Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mauna Kea/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:34, 9 November 2010 [1].

Mauna Kea[edit]

Mauna Kea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ResMar, Iridia, Hamiltonstone

Hello again. Today I present to you Mauna Kea, a dormant Hawaiian volcano that is a signifigant ecological zone, a climber magnet, a major astronomical center, and by the count of dry elevation, higher then Mount Everest. It's taken peer reviews from 3 editors, some insightful comments from several others, and a nice clean ce by Malleus Fatuorum. So, have at it! ResMar 02:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

restart Note that I left the last declaration as it was added after the article had been greatly redone. I can't make heads or tails of what happened before that. Karanacs (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I've just been through the entire thing with a monocle and fixed a bunch of stuff. WP:ENDASH, WP:CAPTION, etc. and other copy edits. I removed an easter-egg wikilink here in a decidedly inelegant fashion, so someone might want to rework that. Basically, don't make the link go somewhere completely unexpected. I also changed instances of "height" and "altitude" to "elevation" since that is the term normally used for geographic height. Anyhoo, I think it's up to par now. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Just one query on ref 21, which seems an odd choice of source for the statement that "Mauna Kea is home to Lake Waiau, one of the few permanent lakes in Hawaii and the highest lake in the Pacific Basin." Most of this factual information does not appear on the link page. Apart from this, the sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. That source has been removed, and a reliable source, actually cited on that webpage, has been located as source for key claim; the part of the sentence in the WP article that wasn't covered by the new source has been removed. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Round 2: this time with sticky comments =) ResMar 01:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image comments:Most look okey File:SaddleLele.JPG may have Freedom of panorama issues depending on it's age and wether we consider it an artwork or not. File:Mauna Kea observatory.jpg is making me paranoid since the flickr comment is odly phrased for someone who took the photo. On the other hand the metadata mataches the other pics in the photostream as does the location so it should be okey.©Geni 02:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response re File:SaddleLele.JPG. My understanding is that there is no FoP in the United States. I would not have thought this would be a work of art - "art" would arise through distinct creative attributes of the example of an object, rather than the creation of an object per se. To give another example, a church pew would not be a work of art per se - only particular designs that decorated it, or caused it to be constructed in a unique way, would be. The other possibility is to treat the altar as a building, in which case it can be photographed under US Law: See Gorman, R.A.: Copyright law, 2nd ed., U.S. Federal Judicial Center, June 19, 2006, pp. 48, 166. accessed 2010-10-20. In all, I would say this photo is fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't an artwork it would be building so no FOP issues. Since I doubt it has a copyright notice or was ever registered it would be fine if the thing was built before 1989.©Geni 22:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping Jappalang (talk · contribs) or Elcobbola (talk · contribs) or another image reviewer for another opinion on the images; copyright law deals with authorship, not whether something is a work or art. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take advice Sandy, but I'm inclined only to bother the experienced reviewers for thorny cases. Unless anyone is disputing my suggestion that this is not a work of art, there is no image issue. I'm not sure what you mean about copyright law not being about "whether something is a work or art". Whether or not something is a work of art is crucial to whether the US Copyright Act applies, and therefore whether this photograph is free use or not. What am I missing? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is a stuffed animal a work of art? Many would say not, but it can still be subject to copyright by the author. If a monkey creates a work of art, can it be copyrighted? No, it lacks "authorship". In the context of the conversation above, copyright deals with "authorship", not the subjective determination of whether something is "art". The image is marked as needing review on Commons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get what the argument is. It is a photograph of what is apparently a centuries old Hawaiian lele, and the author of the photo released it under a free license. What's the big deal? ResMar 04:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err in the relivant area of copyright "is it a work of art or a building?" is a valid question. If we treat it as a building then there is nothing further to worry about. If we treat it as a work of art we need to know it's age and potenialy if it has a copyright right notice/ had it's copyright registered and renewed.©Geni 15:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic ("if we treat it as ... if we treat it as") reinforces the point, that whether we treat something as art is subjective, hence the point of "authorship". Your final clause speaks to the authorship issue that needs to be evaluated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need to conduct carbon tests to see if the centuries old sacrificial alter really is centuries old. Just don't get what the argument here is, and I'm sure whatever Ancient Hawaiian that built the alter, he sure hell didn't try to renew its copyright. And I rather don't see evidence of recent construction. Am I missing something o_O. ResMar 22:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have now looked at this more carefully. There are two main reliable sources summarising data about the prehistory and history of the mountain: this and this (both cited in the existing text). Neither source mentions lele / altars. Both mention "shrines", but the descriptions of these do not resemble the object in the photo. I found a photo of a contemporary lele online here which obviously bears no resemblance to the object in the photograph. My first conclusion: we have no reliable evidence to describe this image as a lele, and I have amended this both here and at Commons. However, there appears no reason to question that the photograph does portray one of the structures that is reported in the archaeological surveys of the mountain: the most likely candidate in my mind is one of the ten "stone markers / memorials" reported in the second of the above sources at p. 5-20. However we cannot be certain. What we can be certain of, based on the sources, is that this structure is prehistoric (ie. pre 'contact') in origin. There is therefore absolutely no doubt that this image is free. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as previously (mainly focusing on prose and comprehensiveness). Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this in the lead:

  • ... its erupted lavas are more viscous, and have created a steeper profile ...

"Erupted" and "have created" are past tense; how can they be "are"? But changing it to "were" isn't correct either, because the sentence seems to refer to ongoing eruptions. I really don't know what this phrase means or how to fix it. Can someone tell us what this is saying, so we can understand how to fix it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded it. "Erupted lavas" was redundant too. --Avenue (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have a couple of concerns:
Extended content
 
  • While the article covers the negative ecological effects of European settlement, it takes a much rosier view of native Hawaiian impacts; e.g. "its upper slopes [...] provided them with vegetation and bird life" and "the lower koa–ʻōhiʻa forest gave the natives wood for canoes and ornate bird feathers for decoration." This does not begin to hint at what I gather was the massive ecological destruction caused by prehistoric Polynesians in Hawaii, including drastic changes to the makeup of lowland forest and the extinction of roughly half the existing bird species. See e.g. The Impact of the Prehistoric Polynesians on the Hawaiian Ecosystem, by Patrick V. Kirch, 1982. These changes must have greatly affected the ecology of Mauna Kea.
Good catch: I had assumed otherwise =) ResMar 02:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. ResMar 03:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This addition follows the source (particularly its structure) too closely, and needs to be reworked to avoid plagiarism-- basically, a few wording changes were made to the abstract. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had also hoped we could find and incorporate some sources relating to Polynesian impacts on the ecology of Mauna Kea itself, not just Hawaii in general. --Avenue (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When is the plagiarism going to be cleaned up? If not soon, could we comment it out in the meantime? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 22:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please have someone else look at it (I'm not a plagiarism expert)-- the structure still follows that of the source very closely, with word juggling. See Dispatch: Let's get serious about plagiarism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely revised this para, introduced a new (more recent) source, eliminated one that turned out to be a bit peripheral, and corrected a couple of facts. Hope this para will be OK now. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the article only mentions Mauna Kea once, and in passing reference. Considering the island was one big forest at the time, I think 'tis is enough. ResMar 18:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article covers the evolution of Mauna Kea's volcanism over time, and how its lavas overlap neighbouring volcanoes, but doesn't seem to give any perspective on how Mauna Kea fits into the broader pattern of Hawaiian volcanism, e.g. the twin tracks trending ESE over time.
I figured that was better suited for Hawaii hotspot. Will do. ResMar 02:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Any issues with the source? It's well cited, if exceptionally conservatively leaning. Writing a whole article on it is a no-no, but a half a para seems ok. ResMar 02:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have no concerns about the source, and I agree the topic only needs brief coverage here. I do wonder if it might fit better into the Geology section than History, e.g. before the paragraph starting "Lava flows from Mauna Kea overlapped ...". I think it would help the reader understand the other text and maps there. --Avenue (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh...ResMar 18:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 18:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind ResMar, but I was concerned about some issues (see talk page) and have revised that para once more. Basically, the overall explanation is the same, but I've removed the historical information, and dimished reliance on MantlePlumes.org, which I thought may present some neutrality issues.hamiltonstone (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Avenue (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. much better than before. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • It'd be nice in the lede if you said how much taller Mauna Kea was than Mount Everest
      • This was in the lead but was eliminated because we needed to make it more concise, and this is already mentioned in the infobox and the body. ResMar 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, actually, nowhere in the article does it say how much taller Mauna Kea is than Everest. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great, that means it was deleted somewhere. ... ResMar 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • (ec) Unfortunately, it may not be that simple. Here's the main source text on the subject (National Geographic Society): "The summit of Mount Everest, at 29,035 feet (8,850 meters), is the highest point on Earth. The tallest mountain measured from top to bottom is Mauna Kea, an inactive volcano on the island of Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean. Measured from the base, Mauna Kea stands 33,474 feet (10,203 meters) tall, though it only rises 13,796 feet (4,205 meters) above the sea." Note that, while it states the height of Mount Everest, it does not describe this as its height "from the base", as is the case with Mauna Kea. As a consequence, while the source allows us to describe Mauna Kea as the tallest mountain measured from top to bootm, it does not permit us to compare the two statistics and report the difference. Hence the way the text is currently written. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, if you have the figure for how tall Mauna Kea is from its base, and the height of Everest from its base, you can just put in the difference yourself. That would qualify under a routine calculation, which is perfectly fine. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, but my point is that the source doesn't give a height for Everest "from its base", only a height above sea level. Unless someone finds a source that actually refers to the "base" of everest, then I don't think we're comparing apples with apples, so the calculation becomes a subjective or unreliable one. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Mauna Kea last erupted 6,000 to 4,000 years ago." - the sentence seems awkwardly on its own.
      • Again, we shortened it for length concerns. I don't see what to add here. ResMar 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "is one of the best sites in the world " - best seems to be a rather opinionated word to be in a featured article. IDK, I think that sentence could be better worded, or at least say who considered it the best.
      • But it is. This is widely regarded to be one of the best if not the best site in the world: while others are higher, the Mauna Kea site is more stable and better positioned (both in the astronomical and accessible context). ResMar 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • But you can't call something the best. That's inserting POV. If you say who considers it the best, then that's more encyclopediac. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is considered in the field of observational astronomy to be one of the world's best sites. This isn't a point of any contention: that's the word astronomers use to describe the site, eg. this. (For background, the only other ones that compare are in Chile, and, theoretically, in Antarctica. Canary Is are close but get dust from the Sahara). I'll add more site-testing citations down in the relevant section. Iridia (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec)Hurricane, this is one of those cases where one is saying plain English what is a generally held view. The lead says "one of the best", not "the best". There are three cites to the relevant sentence in the body text. Here are examples of what references say:
            • "Mauna Kea is probably one of the most significant cultural and astronomical sites in the world." (executive summary, MK Comprehensive Management Plan) [2]
            • "Hawaii is Earth's connecting point to the rest of the Universe. The summit of Mauna Kea on the Island of Hawaii hosts the world's largest astronomical observatory, ...Mauna Kea is unique as an astronomical observing site. The atmosphere above the mountain is extremely dry -- which is important in measuring infrared and submillimeter radiation from celestial sources - and cloud-free, so that the proportion of clear nights is among the highest in the world. The exceptional stability of the atmosphere above Mauna Kea permits more detailed studies than are possible elsewhere, ... Starting in the 1960s, the UH Institute for Astronomy provided the scientific impetus for the development of Mauna Kea into the world's premier site for ground-based astronomical observatories..." (University of Hawaii website) [3]
            • "Armed with an array of cameras and video recorders, amateurs Masao Kinoshita, Takuya Maruyama and Toru Sagayama chose to observe the 1997 Leonids from one of the world's best astronomical viewing sites: Mauna Kea, Hawaii at 3500 m elevation..." (NASA Science News) [4]
            • "The world’s finest locations for a stable atmosphere are mountain top observatories, located above frequently occurring temperature inversion layers, where the prevailing winds have crossed many miles of ocean. Sites such as these (La Palma, Tenerife, Hawaii, Paranal etc) frequently enjoy superb seeing much of the year" (Cloudy Nights article) (may not be RS) [5]
            • "The large optical-infrared telescope “Subaru” is located on the summit of Mauna Kea in Hawaii, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The reason why Subaru is located in such an isolated environment, high atop a mountain 4,200 m above sea level, is that the summit offers incomparable advantages for astronomical observation in terms of the high number of clear nights throughout the year and transparency of the atmosphere because of low humidity. The summit of Mauna Kea is famous as an observation site that satisfies astronomical requirements. It is no wonder that there are various telescopes there from all over the world." (Nikon website - they are the makers of one of the summits telescopes) [6]
            • " The JCMT is situated at the summit of Mauna Kea, a dormant volcano on the island of Hawaii, at an altitude of 4092m above sea level. This is one of the best astronomical observing sites in the world, partly because the atmosphere above Hawaii is particularly stable and unpolluted." (University of Lethbridge Institute for Sapce Imaging Science) [7]
            • "Mauna Kea...was just starting to demonstrate its credentials as a superb astronomical site. Among other things, the MK planetary patrol telescope was giving the best crop of planetary pictures..." (ESO Workshop on Site Testing for Future Large Telescopes, La Silla, 4-6 October 1983: proceedings, Volume 1983)
            • "Mauna Kea's elevation and location make it one of the very best astronomical observing sites on the surface of the Earth" (Guidebook for the scientific traveler: visiting astronomy and space By Duane S. Nickell)
          • ...and so on and so on. To qualify the phrase with "X says" would be to imply a defined scope to the opinion that simply doesn't exist. Everyone who knows anything about the subject would agree with the statement. Ask them which one is the best - well, then you would get a debate, probably between MK and Cerro Paranal - which is why the article doesn't say "the" best :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • IDK. I won't argue too much more, but here's an analogy from my world (hurricane articles). Some sources say Hurricane Katrina was the worst to hit the USA, but "worst" is POV-based, and it is much more encyclopediac to say "most damaging". Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, I see your point now. I was probably missing it due to my over-familiarity with the term being applied to the site. What that sentence actually needs to do is explain that given Mauna Kea's particular combination of environmental factors, the evaluation process that astronomers use when deciding where to site observatories classes it as one of the world's "best" places. Which means that we need an article on site testing. Lo, a stub will appear! Iridia (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • version-in-progress is here if anyone wants to see; will have references in it shortly. Iridia (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the creation of an access road in 1964, thirteen telescopes funded by eleven countries have been constructed at the summit, conducting many research projects, and comprising the largest facility of its class in the world.
      • Careful with the wording. At first it seems like the subject is the access road, then the telescopes, then the countries, and then the countries again. The current wording implies the telescopes conducted the research projects. Going off my previous comment ("is one of the best sites in the world"), perhaps this section of the lede could be rewritten for better flow.
        • Paragraph rewritten. Please see if that now reads better. Iridia (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It is the highest point in the state of Hawaii, and makes Hawaiʻi the second highest island in the world."
      • Two things. First, that's unsourced, and second, it'd be nice to have listed what the highest is (since I'm sure many are curious).
        • Removed island height, sourced point height. ResMar 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks ResMar. Hurricane and others: I don't like the removal of the "second highest island in the world" bit. This is one of the most notable features of Mauna Kea. It is frustrating that there isn't a really outstanding source for this claim, but I don't believe it is disputed or in doubt (the highest being Puncak Jaya in the Indonesian section of the island of New Guinea). The best source I have at present is Peakbaggers World Island High Points above 2000 meters. If that is acceptable, we can re-insert. Views? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which erupted between 250 and 70–65 ka." - I clicked on the link provided for ka, but that merely said "is a unit of time equal to one thousand (103) years." Does that mean it erupted for 70,000 years, or that it erupted 70,000 years ago? Clarification would be nice.
      • I agree that "ka" is not intuitive for a lay person, and the link isn't as helpful as we needed it to be. Actually, a different way of expressing years had already been used in this WP article, so I changed this to "years ago" (and added zeroes as required). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Together with volcanic ridges, these give the summit a "bumpy" shape, making Mauna Kea less well defined than other Hawaiian volcanoes." - again, needs a source. And what is the source of the quote? Did someone prominent call it bumpy? It's not that POV of a word, fwiw.
      • Sentence deleted. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you work something out? This is rather one of Mauna Kea's most important characteristics. Like, majorly so. ResMar 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Suggest raising it on article talk page - it wasn't in the sources I consulted, and as it now stands, the FAC concern is addressed. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Mauna Kea has seen no historic eruptions; the volcano's last eruption was about 4,600 years ago." - would you reword so you don't have "eruption" used twice in five words?
    • "The first foreigner to arrive at Hawaiʻi was James Cook, in 1778." - technically, the Ancient Hawaiians were foreigners when they arrived. Perhaps "first westerner" or something like that?
      • By that time they were the natives; considering there were no humans on the island before them, you can't technically call them foreigners, because, foreigners to who? ResMar 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • But wouldn't foreigners also include people from, say, Oahu and Maui? I just find the wording subpar, that's it. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know. Foreigner didn't bother me, though I agree it was an unusual choice. I don't want to use "European" because by this time (late 18th century), it would also be possible for Americans to be travelling the Pacific. I tend to see "westerner" as colloquial. I'm leaving as is for now, but if others have a view, then "westerner" would be my preferred option. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By 2009, the number of sites had risen to 223" - does that mean, the number of burial sites? Later it says few burial sites were confirmed. It needs confirmation either way.
    • In "Ascents" - "He noted three to four regions in passing from its base to its summit" - what sort of regions?
      • Regions was the term used in the source, but what was meant was what we would now call "ecosystems" and I have changed it accordingly. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I'm technically opposing now for the unsourced sections, but also because more work is needed. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm satisfied now to support. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha:

  • The way the pronunciation is presented in the infobox makes little sense. It is apparently the infobox template's fault, but that is no excuse.
  • Sorry, can you give me more clues as to why it makes little sense? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The brackets surrounding the entire pronunciation. Also, the English pronunciation is in slashes (suggesting phonemic transcription) and the Hawaiian is in square brackets (suggesting phonetic transcription)—which seems consistent, but perhaps defensible because the reader may be expected to know English but not Hawaiian phonemes. Ucucha 00:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um...how am I supposed to fix it? Can you do it yourself? ResMar 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I had a look at Template:Infobox mountain. This has a notice indicating that the "pronunciation" optino should not be used, and that such information should be included in the lede. I have made the relevant change. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be consistent with capitalizing or not capitalizing species names (for example, "Hawaiian crow" versus "Hawaiian Hawk").
  • This is a product of inconsistency of capitalisation in WP article titles and ledes, but I've started to go through and fix regardless. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have not capitalised "bug" in the name "Wēkiu bug", as this seems to be more a descriptor, though I admit it is reported as part of the common name: [8]. Any views? "Wolf spiders" are a group of species, so "spiders" is not capitalised. All other caps now done I think hamiltonstone (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ensuring the air on the summit is pure, dry"—what is pure air? The article also says specifically that it's free from pollution.
  • "in the late first decade of the 21st century"—awkward; why not just give the specific years?
  • The reason was that it wasn't simple to interpret the data in the source, but I've taken a stab and said "by 2007". hamiltonstone (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief! Gone. "Sacred mountains" is I think what was meant, and that category is retained. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most mountains in that category are actually real, even though it's a subcategory of Category:Fictional mountains. Weird. "Sacred" is certainly more appropriate. Ucucha 00:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 23:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, where are we heading now? It appears to me that all issues have been handled. ResMar 19:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of what I am seeing: 5 supports (AndyW, Casliber, Avenue, Rlevse and Hurricanehink); a tick on sources from Brianbolton; no image issues by my assessment, but then, Sandy appeared to have a concern that the image reviewer did not - we may need her view on whether she is satisfied; image review tag on the image at commons now cleared; Ucucha's concerns addressed, though for some reason he hasn't struck one - he may not have been back since it was done. We'll see what the new week brings (delegates don't usually pass through on weekends). hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My image concern was resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(now struck) Ucucha 02:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to modify some of the text of the last three paragraphs in Summit observatories - IMO it's oddly focussed on UH's viewpoint. Will work in my sandbox and move it across in paragraphs. Iridia (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Observatories modifications are now completed. Iridia (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything left to do? ResMar 20:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this review is closed, the article having been promoted 9 November. Brianboulton (talk) 09:33, 10 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mauna_Kea/archive1&oldid=1138466645"