Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hawaii hotspot/archive3

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 21:47, 19 January 2010 [1].

Hawaii hotspot

[edit]
Nominator(s): ResMar 21:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC) and ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Ok, it's been two weeks since the last one, and all of the original comments have been cleared. I've done my best to deal with Fif's comments as well, based on what he told me. He started working on it but never finished, so I did my best myself. It's a very interesting article, and a worthy read.

Also, since the last nom, the list has been split from the article, and nominated as a standalone article: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive1. Compounded with my GAN on Kohala (mountain), I'll be busy indeed; if you can help please do! ResMar 21:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now refs 28 and 29 take a long time to load, and give the error "Error - Cannot Connect to Server The handle you requested --handle number-- cannot be found." ...bleh. All other external links work. --an odd name 11:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. That's a problem. I've found replacements but NONE of the PDFs work, for some reason. this for example. ResMar 15:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I think I'm just going to remove the links, they're journal anyway so...ResMar 15:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 15:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They should not have been removed and I do not believe the links are bad. There was a server migration in September and I discussed this on the project page. I also made an attempt to fix all links on this site, so I'm not fully aware as to what is going on now, but it looks like the entire server is down for Sunday maintenance. Please restore the links and I will take responsibility for making sure they are correct when the server comes back up. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It would be nice if server admins at least showed abstracts or titles of static pages while they fix the full ones and databases in the background, to preserve verifiability and such. Oh well. --an odd name 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Ok Vid your call, now :) ResMar 00:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The servers are back up but the handles still don't work. I'm hoping that this will be fixed by tomorrow morning, but I'm going to give it one more day. Viriditas (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Using temporary, but working PDF files until handle links come back online. Apparently the servers are undergoing a move to a new location. Might not be complete for a week. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Server move done, handles back online, everything in tune and it's working again. I've re-replaced them with the handles. Cheers, ResMar 23:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was cleared by WP:RS/N, uh didn't I leave a message on your talk page...? Here's the link. ResMar 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's reliable (and then some). I'll strike. RB88 (T) 02:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COME ON. 9 days. ResMar 13:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

): Not again... ResMar 13:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait what? Archived? Where? Now? ...if this article IS archived...sigh. Then 2 more weeks waiting so as to reopen it so that no one can come and then the cycle repeats. I can't seem to understand it, no one else has trouble with empty FAC pages...ResMar 17:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments An interesting read, I'm happy to support, but a couple of niggles.
  • Groups advocating alternatives to the plate tectonics, such as flood geology, have cited the new discoveriers as evidence against the hotspot theory. - I've fixed the typo, but this sentence should go anyway, I don't think a non-American would dream of putting this in. This is supposed to be a scientific article, what's this mumbo jumbo doing here? Also, if you must placate the loonies, you need to make it clear why the evidence helps them
The fringe is always notable...can't have a debate without detractors, right? Unfortunetly, I can't seem to track down specifically how this aids them, only that is does. ResMar 17:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually would say that the fringe never need be acknowledged unless it is the topic. Otherwise it would not be the fringe and rather a respectable (even if very small) minority. Also, "debate" is not always necessary for science articles; unless something is under active scientific debate, it can be considered settled enough for an encyclopedia and simply stated. So I would suggest that this sentence be removed, Awickert (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: removing this sentence b/c (1) On a quick perusal the sources used say nothing about this, (2) it is completely non-sensical as moving plumes are actively discussed by scientists and do not contradict plate tectonics. Awickert (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's been removed, as I can't find it anymore. Ah, yes, it's your doing. ResMar 13:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strontium–Niobium–Palladium should these be capitalised? (just checking)
I think not. Reduced to small caps. ResMar 17:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support To be honest, I am very often disappointed by the articles that get featured (some actor I've never heard about, jazz songs from the 60s, etc.). I think this article would be a great featured article. It is encyclopedic, well-written, and on a notable subject. By the way, does Black Tusk know his article is being nominated? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. I know him and he knows me :) But I'll go ahead and poke him to see, maybe he's ignorant.Just don't want to get accused of canvassing... ResMar 00:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am aware of this article's nomination, but I wouldn't say I'm being ignorant. I have been trying to collect information and organize sections for a massive expansion for the Mackenzie Large Igneous Province article. BT (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took that only as "ignorant of the fact that this article was at FAC." I too was ignorant in that respect just a few days ago. :) --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 04:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are a few somewhat choppy sentences in the lede and first major section that have too many commas and are too long for my liking, but nothing to object over. Others may see this as more of an issue, but I don't. Other than that, very informative (a bit too much explanation of general themes like what a hotspot is or how lava tubes form for me, but then, I'm already familiar with the basics), reads well (esp after the lede and first section) and is cited nicely. A great article overall. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 04:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go over the choppy text part. The first section is the Hawaii hotspot in the context of the hotspot theory, it was the origin of the theory and a continual study-spot so that's why it's there. Plus, not everyone knows what a hotspot is :) ResMar 13:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on non-compliance with WP:NFCC Image review:
    • File:Pele HVO.JPG: this photo of a copyrighted painting does not seem to serve a purpose other than to show a depiction of a deity (decoration). None of the text in the article talks of how the goddess is depicted in the painting nor does the painting help a reader to understand more than what the article's text have already stated. Principally the image fails NFCC criterion 8 and 1.
All other images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, not a big problem to remove that oO. ResMar 13:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. ResMar 13:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That part of the article was split into the list, so leaving a summary and a link makes sense, I think. ResMar 23:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as for above comment: that is the section that moved into its own article, so replacing it with a short summary and {{main}} template makes sense, I think. It used to be at the start, however, but now sits right before the link in the "see also" section, but not sure how to improve it, except perhaps remove the List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain from See Also since it it is adjacent. Or keep as it is.
I liked the Pele picture, but there are certainly enough other pictures, and this focus is on the science. Not sure about copyright status, since it is on display in a facility of the U.S. Federal Government. The link on the File: page www.arthurjohnsen.com to the author does not work for me. Anyway, not relevant to the nom since it is off - we can work on it for the other use.
Also note the handle server is back up again. Not sure if we need to change all those links back to e.g. hdl.handle.net/10524/170. I actually preferred the pdf direct links, but the hdl ones got to a shorter html page that gives the summary info, and was supposed to not change like the pdf ones did a few months ago.
I think to be safe it's best to use the static handles, if the names change again then there will be a big scuffle over broken links. Now that they work again (yay!) I've gone and re-inserted them. ResMar 23:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only nit from my review last time was adding National Park links to the template, which I just did myself. So ready to go in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One issue: I can't find a single peer-reviewed publication supporting the section entitled, Crack and magma theory, though my (google scholar) search was admittedly cursory. However, unless a peer-reviewed publication is found, the section should be removed per WP:UNDUE and also because the work of these two scientists will not have been scrutinized by the scientific community. (Note that conference abstracts are generally not peer-reviewed in the Earth Sciences, and certainly never see the scrutiny that a major journal article does. Awickert (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll blow up 5k of content. ResMar 22:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blowing up content is superior to publishing a misrepresentation. I will try to do a more thorough search on this but am about to leave on a business trip. It may well be more accepted than it seems... Google scholar is really good and I am happy to send you any journal article that you don't have access to. Awickert (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Rather not deal with it, as it's one of many alternate theories, anyway. ResMar 22:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same comment goes for the Other challenges section: not a single quality peer-reviewed source is cited here. While I'm sure that valid criticism does exist, we can't go ahead and cite everyone's online-published criticism. Some of the section, however, probably could be re-cited to more reliable sources for science. (I understand that mantleplumes.org has some manner of limited peer-review, but it is certainly below the caliber of the standard journals.) Awickert (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mistake me for someone that has access to those kinds of resources. Same here as above (if you're willing to save the content, be my guest, otherwise it's gone). ResMar 22:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note for ResMar: I'm leaving this open, in spite of several statements from you that you don't have access to the kinds of sources required, because Awickert appears willing to work on addressing the issues and supplying those sources, but please note that WP:WIAFA states: "... it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ..." A representative survey of relevant literatue and high-quality sources on science articles include peer-reviewed journal sources; writing an FA without access to such sources might necessitate collaboration in the future with someone who does have access to the kinds of sources required by WP:WIAFA. Being kinder to reviewers who offer to help is always a good strategy :) FACs are not promoted based on a tally of support declarations: a content expert has unresolved concerns; please work with Awickert to resolve the remaining concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm stuck between WP:UNDUE and the completion criterea, basically. Nice...ResMar 22:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will give you journal articles. I don't think that mantleplumes.org is necessarily bad, but I do think that there should be more comprehensive and authoritative sourcing for a section that aims to present issues with the scientific mainstream. Awickert (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awd, if you're on a buisness trip this jepordizes the article's chances of passing. Yes, I'm impatient, doing this a fourth time will drive me mad. I'm unsure of wether to get rid of it or wait for something to happen. I think maybe I'll email him a set of articles and see if he can't JSTOr them for me...ResMar 22:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Starting some work on it tonight (back at the hotel); I'll ask Sandy to leave it open. (As a side note, JSTOR is not the only journal source (or even a major one I use), but this is a technicality. Awickert (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comprehensibility: Comments inserted in brackets. "A detailed analysis of the topography and geoid of the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain reveals that while [what is?] high near the hotspot, local [rmv "local" as unnecessary] elevation falls with distance, but most severely between the Murray and Molokaʻi fracture zones." Suggested rewording: A detailed topographic analysis of the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain reveals the hotspot is the center of a topographic high, and that elevation falls with distance from the hotspot. The most rapid decrease in elevation occurs between the Murray and Molokaʻi fracture zones. (And then talk about geoid)
  • Topography and geoid: Actually, this whole section could use some work. I think that it is trying to talk about dynamic topography, but the wording leaves a lot of things unclear. Awickert (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is written to the source. What the source says, I write. I can't write any further or I would violate more stuff, nor can I find anything more detailed after a search. ResMar 22:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been an attempt at writing to the source, but it doesn't. The source doesn't mention tectonic uplift while the Wikipedia article does. The article by Pal Wessel instead discusses thermally-driven uplift and dynamic uplift (defined as uplift driven by density variations in the mantle that deflect free surfaces and phase-change interfaces). I'm happy to take a harder look at the article and try to make the paragraph better, so long as I'm not stepping on your toes. In particular "dynamic reason" doesn't say a whole lot to someone who doesn't know about geodynamics (and is somewhat ambiguous to me as well). Awickert (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my best (and actually read the pages on topography, geoids, and fracture zones) to reword it for clarity. Hope it's better. ResMar 19:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eruption frequency and scale: the spacing of volcanoes also has to do with the mechanical properties of the crust or lithosphere; I also can't find how the sources cited connect this to volcanism. If this isn't just about my searching skills, this would be WP:SYNTH. However, I'm happy to send those interested in this the primary sources on volcanic rock volumes discussed in the mantleplumes.org article. Awickert (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
? Please elaborate. ResMar 22:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't seem to say that the spacing of volcanoes has anything to do with the eruption volumes, so that would be WP:SYNTH. However, the more conclusive information about eruption volumes does show a trend in increasing amounts of volcanism, and very nicely at that, so I think that this info should be the focus of this section. Awickert (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chort. But it's pretty obvious...ResMar 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed so as to state that the distance increases with distance, implying but not stating eruption frequency. ResMar 23:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll look into this too. It's not actually so obvious to me; I imagine (but don't know) that distance between volcanic vents would have something to do with the mechanical properties of the lithosphere. I'll get to reading. Awickert (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, you can't honestly be raising standards about sources. Now I realize that some people are privileged enough to be able to write everything from journals and publications, but I'm not, nor will I ever be most likely; I have extremely limited access to "immensely reliable" resources, and mantleplumes is as high as I can manage. I'm sure JSTOR means you can virtually write entire articles from text resources. I don't have JSTOR. And am not willing to spend money on buying all sorts of useless memberships for Wikipedia. ResMar 22:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to send you whatever you need via email. I always thought that the bar, or at least the golden bar, was peer-reviewed journal articles. I really just want to make sure that this article is not skewed via selection bias towards what is written in freely-available sources. Awickert (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you don't have anything else, it's the best I can manage. Asking someone else to go around scraping refs togethor for hours isn't something I can do everyday, either. ResMar 00:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see how using mantleplumes is "bad" either. I presents a nice little list of arguments. I hate digging through piles and piles of abstracts finding this stuff, and mantleplumes is a high-quality source by me. Sure, I can bloat the article with a bunch of "verifiable" journal articles (I can't even comprehend most of them), but mantleplumes is a high quality source and stands up to it. Sure, there's better stuff, but the fact that it exists doesn't mean that it has to be added. I'd rather use one good source for 20 things then 20 "peer-reviewed" sources for the same exact thing. ResMar 22:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The mantleplumes source has only been cited 3 times, and never by an article in a mainstay Earth Science journal, making it almost certainly undue weight. I don't mean to get down on you - the article is by and large excellent. There are just some technical points and some academic-resource-availability things that are important. One issue with freely-availible smaller journaley things like mantleplumes is that they can be used as a soapbox by scientists to throw hypotheses around. That doesn't mean that there isn't lots of good info there, but it is necessary to watch one's step.
Mainstay peer-reviewed publication isn't something I can manage consistantly, if at all. ResMar 00:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point here: you can go to something as straightforward as Google Scholar, and see how many times that the article has been cited, and see where. It doesn't even require reading of the citations. Awickert (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you're really interested in getting this to FA. I am just interested in making sure that Wikipedia FA's adequately represent the state of the science. And like I said, much of the work here is already good, so you can feel very proud of yourself for that. Awickert (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, see, I don't like bulking pages up with extra refs like that, and it's very reliably referenced. (I looked at this again, I'm moving and my Internet was out for a couple of days, and I see I got a bit irked...sorry about that...) ResMar 00:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about "bulking up with extra refs" - I wouldn't bother you about the sourcing unless I was afraid for the factual accuracy. But let's cut this line of conversation off (or redirect it) before it becomes a dramafest in a public place. The bottom line is that I will help you get mainstream sources, I will help you make some changes based on them, and that (I hope) the article will end up better for it in the end. Unfortunately, you'll need to bear with me during a rather hectic week. Awickert (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm not feeling well today so unfortunatly it must wait another day. (headache...) ResMar 21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all been handled to the best of my abilites. ResMar 22:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Awd is away as far as I understand, and won't return to active editing until Jan 11th. As such, only he has access to all the secured JSTOR PDFs and the like, and there is nothing I can do to address his comment about balancing the refs in the section on opposition. Dunno how much patience the FAC people have (I'm guessing not much), but I definetly don't want to see a fourth reiteration of this, and the article has quite a few support votes (currently, 5 of 'em) standing already. ResMar 22:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's somewhat here, just a little late at night. I'm going to work on it. Awickert (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[2] 21:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
See my note above; it is kind of Awickert to lend his expertise and offer to forward journal articles, but high-quality reliable sources are a necessity for FA; writing a science FA without access to journal articles is difficult to impossible, so please work with Awickert to resolve the remaining issues, which he has generously agreed to work on. "Quite a few support votes" do not get FACs passed when a content expert has outstanding concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Dave (talk)

This article shows promise, but does have some issues. Once these are resolved I'll be happy to support. Dave (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Note: Some of these items are pasted from a review I started a couple of weeks ago in a sandbox. Some of these items may have already been addressed[reply]

  • Sources
    • Using the linkchecker [3], several are missing an accessdate. The links to tamu.edu are showing as dead, hopefully that's a temporary thing.
  • Lead
    • and require a completely different mechanism for maintaining volcanic activity." This clause is a little rough, to me it leaves the question unanswered, "and that other mechanism is what"? Maybe cut out, or reword?
  • Wilson's theory (I'd truncate the section name, I like them short)
    • In the section titled Wilson's theory you have the words "it is thought". Did Wilson think this? If so, I'd say "Wilson theorized..." If this is not part of Wilson's theory this should be clarified due to the section title. I'd state something like "other scientists have suggested" Similar for "Many geophysicists", as it's in the section "Wilson's theory" was Wilson among those geophysicists? or is this geophysicists who built upon Wilson's theory?
  • "get"
    • I try to avoid the word get in professional writings. From my volunteer work with people taking ESL (English as a Second Language) classes, I can tell you get is difficult word to translate or explain. In the U.S. we abuse this word, for example "get me a beer" (get = bring) to "I want to get away" (get = escape) to "He gets down on the dance floor" (get = is talented) and on and on.
  • Shallow hotspot theory
    • "moved the ridge away" is a little vague, was the ridge smoothed, or moved to a new location?
    • This section never definitively states who advocates this theory (i.e. does Wilson believe this is possible, or is this others who disagree with Wilson, etc.
  • Moving hotspot theory
    • I'd avoid the terms "long been" and "new research". If you know specific decades, I'd replace. with that.
      • I've replaced new reaserch with new evidence, however I'm keeping long been because it's in the context of the text. Exact dates have already been mentioned in the first section. ResMar 14:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "To test whether or not the bend was a result of a change in direction of the Pacific Plate, scientists analyzed" Who sponsored the scientists? (I.E. NASA, a university, National Geographic Magazine? etc?)
    • Suggested rewording: "Some groups that do not believe in plate tectonics (see also, flood geology)" -> "Groups advocating flood geology instead of plate tectonics have cited" .... I try to avoid the words "see also", in prose. IMO it's a distracting phrase.
  • Characteristics
    • This stray sentence doesn't add much value, I'd suggest expanding this to be a short paragraph: "The immense size of the Hawaiian hotspot and its creations is just one of many fascinating aspects."
  • Size
    • The height is sourced to geology.com. Per the about page for this site, the publisher is Dr. Hobart King, as such the citation is not properly credited.
Done. ResMar 02:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Movement
    • I have made some fixes to this section. you might check to see if they were appropriate and I didn't hose anything.
  • Eruption Frequency and scale
    • "0.01 cubic kilometers (0.0024 cu mi) of lava per year" Might it be better to use smaller units, (i.e cubit meters and cubic feed), with numbers this small (0.00024) it's difficult to gain perspective on how much this is. I don't know the answer, asking an honest question.
Honestly, this section has been changed so many times, I don't know what to do with it. People have said to make the units bigger and smaller so I've given up trying to fix it. I suppose it will land on a suitable compromise someday. Perhaps we should change it to "the hotspot spews an immense volume of lava"? Perhaps we can find a mountain or dwarf planet of equal volume in which to compare it? --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the joys of FAC reviews. You get 6 conflicting views of which way is the "right" way. =-) Of course, I'm right =-). Actually, I do think that an object size comparison would help. I still can't visualize how much this is, but understand if you've tried several ways and can't find a way to make it work. Dave (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lava
    • "In addition to the two types of lava, Hawaiian volcanoes produce unique volcanic forms, described below." I'm not sure this adds value, the word "predominately" makes it clear there are more than 2 types of lava, and the "described below" links to the next section. What you might do instead is swap the last two paragraphs in this section so the transition between sections is focused on lava.
Removed the stray sentance. ResMar 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eruption Phenomenon and Lava sections
    • I'm not sure how to handle these sections. This is very interesting, and all new to me. However, it is drifting from the topic at hand (Hawaiian Hotspot) and seems more appropriate for an article on Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Maybe abbreviate the content, especially in the last two paragraphs of the phenomenon section? Dave (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that lava is intricatly related; after all, it wouldn't be a hotspot if it wasn't volcanically active, would it? This setction deals with lavas of Hawaii, which is very much related to its source hotspot, and in fact is quite unique as compared to other lava types. Eruption phenomena, on the other hand...well...I'm hesitant to flat-out remove it. I think it certainly belongs somewhere, and as far as I see it this is the best place for it. Also, with the article shrinking (list split, sections collapsed, things getting challanged...), I really am feeling nervous about comprehensivity. ResMar 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was just some friendly advice. If you disagree, that's fine, it's not enough to withhold my support vote.Dave (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can argue over where this should go instead =). ResMar 23:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 01:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if the article needs another copyedit/MOS check. The first random section I looked at had four things that needed to be fixed, so I stopped there. Sasata (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hawaii_hotspot/archive3&oldid=1138462469"