Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive2

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:42, 19 May 2010 [1].

List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain

Featured list removal candidates/List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain/archive1

Nominator(s): ResMar 00:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, here it is, with Awk's blesssing none less (god knows how hard that is to get...), the second reitteration of this FLC. Be back in a few to check on the comments. ResMar 00:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"My blessing" comes because I largely rewrote it, resourced it, and fixed/clarified multiple issues with the dates. I support the factual accuracy of the content. Awickert (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(And as an aside, I don't think that my "blessing" is that hard to get in general) Awickert (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is indeed hard to get :) ResMar 22:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a dead link; please check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. ResMar 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The article provides a lot of information but suffers from a few problems.

it first becomes an atoll and then an atoll island According to the linked article it first becomes an atoll island then (after possible rejuvenation) an atoll.
Fixed. ResMar 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead mentions that the chain is divided into three sub-chains. Please, provide approximate ages for each sub-chain and specify geological periods when they formed.
~~To which state do Northwestern Hawaiian Islands belong? Hawaii? The article should mention this.~~
They're all US terrories of different sorts I believe, not belonging to the state. It's mentioned that it's a continuous protected area, I've added territory to the line on the protected area, or do you want a seperate line/source? ResMar 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Northwestern_Hawaiian_Islands article says that they are administrated by the State of Hawaii. Ruslik_Zero 10:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could have said that earlier :) ResMar 23:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Emperor Seamounts links to a different section of the same article. I think it should link to Hawaiian_–_Emperor_seamount_chain.~~
Changed the link. ResMar 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead mentions 2003 research that the bent was formed when the hotspot stopped moving in the Paleogene. I think a better review of literature is needed here as there are other papers that claim otherwise. (See, for instance, ref 6 in Hawaiian_–_Emperor_seamount_chain.) As currently written the article creates an impression that the issue was settled after 2003.
I don't quite see what you mean. The bend is not mentioned until the last paragraph, where it states scientists originally thought a but a study suggested b. The source doesn't say that the hotspot stopped moving but that it changed direction...uh can you point me to some of this newer "research"? Or should I add that the issue is still open to argument...? ResMar 02:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is 2009 work and it describes the theoretical mechanic by which the hotspot moves. ResMar 02:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source from 2003 says the hotspot was moving from 81 to 47 million years ago, then suddenly stopped moving at 47 million years. This source says that the hotspot did not move but the Pacific Plate changed direction of its motion. This issue is not settled. Ruslik_Zero 10:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I am interested why the seamounts are named after Japanese Emperors? Is it possible to provide a brief explanation?~~
A gap in the information most certainly. Nothing said in the sources, but I get a good feeling that it's an ad hoc decision. You got a bunch of seamounts near Japan - why not name them after Japanese Emperors? Also if you edit the article you'll notice I've left a hidden note after it - "hence the name Emperor seamounts." As such adding this to the sentance would change it from an observation to a statement, requiring refs I don't have. ResMar 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik_Zero 18:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that notes should be separated from references. So, the article should have separates Notes and References sections. Ruslik_Zero 15:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Sandman888 (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely dislike the layout of the age column. I'd prefer a table key + symbols for the different type of date estimations, leaving only an age and range ("59.6±0.6 ") in the column, plus a symbol indicating which estimation method is used.

That seems exceedingly complex... ResMar 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Northwestern Hawaiian islands" age doesn't sort properly.

Dammit didn't I spend forever grappling with that ><. ResMar 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Emperor seamounts" age doesn't sort properly.
"Hawaiian archipelago" I don't really understand most of the notation used in the age column. What does "18th Century–approx. 2 million years ago" mean?
ref 43 has a dot too many..

Highly observative of you :D ResMar 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ref 3 doesnt have a reference.
ref 46 & 47 shd have a accessdate for future use with waybackmachine if necessary.

Ay, I totally forgot about this o.O'. Right I'll get to it today. Had a rough testing week this week... ResMar 19:29, 16 May 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.