Talk:Kemp Caldera

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kemp Caldera/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 11:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Mostly resolved

Beginning on this one. As a first note I believe the lead could be expanded. It could cover discovery, the larger seamount bank they are part of, and a bit more on location (south of SSI could be within their EEZ or in international waters) and therefore MPA status. CMD (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC) On prose, it's tricky to figure out what specific peak is being referred to at each point. I get the impression that both "seamount" and "volcano" are both used generically to refer to the entire dual-peaked lump of rock, which is a bit confusing. Locations are also given in reference to Kemp caldera or Kemp seamount, rather than the larger structure, which feels odd if they're part of the same volcano. Conceptually, it's a caldera-seamount pair and I use "seamount" only for the seamount pair. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC) There's a need then to tighten up the consistency of terminology throughout the article. For example, the first line is "Kemp Caldera and Kemp Seamount are two submarine volcanoes", but the article later says "The volcano consists of two submarine edifices, the Kemp Caldera proper to the west and Kemp Seamount to the east." The lead also refers to both as a singular "It". Wording such as "together with several other seamounts they form the Vysokaya Bank" seems to exclude the calderas. CMD (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Did the first, I don't think "Vysokaya Bank" was meant to include the later-discovered calderas. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC) What I'm trying to communicate is the current wording seems to exclude both the Kemp Caldera and the Adventure Caldera, due to the phrasing "other seamounts", given the article distinguishes between calderas and seamounts. CMD (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC) AH, OK. I've rectified that now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Leat et al. 2013 notes that Nelson Seamont is actually Nelson Seamonts, so probably better to refer to them in the plural. Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Seems odd to provide the depth from the surface for only one of the two peaks. Would it be reasonable to wp:calc the margin height to 900m below sea level? Given that 900m is rounded, I wouldn't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC) If the source approximates, it seems reasonable that we could here. Otherwise perhaps a wording tweak might help, wording such as "reaches a depth of 1,600 metres" is something I feel might not be understood the reference to the bottom of the cavity, but mistakenly to the depth of the overall structure. CMD (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Actually, we do already mention the depth of the caldera floor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC) I don't follow, isn't that what I quoted? To be clear, here I am also imagining how the topic may read to a broad audience, who may not be as intimately familiar with the relevant terminology. CMD (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Oy. Now I've implemented this point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC) In geology, it doesn't seem correct to say the volcanoes "feature" earthquakes. The source in question is grouping volcanoes and other tectonic activity. True, but we cannot specify that much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC) I don't understand this reply, it feels like the article is trying to be over-specific by linking all the effects directly to the volcanoes. Could you clarify? CMD (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC) It doesn't seem necessary to list areas of Antarctica/the southern ocean that are unrelated to the area in question. Mentioning the Australian-Antarctic ridge for example distracts from the more relevant East Scotia ridge. Yes, but it's still part of the general Antarctic area. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC) While there will be a distinction between the general biota of the Antarctic area and other areas, the biota within the Antarctic seas is not homogenous. The Linse et al. 2019 source even drawn direct faunal links between the East Scotia Ridge and the Kemp Caldera, something far less likely to be the case with the Australian Antarctic Ridge section surveyed, which is essentially on the opposite side of Antarctica. Especially given there's no map, and if the idea is to zoom in, it seems helpful to provide readers with a general understanding of what items are in the immediate area of Kemp. CMD (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC) The paragraph is not just about the biota. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC) The order of the second paragraph seems odd. The second sentence introduces the South Sandwich Arc, and so should occur before what is currently the first sentence. It could also be rewritten with more focus on Kemp, eg "Kemp lies at the southern end of the South Sandwich Arc, which includes the eleven..." Well, for this section I am beginning with the global aspects and as the paragraph progresses we zoom in to Kemp. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Caldera volume feels like it should be included in Geography alongside the other mentioned dimensions. Transferred. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC) The two mentions of hydrothermal vents in both paragraphs should be combined, and it should be noted that these are in addition to the hydrothermal vents found around Kemp. One focuses on the vents and the other on the biota, I think they work better that way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC) I can't see within the text how one sentence focuses on vents and one on biota. The wording, "Hydrothermal vents occur at the Australian-Antarctic Ridge and the East Scotia Ridge" and "Hydrothermal vents are found at Quest Caldera and Adventure Crater" is almost identical. CMD (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Ah yes, that's because one paragraph is about the wider region and the other about the local one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC) This comes back to the issue that the Geology text as written requires a bit of pre-existing knowledge, and is not as easily "understandable to an appropriately broad audience" as it might be. For example, unless a reader already has a good idea about where the Australian-Antarctic Ridge and the East Scotia Ridge are, they might not know whether Quest Caldera or Adventure Crater are part of these. CMD (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC) They aren't, but the key point here is that this paragraph describes the gology in general. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Why are the Vesicomyid clams mentioned in a separate paragraph to other vent-related animals? There is more information on them than on other aspects. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC) What do you mean by this? The text gives just a sentence, and the source itself seems to give far more prominence to its titular cocculinid limpets, calling them "perhaps the most astonishing" endemic taxon. CMD (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I read this incorrectly - the second mention is in a paragraph about the ecosystems and the first is about animals in general. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Ah. I think then that the second mention is redundant, as the source does not treat it as a separate ecosystem but as part of the wider hydrothermal vents ecosystem. The current setup has other redundancies as well, such as two mentions of Osedax species. A better organisation may be species by ecosystem, ie. a paragraph on vent ecosystems, which would include the "Numerous marine animals..." sentence along with Spinaxinus caldarium and Parathyasira dearborni, and then a seafloor/whale fall paragraph covering the remainder. This would also reduce the current misleading impression that the bivalve species are from the seafloor, not the vents. CMD (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC) That might be better, but I don't think it's a much better organization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Not sure if governance fits within Biology, but I understand the reasoning. Yeah, that was more a "no overly short sections" issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC) It does seem like there should be more to say on geochemistry from a quick glance at the sources, but I'll have to come back for another look later. Would be interested in thoughts on the above points in the meantime. Best, CMD (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC) User:Chipmunkdavis, mostly done. I am wary of adding more on the geochemistry as it's intricate even for a Wikipedia article. I've expanded the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Geochemistry seems roughly in a similar range to other seamount FA/GAs, so I will go with your judgement on that. Other replies above. CMD (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Collapsed above, as it's a lot of text that is mostly dealt with. I'm satisfied with GA criteria 2-5. For 6 (images) I might suggest a map, but I'm not going to hold the nomination on that. From the above, there seem to be two areas of prose that we disagree on, the two paragraphs of geology, and some organisation within Biology. For Biology, I continue to think some shifts need to happen. For example, the second paragraph currently goes from vent-related species to seafloor/whale related-species and then back to vent-related species and then to whale-related species again. I'm not wedded to my suggested rearrangement, but I do feel it is one method that would reduce the instances of repetition noted above. For geology, I may ask for a second opinion if you're amenable, purely on understandability to a broad audience. CMD (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis, a second opinion seems eminently reasonable to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

• Partially delivering on second opinion. I think the geology section is sufficiently understandable and it doesn't appear to use unnecessary jargon, except "white smoker" which perhaps be clarified a bit that it is a type of hydrothermal vent. I'm also confused by "Volcanic activity in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean has been known since the 19th century." Does that mean that there was none before 19th century or it wasn't observed by humans? Either way, what is the importance to this article? I have no opinion on the biology section. (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Buidhe:Added an explanation and rewrote that sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Also going to try to contribute to a second opinion. I made some edits to see if I could rectify the issues, which I'll try to explain here in relation to those conflicts. I am rather inexperienced with reviewing, and in retrospect, may have misunderstood the relationship between the more fluid regular cycle of editing and what seems to be a rigid style of GAN editing, so I apologize if my edits were improper. I approached most of the edits as an average reader to try to make everything as understandable as possible. Anyways I'll summarize them now.

0. Edits to lead: moved discovery phrase out of middle of hydrothermal vent thing to compound sentence at the end. Altered in-article explanation of white smoker vent. In retrospect this moving to parentheses is probably one of the more objectionable changes, so any reversion of this back to the note is fine by me if you guys agree.

1. Geography and geomorphology: changed sentence about discovery and first sampling. Not opposed to moving mention of first sample to following sentence about further sampling. However, what is sampling? A link or brief explanation, or even just an adjective before sampling would help. Picky thing about ref 9, but not essential: is using the same reference three words apart necessary? The lack of a map to illustrate what the whole thing looks like is pretty brutal, but I agree that holding the nomination on that is maybe excessive. The prose does a good job explaining it, although it is necessarily complex. Could a different word be used instead of sill? Word choice change is not essential though.

2. Geology (2 paragraphs): the conflict here seemed to be about how to "zoom in" on Kemp Caldera from a greater perspective of Antarctic volcanism. Both you guys seemed to want to do the same thing, but the prose seemed to obstruct it a little bit. Kept the mention of the other hydrothermal vents in the arc for local context, feel its okay, but it did need that explicit clarification that those vents were nearby. Focused in a bit, as CMD said, in sentence about the arc. Hope it's acceptable.

2-1. Geochemistry and activity: moved one reference that created a disruptive break in how the first sentence mentally read. Tried to clarify the "torn down by icebergs" sentence with a link to seabed gouging, which I think is what was meant. If it isn't what is meant, my bad. Added "relatively" to "young."

3. Biology (well, ecology now): section name change feels justified, as it deals pretty specifically the relation between the article subject (the specific environment) and the organisms. Prose changes which seem minor and acceptable. I agree with CMD, that the mention of the Vesicomyid clams in the third paragraph is redundant (just move the reference to the comma after the mention in the second). I don't know if the distinct vent/whale fall division is necessary, the way the three paragraphs are currently organized seems alright. It seems to me to go 1: sort of an overview? (maybe a little jumbly and not as tightly centered, but acceptable) 2: Species on the vents, then, species on the surrounding seafloor, then, mentions of new species in the collective area of Kemp Caldera, not just the caldera. 3: Whale fall communities, possible connection of ecological development. Fine by me, but if you did want to clean up paragraph one, you could move the 9 communities fact out of the third.

3-1. Conservation: split this bit off, to create a clearer break between the three preceding paragraphs which share more in common, and the paragraph dealing with what I think could be summarized as conservation.

I hope this helps resolve any issues. Once again, sorry if I erred in doing some edits myself. Also, pinging @Chipmunkdavis: and @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, as this page has been dormant for two months (sorry for the pun, low-hanging fruit, I know). Starkenborgher (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have adjusted the second vesicomyid sentence. My understanding of Starkenborgher's assessment was that this was their only significant issue with the Ecology section. Alongside buidhe having provided an opinion on the geology section (thanks very much to both), I am passing this now. CMD (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)