Wikipedia:Peer review/Honolulu Volcanics/archive1

Honolulu Volcanics[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to send it to GAN and it needs a bit of a touchover.

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I think it looks quite good, although I must admit the geology is hardly my area of expertise. From a layman's perspective, I might worry that it veers a little into jargon territory, and a simplified or streamlined version of certain paragraphs might serve the broader reader base. Ideally, the verbiage is accessible to students without being oversimplified for those with more knowledge in the area.174.0.180.176 (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Do you have some specific verbiage in mind when talking about "jargon"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course, happy to clarify. I personally (so take with a grain of salt) found that these sections read more as a text book than an encyclopedia:

Honolulu_Volcanics#Geography_and_geomorphology - I would think that a reader who is new to geography is likely to assume, like I did at first, that the capitalization signifies a snazzy corporation making scientific equipment for volcanologists. Yeah, I was very wrong. So when one is expecting a corporate history, it can be disconcerting to immediately encounter scientific terms densely packed right after the introduction. What might help here is some simplified introductory text (sourced but broad) to help clarify where on earth the reader is, a don't panic and lose interest sort of thing. The lede is nice and succinct, as it should be, but obviously contains little context or framing for the layman so that it remains brief. To the next point - overall I don't think you've done badly at all with avoiding jargon, as most of the technical phrases you mention have links the reader can go to if confused. Phraseology that might benefit with some clarification or framing in this section, however, might include seamounts, alignments in the context of vents, the nature of the waterfall in Kamanaiki Valley (lava or water?), flexural arch, etc. As another example, I have no idea what the technical definition of "volcanic series" would be. Is it a series of volcanoes fed by the same magma plume or pluton? It is a scatter of volcanoes in the same caldera, or simply volcanoes geographically connected to the same mountain range? That's just one case where a short simple explanation would help the layman not be frustrated or feel ignorant, while being educated at the same time.
Honolulu_Volcanics#Description_of_some_individual_vent_systems - I rather uselessly can't think of a replacement, but a shorter section title would be nice for wrapping purposes. Like the prior section, there are a few isolated word uses that are geologist specific, I would say: lava ponded, maars, etc. I do recognize, of course, that over-explaining technical terms does bloat the page, so overdoing it would be less than ideal.
Sections such as origins of the rocks have terms like "magma genesis." If this is a technical term, I might recommend you frame it with some context, and if it is just a fancy way of saying the "creation of the magma", I would find a less fancy way of saying it. It isn't a salacious term that readers are likely to google or research, especially not with all the other interesting goodies you have on the page, and so if they don't immediately know what it means, they'll ignore and forget it. I think that could be classified as a small shame, or a very small missed opportunity to educate or streamline. 174.0.180.176 (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. That "Volcanics" would sound like a corporation didn't come to my mind at all. I'll see to handle these problems tomorrow. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a few edits to clarify certain concepts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Resident Mario, Mark Miller, Awien, Hamiltonstone, and Iridia:Pinging some editors of other Hawaiian volcano articles in case they have opinions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Great start on a really interesting subject.

I wonder whether a lay reader, upon reading about a "series of volcanoes", might assume two things: that they are hills/ mountains; and that they are currently active. I am wondering whether the first sentence of the body text might need to indicate something like "a series of extinct volcanoes and other volcanic features, including craters, spatter cones …[etc from existing text]…" hamiltonstone (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems somewhat unlikely (in addition, the field probably is not entirely extinct). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking - I know this can happen in sciences - that the heavy initial reliance on two papers from 1970 is still giving the most reliable information about the subject. Do they remain regarded as the authoritative reference description?
Not on the ages of the volcanoes probably, but in my experience research on geomorphology is seldom updated so they should be fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"often the number of vents is stated to be 37" - this is followed by a single citation, to a 1970 paper (see above). I think if you are going to say in 2019 that there is a number often cited, you need to do one of two things - find a modern reference that says this is "often" the number, or provide three or more citations of any date, each of which gives the number 37. Alternatively, just drop the point.
Replaced with a more recent source; seems like many of the sources agree on the number (although I suspect that submarine vents are often discounted). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Some of the lava flows filled deep valleys cut into the older volcano" - what older volcano??
The Koolau volcano; added "Koolau". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just generally, paragraphs should begin with a self-contained sentence that flags the key topic of the paragraph and does not 'run on' from the previous para. See for example this [1]
"to alignments of the Koʻolau volcano" I don't know that a volcano has an alignment, and if it is singular, it can't have alignments plural. Do you mean the vents of the [older?] Koʻolau volcano? tricky paragraph. Same issue with "but the trend along the Koko and Tantalus Rifts is parallel to..." trend of what?
Reworded this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this section the term "vent" appears to be synonymous with "rift". However in the next section there's a sentence "Together with Kahauloa and Kalama all these vents form the Koko Rift". I think the whole section needs a bit more clarity about what it is that the article is describing. Can you offer photos or diagrams that indicate clearly what is meant by the two terms? It is perhaps revealing that, in contrast to many other technical terms in the article, neither of these has a wikilink.
Er, no, "vent" here is used for the individual sources of the volcanoes and "rift" for lines formed by aligned vents. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in geology: "Like other Hawaiian volcanoes it is a shield volcano" - can't tell which volcano this refers to.

if it means Ko'Olau, then need to say - and not confuse a volcano with the stratigraphy / geology of the Series.

Aye, Koʻolau it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The Honolulu Volcanics constitute a later volcanic stage[64] which in Hawaii is known as the rejuvenated stage[67] and as such are the third stage of a typical Hawaiian volcano". Whoa, we're getting pretty mixed up here. We were previously told this was a separate system. But now a "later" stage (of what?), and then it is the "third stage" (in which case what were stages 1 and 2 - what is the context here?). Also singular and plural are mixed in the sentence.
Reworded this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Other proposed mechanisms are a conductive heating of the lithosphere and ongoing upwelling in the mantle plume" If this means what I think it means, I think it should read "Other proposed causes of the eruptions of the Honolulu Volcanics are a conductive heating of the lithosphere or ongoing upwelling in the mantle plume". That is, the sentence needs greater clarity of subject and, if we are talking about causes plural, then presumably they are alternative explanations to each other, hence "or". But if any of my inferences are wrong, feel free to edit in other ways - just need more clarity.
Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the origin of the rocks - my distant memory of my geological studies are that understanding and analysis of deep-origin magmas / melts was cutting edge stuff in the 80s and presumably has developed - so this is a section where I feel cautious about using a 1970 source. But my memory may be wrong and happy to stand corrected.
It seems like most newer sources have little to say on the mechanisms of their origin and more on things like isotopes and the like which I haven't written much about as it's a bit too technical for a Wikipedia article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's all I have looked at for now. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamiltonstone: Thanks, actioned some of these issues. I've been looking for images but for some places (Ka'au crater in particular) there isn't much to go on. I am wondering whether some non-geology information such as on tourism, flora and fauna would be apropros in this article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the number of vents issue is still niggling. For example, the lede says 40 to 30, text says 30 to 40; commonest number 37, but then the articles own list has 41! I don't know the best way to handle it, but at the moment it would discourage the reader from thinking the information was reliable. I realise it depends a bit on the sources.
Ozawa et al. 2005 lists 32 vents and says "about 40". Part of the problem might be duplicate names in the list (which might be remedied by adding coordinates to the table to spot suspiciously close vents) or that sources are mindlessly restating earlier (incorrect sources). Given that submarine vents aren't covered, perhaps deemphasizing the exact number would work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the number is creating some difficulty. I reckon if Ozawa says "about 40", then that's what I would use in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Left it at "30-40". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
whether to include tourism flora fauna - depends on whether these things are talked about in the context of the Honolulu Volcanics - ie. whether is the subject something that is only referred to in context of geology, or is used mpore broadly? if more broadly then yes, include those topics.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, only on Ulupau and Kaau is there something on flora/fauna in the sources; perhaps because they were studied for their former crater lakes. Diamond Head and Koko Head might have tourism information somewhere else, but I don't really know how to spot reliable sources for Hawaiian tourism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe leave it as it is for now, don't add. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll probably make a pass in the future through the vent names to add coordinates and some more explanation, perhaps Kaau and Ulapau will receive more space then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Many of the erupted rocks have undergone various degrees of alteration" I'm wondering what kind of alteration are we talking about? My impression is that it cannot be conventional metamorphism. Can we describe what kind of alteration process(es) we are talking about here? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source does not specify, sadly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hazards - "A greater danger may emanate from high risk installations like nuclear power plants as the impact from a breach would be far-reaching". I note the source for this is 44 years old. Are there any nuclear power plants in Hawaii?? If not, then just delete this - it seems extraneous to the article topic anyway. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the installation of such plants has been discussed in the past; that's probably why . Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok - I deleted the phrase. it's not needed in that case. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial style question - why is defense technical author citation in all caps? looks very shouty.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamiltonstone:No particular reason, zapped it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Something's wrong with this sentence: "The military has also used some volcanic islands part of the Honolulu Volcanics". Grammar aside, not sure what is meant by "used" - it's a bit vague. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: hamiltonstone (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamiltonstone: Changed it; is it better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the source is seventy years old and the fact is not vital to the article. Unless the "use" somehow relates to the geological formations themselves, I would delete the sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it does a little to illustrate the importance of this volcanic field. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The system takes its name from Honolulu, capital of Hawaii and an important military base and tourist resort" I cannot begin to state how over simplified this explanation seems. Very unencyclopedic. Honolulu is not a part of the Joint Military Base of Hickam and Pearl Harbor which are miles away and Honolulu is not a resort. It is an entire city--Mark Miller (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck part of that sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]