Talk:Kamaʻehuakanaloa Seamount

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,[1][2] 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)

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)