Loihi is being studied by manned submersible dives to its surface and placement of recording instruments and remote observatories on the summit for many years. The volcano is actively venting hydrothermal fluids and the local thermal vents are being studied for thermophilic extremophiles (organisms associated with extreme temperature conditions). Future work on Loihi will carefully monitor ongoing changes and assess the risks of explosive volcanism or devastating landslides.
    • I'm not sure what is going on with this section. It's unsourced, too general, and seems to duplicate content. Either be specific, use sources, or delete it. I moved it here so you can work on it. I think what you are trying to do is good, but we are getting to the end of this, and we're about ready to do a GAC. If you can point to the sources you used for this, I can help rewrite it and add it back in...Otherwise have a go at it. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. it should be merged with everything else. ResMar 20:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm closing this one as yes, it is unsourced, sort of. One of the refs said this, but unfortumatly it was dated 1996. ResMar 19:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Red links

Red Links disscussion

Do we need to link to all of these people? I'll see if I can't redirect some of them. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried. If you perfer, we could leave them unlinked altogethor. ResMar 22:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
If we can identify lead researchers, it might be a good idea to leave them linked or redirect anyone we can to a particular research program if it exists. I'll look into this. Viriditas (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Good. ResMar 22:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
In general, MoS reccomends leaving red links red links, as I understand, per "Build the Web". Point seems to be confirmed in "What shouldn't be linked". The scientists that conducted the experiments are definnetly notable enough to be linked such. Perhaps in the future a user will see the redlink collect enough information and then write a stub. Here's to closure. ResMar 20:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ecology

Ecology captions
  • Currently, NOAA's National Undersea Research Center (HURL) and NSF's Marine Bioproducts Engineering Center
    • That ref is nine years old. How do you know it is still current? Also, this section could do wtih some expansion. And speaking of currency, the monitoring links only go back to 2005, and the website revision date says 2006. So, the question is, who is monitoring the site? Do they have sensors down there? Or can this be done from orbit? It might be interesting to talk about these things. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, at some point USGS and the Hawaii Center for Volcanology and Smithsonian lost interest in maintaining the information, so it is impossible to be sure when speaking in the present tense. I'll try to Google out something. ResMar 17:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Came out blank. The newest stuff is either 2006/2005 or 2002. The oldest is 1996, not even! ResMar 21:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
We need confirmation. In other words, what is the status of all research programs, including exploration and ongoing surveys? Any recent papers or technological breakthroughs? What about NASA or other agencies using the research in other fields, such as space exploration? Have the conclusions and research results been applied anywhere else? My guess is there might have been some biotech apps for the thermophiles that were found. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
No! There's no confirmation towards any such point, biotech-wise. As for status, believe me, I've tried. Like I said, at some point people seemed to stop caring about upkeep. Hmmm...I'm going to try emailing them. On a different tack, that might work. ResMar 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
What is interesting is that the Fe-Oxidizing Microbial Observatory (FeMO) has the most recent update (Feb 2009) so it appears to be ongoing. After I help expand the ecology section it should possibly be added to the lead. Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed. Current and ongoing as of 2008, with 2009 expedition in the works. Viriditas (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This section seems to be a good candidate for expansion. And, there doesn't appear to be any discussion of the unique shrimp and worms that were found.[3] Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see such a discussion on the ref you mentioned. ResMar 17:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done Added another para from 2 new sources, though not the one you mentioned. I don't see any shrimp etc. in that one. ResMar 21:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Look at the bottom of the page, in the section called "Macrobiology". Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
See also: List of observed species from the SeamountsOnline database. We are missing a lot of information here. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 Doing.... ResMar 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done From here and [4]. Spit into two sections, + 2 para, table.
  • well-sustained hydrothermal system
    • This sounds like it didn't translate from the original source when you wrote it. What were you trying to say? Viriditas (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • These vents, while remarkably similar to those found at the mid-ocean ridge, with similar compsition and thermal differences.
    • This doesn't make sense. Did you forget a few words? Viriditas (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Nope, just standard grammer mistakes :P ResMar 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Need more information, possibly even a section, about the Fe-Oxidizing Microbial Observatory (FeMO). Also need to mention Dave Karl, a lead researcher. Viriditas (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you handle that? I'm a bit full at the moment. ResMar 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why not. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Not done yet, but hopefully in the next day or so. :) Viriditas (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Animals also live around the Loihi Seamount, though not as heavily as some other, less active seamounts. Two of the most common species on the volcano are the Celebes monkfish (Sladenia remiger) and members of the Cutthroat eel family (actually a fish), Synaphobranchid.[21]
    • Ref 21 doesn't say this. It just says that Synaphobranchid is found there. Were you using another reference? I'm going to guess Chave? Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually it was the previos slide in the "slideshow"
  • Chave and Malahoff's In Deeper Waters (1998) describes animals living in Loihi's pillow lava cones, in particular, a glass feather sponge (Walteria leuckarti), Chrysogorgia scintillans, and possibly others. Content can be found here. Check the image captions for the information above. Viriditas (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
If you have the book, use it, but from the preview I'm not seeing anything new. ResMar 23:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems that the Hawaiian deep-sea habitat has multiple origins and species of many regions.
    • This is way too close to the original abstract; remember to rewrite in your own words. There have also been concerns expressed in other venues with using abstracts as sources, however, I think it is fine to list species, just not for stating conclusions. Whenever possible, we should use secondary sources that describe the conclusions, and primary source articles, not abstracts. But, we work with what we have. Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Image captions

Image captions
  • Not sure what you did, my friend, but I'm trying to fix it... :) Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Smashing job! ResMar 20:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See also

See also discussion

Evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes, Hawaii hotspot, Seamount

These are essential concepts that are already part of the article. Is there a reason they aren't linked in the body? I don't see a need for a see also section at this time. Just glancing at it, seamount should be linked in the lead and in the body, and the evolution and hotspot should be the body already. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done Links introduced ResMar 22:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Do we still need a see also section? Why not use a "evolution of hawaiian volcanoes" template instead if you must duplicate links?Viriditas (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we do, as it puts up useful links at the end of the article from which users can learn more on the topic. It's hard to push through ambigous links otherwise. ResMar 17:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I think a template works better here, such as a footer, header, or sidebar. Duplicating see also links is a pet peeve of mine, but it certainly isn't something we need to make a decision about anytime soon, but I don't think the see also section is needed. What we do need is a template devoted to "Volcanoes of Hawaii", probably at the footer. But a series template woould also work. But, this is more like window dressing, and is not important right now. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the more I see it as unnecessary. Everything in the see also should be in the first paragraph of the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
They do, but this section is less ambigous. I'm going to have to dissagree with you here. ResMar 21:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't see a need for a seealso section with the current links per WP:SEEALSO. Viriditas (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I decided to delete it. I previously had a concern about users not seeing the appropriate lins, but I believe that the Lead is now clear in what's related. ResMar 19:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

References

See also discussion
  • Format
    • I'm not sure what happened, but the format of the references and some of the information in the fields is wrong. I will attempt to fix it. Viriditas (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Michael Shapiro. "Earth, Whales & Fire". Hana Hou! Vol. 10
    • Why is this particular source being used? It can easily be replaced. Inflight magazines should not be used as sources in science-related articles. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Source from a version before I started on it, I'll try to edit it out. Thanks for the feedback! ResMar 16:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 Replaced Mag Refs with other ResMar 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the status page had a lot more information on the failure of the OBO, I've intergrated that in too. ResMar 19:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 Done Refs in shape- thanks! ResMar 17:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm still working on fixing some malformed reference fields. Should be done by tonight.Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • In progress... Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2009
      • Not done. Still working on it. Should be done in the next 24 hours. Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Pretty much done, although I'm still playing with it. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It sounds weird, but there is a bit too much referencing going on. Bear with me. :) What this means is that instead of placing a source at the end of every sentence, the sources can also appear at the end of paragraphs whenever possible (or combined if a source is only used once) to cut down on extraneous footnotes. Hard data and quotes should usually be sourced at the end of a sentence, but general, uncontroversial descriptions can have their references appear at the end of a paragraph instead of every sentence. Use editorial discretion. Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I've fixed most of it, but it's perfectly fine to have an entire paragraph with one source at the end. Sometimes this might be questioned during a GAC or FAC, but once the reviewer understands what is going on, it's usually fine. Even the sourcing guidelines say this is acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Well Okey-dokey. ResMar 15:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

External links

External links discussion
  • Hazlett, R. W., and D. W. Hyndman. 1996. Roadside Geology of Hawaiʻi.
    • Does this have anything to do with Loihi? I'm guessing it doesn't, but I'll check it out just to make sure. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen it in other Hawaii geology articles. This ex is from the original article. ResMar 17:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand, but does this source have anything to do with Loihi Seamount? This is a roadside geology book. If it is applicable, it would go in the further reading section, not external links, but something tells me it has nothing to do with this article. I'll be able to access the book tonight or tomorrow for an informed opinion. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, post-GAN, is there anything else we need to tidy up for a FA nomination? I need some feedback, and another set of eyes. ResMar 13:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll give it some thought this week. A couple of minor things I noticed on my first read through:
  1. The article says "Loihi is also unusually thick for a Hawaii volcano, with estimates being around 3.5 km (2 mi)." This seems unclear - what does thickness mean here? Summit caldera width? Or height above base?
  2. "Because Hawaiian volcanoes drift northwest at a rate of about 10 cm (3.9 in) a year, Loihi must have formed 40 km (25 mi) southeast of its current position." Relative to the surrounding seafloor and volcanoes, or the poles? The former seems a natural (mis?)interpretation.

-- Avenue (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! ResMar 22:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Issues

Per my talk page comments, here are a few issues I found which you might want to consider. Feel free to leave the content unchanged if you disagree on nongrammatical issues.

  • An anatomous observatory was positioned on Loihi in 1991 to track an earthquake swarm. Not sure what anatomous means, but it doesn't appear to be a real word. Should it be autonomous? automated?
  • Reference #26 "Observation Data" lists Bilogy Databse. Is that a standard printed matter abbreviation (and therefore OK)? I can't find any descriptive data for the site's table on the referenced website.
  • Re: In relative age, the western-most pit is the oldest, with the eastern pit being of a younger age and Pele's Pit being easily the youngest. Why "easily"? There's no further explanation of the conclusion drawn.
  • ReThese vents, while remarkably similar to those found at the mid-ocean ridge, with similar composition and thermal differences. As worded, this is a sentence fragment.
  • Re: Marine life live on Loihi, although they are not as common as life found living around less active seamounts. There's a lot of living in this sentence; life lives by its very definition. Try something like "Marine life inhabits Loihi, although it is not as common as life at less active seamounts." That's my first cut on the sentence as an example, you won't want to use the exact wording. Also note I made "marine life" singular since it is treated here as a whole group/unit, but that might be disputed depending on the editor's preference and content interpretation.

I'll try to post additional points here within the next day. My time remains rather tight -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


Time for several more:

  • Re: Exit vent temperature was measured at 77 °C in 1996. Because of safety concerns, the real temperatures were not found until September 1997. I don't quite understand these two sentences. It seems to say that a temperature was measured in 1996, but it wasn't a "real" temperature, which was found, but not given, in 1997? Was the 1996 temperature a bad reading, and if so, what was the real reading?
  • Re: 213 fish species were identified, most of which were found on hard surfaces such as ledges and coves. The Wikipedia manual of style WP:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words doesn't like sentences which start with a numeric figure. In the third point of the linked section, MoS suggests recasting the sentence to avoid having to spell out the number.
  • Re: This shape and position is cited as evidence that the rift zones formed early in Loihi's history, as if they had formed later Loihi would be more conical or star-shaped. Avoid the use "as if" to mean "because". Generally "as if" is interpreted as "seemingly like" or for plausible things contrary to fact. In my first reading of the sentence, I had to back up to the "as if" break to reinterpret its intention, something you want to avoid doing to the casual reader.
  • Re: Even though it measures 3,000 m (9,843 ft) high (taller than Mount St. Helens), it has yet to breach the surface of the ocean.. The lead also mentions this fact, but additionally qualifies it with a parenthetical (prior to its 1980 eruption). I'm not sure the comparison is a great one, given the potential for confusion here of pre- and post-eruption. Possibly you can just drop the parenthetical comment in the lead, since the Loihi Seamount is taller either way, or maybe squeeze in a "pre-1980 eruption" if you think it important to qualify.
  • Re: The intermission between activity continued from 2002 to 2004. "Intermission between activity" is redundant. If it's an intermission, it is between activity by definition.

Not sure why my editor won't list the spelling of Loihi as in the article, but it definitely doesn't like the second and third letters when they are pasted in, in case you were wondering why it's different in my feedback here. -- Michael Devore (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

All  Done. Thank you thank you thank you! ResMar 17:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Had a bit of time for another quick scan of the article, here are a few minor points you may want to address if you agree they are problematic. Or not, if you don't.

  • Re: Samples from the younger, eastern section (where there is volcanic activity) have been unreliably dated to between 4,000 to 21,000 years old. "Unreliably" is very broad and unsourced to the (unreliable) provider. Anyone can unreliably date items ("Hey Ralph, Joe over there says this looks like it is one million and twenty-three years old"). Consider briefly explaining or expanding on why the date is unreliable, yet sufficiently notable to receive mention.
  • Re: The studies were continually met by clouds of sulfide and sulfate. The studies weren't met by the clouds, the study group, people, or machines performing the studies may have.
  • Re: Loihi's rampid and reliable seismology makes it an ideal candidate for seismic study through OBOs. Rampid? I think you mean "rapid", but am just not quite sure enough in the context to make the change myself.
  • Re: Also common were the bresiliid shrimp Opaepele loihi (described in 1995), and the pogonophoran worm. In the context of the paragraph, don't you want this to be present tense, i.e. "Also common are..."? Or make the previous sentence past tense, i.e. "Two common species of fish found living near Loihi were..."

I'll try to take one last look later on, if I can get to it. You've made many improvements to the text and it's looking pretty good to me. -- Michael Devore (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all but one of of the above is arguable. Regarding the reliability of Garcia, he has access to proffesional resources and scientific databases that contain detailed information, and he has the advantage of foresight. It's a blessing Vid found to open PDF, because it contains information only otherwise found in the Pay-Per-View papers from Cambridge etc. For the second one, I really don't see the issue; is "the studies" not synosial of the men and equipment used? For the third, yes I mean rampid, by that the seismic activity at Loihi is extremely high for extended periods of time, even for a volcano. The fourth I've fixed. Thank you again; I've been out lately due to illness... ResMar 16:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. I check words against three sources (Am. Eng, Brit. Eng. and general), and didn't and (checking a couple more) still don't find rampid. I guess you you don't mean rampant? Anyway, if you know or have a reliable source that it's properly used here, e.g. as a scientific or obscure term, that's good enough for me. -- Michael Devore (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

One final nit and then I think I've bothered you enough. The article lists the full designation for OBO as "Ocean-Bottom unit" and then later on as "Ocean Bottom Observatory". It should be consistent within the article. Good luck with the FAC. -- Michael Devore (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Michael, you've been a huge help. ResMar 16:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article

Should we explain briefly what a plate boundary is? -Mario.

Only if you think it will benefit the topic and the reader and you can connect it directly to the formation of the seamount. This can be done, but it's not essential. - Viri.
I can understand a single note in comments, but wouldn't it be better to have a discussion thread in the discussion page? - Gilgamesh.
moved to talk before it started slowing down the article ;) ResMar 15:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Age and growth

Because Hawaiian volcanoes drift northwest at a rate of about 10 cm (3.9 in) a year, Lōʻihi must have formed 40 km (25 mi) southeast of its current position.[4]

  • This has been moved twice from the age and growth section into the characteristics section. And twice, I've moved it back. The original material is from pp. 11-12, in a section called "Ages: Implications for Magmatic Evolution and 1996 Evolution", and the conclusion of the argument this is drawn from is about the size. Perhaps this needs to be rewritten to make it clear, as it keeps getting moved. I believe ResMar is the original author of this material, and if it can't be worked out, perhaps it should just be removed entirely. ResMar, please go back and read the entire section in the source cited. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Something like, Because Hawaiian volcanoes [or, the Pacific plate] drift[s] northwest at a rate of about 10 cm (3.9 in) a year, Lōʻihi was 40 km (25 mi) southeast of its current position at the time of its initial eruption.[4]?
—WWoods (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. ResMar 23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In vivo

The bulk of Lōʻihi in vivo information comes from dives made in response to the 1996 eruption.

This is an incorrect use of the term, in vivo. The term is generally used to refer to the inside of an organism. Since Lōʻihi is not considered "alive" in the usual sense, the correct term is in situ, referring to the natural setting of the dives, the dives occurring in the site itself. Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. I said in the edit summary that this was just a a placeholder that popped into my head to get rid of using the word "dives" twice in a row. It was saying essentially, "The information about dives, comes from dives...." Whatever the proper wording is, just so the word dives is not repeated. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Pele's sister

We currently say that Kapo's Vents are named after Namakaokahai. Wouldn't a more likely namesake be Hiʻiaka-i-ka-poli-o-Pele, another of Pele's sisters? Her name contains "kapo", at least. The cited source seems to be very vague, only mentioning "her [Pele's] sister". -- Avenue (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I didn't find this before, but Kapo (mythology) seems more likely again - so much so that I'll go ahead and change it. A more specific source would still be nice though. -- Avenue (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense, but the source doesn't mention their names. It might be a good idea to get some kind of confirmation. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Earthquake swarm versus event, jargon in general

I personally think the term "earthquake swarm" is generally more understandable, without explanation, by the intended audience of this encyclopedia over the term "event," which requires a technical definition to accompany it in order to indicate to the reader why scientists call 4000 earthquakes an event in the singular. While this last information is useful, this article is about the entire seamount, not just its geology, and my tendency would be to use the longer "earthquake swarm" in this article and save calling the swarm an "event" for an article devoted solely to the geology of the volcano, which would be a nice additional article to have on Wikipedia. I would like, also, to remove a lot more of the jargon from the article. This is an interesting volcano and featuring this article might appeal to a diverse group of readers. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "event" classifies as a jargon, but the cleanup effort has so far improved the article, so I have no complaints. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Units, spelling

Some units, in the introduction are in American/conventional, and parenthetically converted to SI, while others are SI converted to American/conventional (may be it's only the one?). The article should be standardized to SI (my preference) or American/conventional (also possible) as the primary and the other as the parenthetical units. Also, the article spelling should either rigorously use the glottal stop (in Hawaiʻin and in Hawaiʻi, both, for example) or drop it altogether. Exceptions for references are fine, but not within the text itself. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about the units. I also agree about using, or not using, the ʻokina consistently in Hawaiʻi, and I'd suggest in other Hawaiian words as well. I'm not so sure this should apply to "Hawaiʻian", when even our Hawaiian language article does not do this. Our usage of macrons/kahakō should be consistent as well. Whatever we decide, I'd suggest also making an exception for names of organisations, where I think we should follow the way they spell their name; for example, the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory spells their name without an ʻokina on their website (despite using the ʻokina in "Hawaiʻi").
My preference would be to use both ʻokina and kahakō in Hawaiian names, but not in the word "Hawaiian". I believe this would reflect typical usage in formal Hawaiian English writing (although I'm no expert on this) and in recent scientific papers about Lōʻihi. -- Avenue (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not an expert either. I'm used to seeing it written throughout, including in Hawaiʻian, or not at all, but I see the wikipedia article on Hawaii and the language does not use it, so I could be mistaken. Yes, organization names should also be an exception. Using an Hawaiian source as a guideline to the consistency in this article might be easiest, for example if the HVO site uses Hawaiʻi and Hawaiian, that's probably good enough. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of any reliable source that uses "Hawaiʻian". I'm pretty sure the rules of the language forbid it. Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Good enough. Then use Hawaiʻi in text except in organization titles that don't use it and in references? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me too. I've made a start. -- Avenue (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs references - macroorganisms

The 213 species out of 250 taxa photographed, is, yes, for the entire series of dives mostly concentrated at Johnston and Cross and should probably remain deleted until additional information is included about the colonization of the seamount from the surrounding areas. The colonization from surrounding areas (Johnston Atoll) is an important aspect of the ecology of the seamount. The comment about lack of faunal zonation is also an important ecological description for a young volcano, and an attempt should be made to find the reference and include the information in this section--it is an important descriptive. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you said on the FAC you have access to the article, could you fix the problem? Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
This particular article does not discuss the colonization of Loihi, although it is clear that the species counts are for the dives concentrated on Johnston Atoll and Cross Seamount, not on Loihi. I am searching for an article that discusses the faunal zonation of Loihi. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

First directly observed

"The 1996 event was the first directly observed eruption of an undersea volcano in Hawaiʻi" I cannot find this information on either of the links it is related to, [5], [6]. Can someone help me out with this? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Smithsonian Institute reports indicate that scientists found limited evidence for an eruption during the 1996 earthquake swarm, and concluded one did not occur in 1996, 1997, or 1998, and I can't find the link to this first directly observed undersea volcano eruption. Can someone find this information? I assume the HCV site is more accurate. The Garcia article, however, is clear that the 1996 eruption occurred before the earthquake swarm as indicated by radiometric dating of glasses found in the West Pit. "The 1996 earthquake swarm was accompanied by the collapse of Pele’s vents and the formation of a 300-m deep pit crater dubbed Pele’s Pit (Loihi Science Team, 1997; Caplan-Auerbach and Duennebier, 2001a). Although no eruption was observed, hydrophones collected during two cruises in 1996 recorded explosion signals suggestive of eruptive activity emanating from the northeast section of Lō`ihi’s summit. However, as discussed above, Po210 dating of rocks collected just after this seismic swarm indicated that they erupted just prior to the earthquake swarm (Garcia et al., 1998a)." I think the information about the 1996 eruption should be removed until it is sourced, because the sources now in use say something different from the article, and the web sites that say a 1996 eruption during the swarm are tied to article that clearly indicate otherwise. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe that I previously asked the same question, although I cannot find it on this page. It's possible that I raised it on a user talk page. Nevertheless, we have only this to go on, which I assume the original editor meant to write: "In August 1996 Loihi volcano rumbled to life again with a vengence and has been intermittantly active since then (as described below and elsewhere at this web site). In fact, University of Hawaii scientists studying the seamount following the 1996 seismic swarm have found direct evidence of a volcanic eruption there in 1996, making this the first confirmed historical eruption of the seamount." Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Bathymetry map image - a higher resolution image is available

The source of the bathymetic map of Loihi (LoihiBathemetric.jpg) currently included in this article is a NOAA webpage http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/loihi_1_t.jpg and the image size is only 22 kB and resolution is not great.

I found that a mouse click on this image takes one to the higher resolution version of the same map with a size of 229 kB, at NOAA webpage http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/loihi_1.jpg which could be used instead. I haven't got time to do so myself right now, but I thought I'd suggest it, in case someone else may have more time to upload it in the immediate future. GeoWriter (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if it didn't work. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Other events associated with eruption

Of these the one in 1996 was preceded by an eruption, although there has been speculation that several other events may have been associated with magma eruptions.

This had a fact tag next to it, but I seem to recall this was sourced at one point. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability query

The question arises about the notability of these four red-linked scientists, Gary McMurtry, Francis Sansone, Alexander Malahoff, and James Cowen. All four are notable enough as scientists and researchers to have articles, and if you read in Hawaiian oceanography or deep sea minerals research you will come across a member of this group for a sound bite. If I get time, I will write bios, and ask for them to be posted. I would like to see their bios blue-linked. Scientist biographies often require library versus on-line research, though. I'll see what I can do. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I did some research, and although McMurtry is often quoted, he's an associate professor. Sansone may also not be notable enough for a brief biography. I was working on the Malahoff one, but got sidetracked. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It's really not that big of a deal. Are you referring to SG's inline comments? Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
We'd weighed the issue before, but decided to keep it. ResMar 16:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Did we? :) ResMar, you know very well this is going to come up again, when you submit this to FAC. Why not either create the biography articles or delink? Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll delink it. If anyone wants to blue-link them though, by all means do. ResMar 23:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Loihi as FA: good luck

I've enjoyed editing, but there's always so much game-playing on wikipedia. I'm not going to fight across children's playgrounds for the right to make an article better. My contributions are properly sourced, accurate, well-written (with some typos), and the sort of information that belongs in an encyclopedia.

I think the most important way to retain good writers with expertise in the sciences would be to weigh the value of a contribution to the encyclopedia rather than asserting rules that, when implemented, actually detract from the value of the encyclopedia.

Wikipedia could be a lot more than it is if its editors had a singular purpose: writing the encyclopedia.

Good luck with the article. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, who are you fighting with? I'm looking at the article and talk page and don't see any issues. Are you referring to something taking place off-wiki? Also, what "rules" are you talking about above? Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking through 69.226's edits, I think it might have been the issue discussed here. I don't want to add to any drama, but I will say I've appreciated 69.226's contributions to this topic and a completely unrelated article. If this incident put them off contributing further, I think that's a shame. -- Avenue (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The editor has performed a great service to Wikipedia. Thanks for describing what appears to be the problem. I was unaware of it. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, regular wikipedia editors routinely treat IPs badly, not all regular wikipedians, but enough. The only "thing" treated worse than an IP editor on wikipedia appears to be a newly registered user. If someone spends a day writing an article that wikipedia should have already had, Hiroshi Tamiya, then gets treated like they're a worthless contributor in the next edit or two,[7][8] it's sending the wrong message about what's going on at wikipedia.

In my opinion the basic question every editor or writer of wikipedia should ask themselves every time they interact with another writer is, "will this interaction facilitate writing an encyclopedia?" Which means you ask two questions, 1. am I being as civil as I can be? (as the encyclopedia is being written by a community) 2. is the contribution of value to wikipedia? (as the community's primary purpose is writing the encyclopedia). They're both equally important, though, not one more so than the other.

If an IP posts a request in the wrong place, or stupidly says hi in response to a huge post on the IP discussion page, then ask yourself, as you formulate your response of rejecting, ignoring, or deleting their contribution: am I being civil? is the contribution of value to the encyclopedia? If every wikipedia regular evaluated their interactions with others in light of this formula every time, this would be both a more civil place and a better encyclopedia.

Anyway, please read the Garcia article more carefully, and, check thoroughly against this article. There are still problems. I'm impressed with all the editors who came by to take care of little details, questioning notability, editing punctuation, spelling, grammar and continuity, arranging content.

I've overspent my welcome, as I came here to enjoy myself, which I am no longer doing. This is why experts leave: they already do this for a living, when it stops being a fun little side-line it's time to leave.

Keep editing. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, lots has happened while I've been gone. Unfortunatly, my computer's battery is fried and the laptop caught a virus, so I'm down to the last notch with my dad's ancient desktop. ResMar 15:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Great strides

I've beeen ofline lately due to extremuating circumstances, and will likely remain so for a few weeks. But the article sure has improved! I'm sorry to say I wasn't there to help...ResMar 16:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

69.226.103.13 has the eyes of an eagle. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

From RfA

  • Comments:
  • I've gone through and made a quick round of changes based on things I picked out in the article. Let me know if any of the changes created problems as you see them.
  • Several of the changes I made include adding fact tags where I think a citation is needed.
  • The expression "the most recorded for any historical Hawaiian volcanic activity" in the lead is a bit awkward. Is there a way you could rephrase it to something like "This series included more earthquakes than any other swarm in Hawaiian history"?
Fixed. ResMar 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm a little concerned that the fourth citation is used so heavily. For me, anything more than 10 uses indicates that more research could be needed. I'd strongly suggest finding additional citations to replace the multiple uses -- those new citations might reveal new facts about the seamount as well.
Well yes, I'd agreee; but its vital. I applaude Vid greatly for finding such a great source. It is the draft for a published work which I would otherwise have no access to. Who knows what wealth of information can be found in physical resources! The PDF contains a wealth of information that I can't find anywhere else on the web, and I don't have any access to any formal scientific publications. So alas, so it will remain. ResMar 16:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
JKBrooks85's criticism on this particular point will not go away. In other words, this issue will come back at the next FAC. So, we need to tackle it. I can help with this, so keep an open mind. Viriditas (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't see how the issue could be resolved, exactly, unless someone can get their hands on signifigant published resources. ResMar 18:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You are going to run into this criticism every time you rely on one source over another. So, you need to learn to expect it by avoiding the problem in the first place. Overreliance on one source is a red flag that experienced reviewers look for. It is not difficult to resolve, as Garcia relies on many sources for his conclusions. Where the conclusions are notable and are attributed to other published papers (and not Garcia's) we can do further research on those papers and see if they are worth citing in the article. If they are only notable because Garcia cites them, in that case, we simply make a note in the citation, saying we got them from Garcia. There are number of ways to solve this problem. We are not dealing with intractable material. There are other sources besides Garcia, but further research is necessary, i.e. finding the papers. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Sigh...No easy way? ResMar 23:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done ResMar 15:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The caption for the bathymetric map of the seamount uses a period for an incomplete sentence. I didn't change it since there's another sentence there, and you could probably combine the two.
Linked with a semicolon. ResMar 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In the geology section dealing with Pele's Pit, there's a bit of redundancy and confusion. You mention that Pele's Pit is the youngest pit twice; I'm also not clear what Pele's Vent was -- there's no explanation; also, when you talk about the thick crater walls, is that referring to all the pits or just Pele's Pit.
Fixed. ResMar 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Where are the other two pits located, and what's their structure? You mention so much detail about Pele's Pit, the absence of information about the other two was noticeable.
Indeed. None of the sources mention the other pits other then a brief sentance denomating its age, so I haven't a clue. The reason Pele's Pit is specific is so well-reaserched is due to its collapse and formation in 1996; I doubt nearly as much effort was put into the others. ResMar 16:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Check the further reading section. I believe I saw some information there. If not, I can help track down something. I think it is important to flesh this out. Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You mention how the rift zones create the "distinctive shape from which its Hawaiian name derives". The problem is that you don't mention what Loihi means until later in the article and in the infobox.
Fixed. ResMar 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "transported with the seafloor itself to its location in the Hawaiian Islands", you may need to mention crustal movement, since the natural question is to ask how a volcano can be transported.
I don't see the sentance anymore, but its replacement looks ideal. ResMar 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I hesitate to offer this as a suggestion, since it would be a lot of work: Consider merging the exploration and activity sections into a "history" section and move it in front of Geology. I say this because the Geology section contains a lot of information that is tough to grasp unless you understand the history of the seamount. Forex, the article mentions about how until 1970, it was thought that Loihi was a defunct seamount moved into place by the moving crust and that scientists discovered in 1970 that it was an erupting volcano. You're using historical marks to discuss the geology, and that makes me wonder if it'd be better to move the history of exploration and eruptive history up. For examples of where this worked really well, check out the featured article Jupiter Trojan.
If someone else wants to take this up, you are welcome to. But I cannot because firstly, I am a bit tied down in real life at the moment, and secondly, because it would require a massive overhaul and comeplete mashup of the references, forcing one to virtually rewrite the article. ResMar 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
It's an interesting proposal. We might be able to implement parts of it. Viriditas (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The summit depth in the infobox and the one given in the geology section don't match.
I'm going to go with 975. ResMar 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of double and triple-spaced words in the article. I think I nailed most of them, but I'd suggest doing a find/replace for them.
I'm assuming you mean its appearence in the edit box. In any case, it has no affect on the apperence of the text to a reader. ResMar 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In activity, you say the volcano was known to be active before recordkeeping began in 1959; that seems to contradict the assertion in the geology section that it was thought to be a dormant seamount prior to 1970.
Very good point; it's confusing me too. I'll clear up the issue when I get the chance. ResMar 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I like the table of major events. It's a good idea and presents its information clearly.
Thank you. ResMar 23:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In the activity section, the 1991–1992 earthquake lasted several months? Or did you mean eruption?
No, earthquake. It most certainly wasn't an eruption, but it might have been, as are all of the other events before 1996. ResMar 23:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • When you say a "low level" of activity, by what definition is it low?
It is defined in the next sentance. ResMar 23:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The sentence "detected 10 times the amount of quakes that were to be found on the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) seismic network" leaves me more questions than answers. How many quakes were found by HVO? Is that a lot? What does HVO cover? How many volcanoes? How do those volcanoes compare to Loihi?
10 times as many (no specific number given). Yes, it is quite a bit. Only Loiʻhi. 1. There are none other. ResMar 23:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • When you say the swarm was the "largest" recorded for any Hawaiian volcano, does that mean intensity or number?
Both; clarified. ResMar 23:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You've got moment magnitude scale wikilinked twice in quick succession in the activity section and again later on in the article.
  • Why were scientists unable to study iron-oxidizing bacteria at any time other than the 1996 quake swarm?
They didn't know if ts existance, at least in such rampart amounts, because the seamount had not been especially well-studied before the 1996 events put the spotlight on the volcano. This is an important theme in the article that seems to go undetected; little substantial information was known before the 1996 quakes. After scientists investigated it, they found it to be a very interesting little volcano; among the things they found were the bacteria. ResMar 23:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • What is a "significant" amount of shore-based research? It's not a very clear amount.
It doesn't say; there's no way to measure research, and not all things need an exact amount! ResMar 23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
When you get up to FA level, they need to be approximate measurements. What does the source say? Viriditas (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
"Additional "follow-up" expeditions to Loihi (including a series of manned-submersible dives completed in August and September of 1997) as well as a great deal of shore-based research have been conducted since then." Not much to go on. ResMar 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that's just what we need. Adhere to the source instead of saying "significant" amount. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In the earthquake swarm section, you use the word "event" a lot. The problem is that it's often not clear whether you're talking about the swarm or the eruption that preceded it, especially in terms of the effects. I know there's probably no way to tell in some cases, but the formation of Pele's Pit was a result of the eruption, not the quakes, yes?
Removed, I think. ResMar 23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Calling the volcano "alive" might be a bit too much anthropomorphism. Same for the use of the word "born". Be cautious.
Maybe; but the terms aren't user over too much. ResMar 23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Recommend replacement. I brought this up before and it is still an issue, and will continue to be an issue until it is fixed. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "temperatures exceeding 250 °C, a record" ... for Loihi, hydrothermal vents, underwater volcanoes, or something else?
Clarified (underwater volcanoes). ResMar 23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In the last sentence of the swarm section, you say "the study" ... which study is this referring to: the quick one in August or the longer ones in September and October?
All of them. ResMar 23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there any tsunami danger from Loihi quakes or eruptions? Any danger to human operations of any kind?
Nope. But I can't put that in the article because nowhere does it explicitly say so. The simple lack of it, which would cause a prominent "crisis concern," says this. ResMar 23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of relative terms in the article: "ideal", "famous" and so on.
So? ResMar 23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Best practice is to use approximate measurements whenever possible. Viriditas (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The iron-oxidizing bacteria information in the exploration section might be better sited in the ecology section.
Moved. ResMar 18:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why is the first mention of Kapo's Vents in the microorganisms section? If it's a significant feature, I'd suggest putting it in the geology section. I'd also suggest moving discussion of the makeup of vent fluids in a similar fashion.
Good point. ResMar 18:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that's about it. I don't claim that this is everything, but it should get you started, at least. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Round two

You've definitely made strides; this article a lot better than the version I first reviewed. There's much less in the way of specific things for me to point to, so let me just give a short list of things that stick out for me:

  • There's still a little awkwardness in the geology section because the history explanation is further down in the article. For example, there's a line that says "The Hawaii Center for Volcanology tested samples recovered by various expeditions, notably the 1978 expedition, which provided 17 dredge samples. Most of the samples were found to be of ancient origin; the oldest dated rock is approximately 300,000 years old."
That's a great explanation, but it uses human exploration -- which hasn't been introduced yet -- to explain facts to the reader. Let's try rephrasing it without using a human exploration paradigm: "Rock samples taken from the volcano have provided insight as to its chemistry and makeup. Most samples are ancient, (quantify 'ancient,' please) and the oldest dated rock taken from the volcano is approximately 300,000 years old."
Do you see how we've removed references to exploration? You're not ignoring that information -- it's simply explained later in the article. There's no need to tell how the samples were recovered in a section simply about the geology. It confuses things for the reader. The big problem comes in the Activity section, because you haven't yet introduced the history of exploration or provided a narrative for how these recordings were made.
I think you removed it. Anyway, I see your point, and we've remove all such references. There are a few minor ones that I think belong in that section, though, as a tiny bit of background; like saying "in 1996 scientists found..." ResMar 17:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm going to suggest that you shrink the text size in that major events box and give it some space on the left side. As it is now, it's butting right up against the text and is so big that it's pushing your black smoker picture into the next section.
Right, you've got a point. I've added a margin to the table, but I don't know how quite to approach its size. ResMar 14:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Fixed! ResMar 01:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You've got two very nice tables that are unfortunately separated out from the flow of your article. You can help them flow better, but it's going to take a little work. The vent sites table can be put up into the geology and structure section if you shrink it a little. The expedition timeline likewise can be removed from its own section and put up there at the top of the exploration section where it belongs.
Done. The vent sites were a more simple deal, as by removing the nonessential year discovered section I could squeeze it in; but for the Exploration section, to merge it I required a nonstandard approach, and used a collapsed box squeezed into the side. the result was't phenomenal, but suitable. I don't know how else to fix that. ResMar 01:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • These suggestions all really fall into the tone and flow category. You're trying to tell this volcano's story, and I think you've got all (or at least most) of the pieces you need. I think you simply need to work on how those pieces fit together. I do think that I'm nearing the end of my usefulness to this article; you really should get some fresh eyes to give you some input. Who knows? Someone else may absolutely love what you've done and say I'm completely off my rocker. ;) JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; greatly apreciated!
OK, now we need a lookie from fresh eyes... ResMar 17:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I was asked to do a review by Resident Mario, so here it is.

  • Do you have a picture of the Seamount from the water up? This would add greatly to the article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, no. The volcano is below in murky waters. The only bird's-eye views are bathymetrics. I wanted to add this, but apparently the terms "for educational purposes only" aren't loose enough. ResMar 19:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments 2

I did some editing of the article earlier today. There were a few things I did not change yet because I was unsure about them. Perhaps other editors can clarify?

  • In the first paragraph of the "Activity" section, scientific record keeping began in 1959, yet the next paragraph states that activity has been documented since 1952. The mismatch should be resolved.
  • In the "Exploration" section, "an autonomous observatory was positioned on Loihi in 1991 to track the earthquake swarm." Is that date correct, because it comes between 1980 and 1986 in the description? Is the correct date 1981, rather than 1991? If 1991 is correct, it should be moved to after the 1987 Alvin sentence.
  • In the "Recent activity" section, "After the 1996 event, Loihi remained largely quiet. An intermission carried from 2002 to 2004". I don't understand this. Either 2002 to 2004 is a continuation of the 1996 to 2001 quiet period, in which case presumably that becomes a quiet period from 1996 to 2004, or 2002 to 2004 was actually an active period. This should be clarified.
  • "Ecology" section. I suggest that the first paragraph may be better as something like a "Hydrothermal vent geochemistry" section. Also, NOAA's Natural Undersea Research Center has been abbreviated to (HURL). Is that correct? Elsewhere, HURL is the "Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory". Are they one and the same, or different?
  • "Macroorganisms" section. Last sentence: ..."newly recorded sitings".... This article uses American English. I'm a British English user, so I'd spell the word as "sightings". I am not sure of the American spelling but it could be checked for spelling.

GeoWriter (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm a little busy with Rumford Prize right now but I will get to it ASAP.
Someone needs to do a fact check, it's annoying that people keep pullling out factual mismatches and then start questioning the whole article, we need to solve the problem once and for all. ResMar 03:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
All issues have been adressed. ResMar 18:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Display bug?

Hi, I'm having intermittent trouble with the referencing format in Firefox/3.0.11. For example, if I click on on citation 27 in the references section, the second column disappears and then I need to go back to the first column to find it. This doesn't happen all the time. Any ideas? Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I use Firefox/3.0.11, also; and I haven't had that problem with any wikipedia articles. I just reinstalled mine a few days ago; maybe there was a glitch-andI didn't notice it, and can no longer reproduce it-but I think I would have noticed this. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lōʻihi_Seamount/Archive_1&oldid=1136973073"