Jump to content

Talk:Arago hotspot

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


Viewers

[edit]

Viewer figures JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC) JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Arago hotspot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 16:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • "These are structures beneath Earth's crust which give rise to volcanoes". I know what you mean, but this could be read as meaning that hot spots are the only structures "which give rise to volcanoes". Is a tweak to the phraseology possible?
Tweaked something, dunno if it's clear enough now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Arago hotspot is responsible for the formation of Arago seamount and uplift on Rurutu". Should there be a 'the' in front of the second "Arago"? Should "seamount" have a capital M?
Standardized to uppercaps on seamount, but I don't think a "the" belongs here; it's a placename. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were constructed by Arago". For clarity, it may be worth changing to 'were constructed by the Arago hotspot'.
Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is also a name also used" Remove one "also".
Removed one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The upper mantle might be the source of the Arago hotspot, data on the presence of seismic velocity anomalies and their sign beneath Arago are contradictory." IMO this would read better as two sentences.
Split this sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and their sign beneath Arago" I am having to guess at what "their sign" means. Is it possible to clarify this a little?
Added two parentheses; do they work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "additional hotspots in the area are Tubuai, Taukina and Ngatemato" Are these the inactive ones? If so it may be helpful -> 'additional inactive hotspots in the area'.
The source did not specify this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this ratio in this case" Should (or could) the first "this" be 'the'?
Yes, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Likewise, HIMU xenoliths have been found in Tubuai just ahead of Arago seamount as well." You only need one of "Likewise" and "as well".
Dropped "Likewise". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rurutu already existed before" Before what?
Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which were speculating of what might have" -> 'who were speculating as to what ...'
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me for now. An excellent article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Replied and actioned the points raised so far. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for that. This is a fine piece of work, well up to GA standards and I am happy to promote it. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Recent addition

[edit]

Regarding this edit, I don't see where it says in the source that the literature may according use the term Rurutu hotspot where such unresolved issues are not felt relevant Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes perhaps better removed as I cant be bothered seeing if said in an editorial ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But your intervention did draw my attention to recent peer reviewed and non (as yet) peer reviewed work by the Chinese oceanographers that is fascinating for anyone whose has tried to disentangle the hotspot highway in the Pacific as it looks to me that the oldest part of the NW Pacific oceanic crust had something similar happen to it over 100 million years ago and those sub plumes from a super plume have been doing some complex things, and young chains might turn out to be old and intermittently detected as some suspectedChaseKiwi (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I actually saw that paper last year and already used it in the article. It doesn't seem to say anything about "Old Rurutu" referring to the Macdonald hotspot. Also, are the Wake seamounts and the West Pacific seamount province the same thing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An old Rurutu reference is found by clicking the wikilink as that takes you to the Macdonald hotspot article which has the reference. I had found another reference to name but removed from sandbox as article had nothing much to do with Arago hotspot so a diect reference would be clutter when this was already defined on Wikipedia. By the way this is a great article mainly by you I have noted. No the Wake seamounts are just one of the seamount chains in the West Pacific seamount province. I have only any knowledge of the West Pacific seamount province in a journey of discovery as I tried to improve other South Pacific seamount articles (not this one) as the Japanese, Chinese and Russians have done some interesting compositional work recently.ChaseKiwi (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS I will ensure the three duplicate references are properly sorted later today as missed that you had picked up article already and put it in source. ChaseKiwi (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some changes, mostly to match the citation format to the one already used and to remove references from the lead per WP:LEADCITE. It seemed to me that some of the information you added was already in the article, or I couldn't find it in the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, looks good, and again appreciate you sorting out my duplication and apologies for creating work for you.ChaseKiwi (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]