Monowai (seamount) has been listed as one of the
Geography and places good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: September 2, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Monowai (seamount) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 September 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just a comment, but: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4455483a10.html indicates this volcano is currently erupting. I removed the references to "Last erupted in 2006" as a result of this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.128.114 ( talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18040658 94.30.84.71 ( talk) 10:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
With the rising frequency and strength of eruptive activity near the seamount and its location on an active seismic ridge, this looks like something that could very likely produce an island in the next few decades. it's likely that NZ seismologists would have tried to research that angle, so could someone look for that kind of scientific assessment? 83.254.151.33 ( talk) 03:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to Schwede66.
I am not sure that (depending on what constitutes discovery)
is appropriately supported by the article content. Several sources give different dates for the discovery of Monowai and I suspect that the 1877 - 1977 discrepancy is due to a typo somewhere but it's nowhere explicitly flagged as such.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 16:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ganesha811 ( talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 ( talk) 20:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
Pass! Issues fixed - made some last-minute copyedits myself. Congrats to @ Jo-Jo Eumerus: and everyone else who worked on this article. Ganesha811 ( talk) 20:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 06:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk). Self-nominated at 20:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC).
Monowai (seamount) has been listed as one of the
Geography and places good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: September 2, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
A fact from Monowai (seamount) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 September 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just a comment, but: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4455483a10.html indicates this volcano is currently erupting. I removed the references to "Last erupted in 2006" as a result of this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.128.114 ( talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18040658 94.30.84.71 ( talk) 10:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
With the rising frequency and strength of eruptive activity near the seamount and its location on an active seismic ridge, this looks like something that could very likely produce an island in the next few decades. it's likely that NZ seismologists would have tried to research that angle, so could someone look for that kind of scientific assessment? 83.254.151.33 ( talk) 03:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to Schwede66.
I am not sure that (depending on what constitutes discovery)
is appropriately supported by the article content. Several sources give different dates for the discovery of Monowai and I suspect that the 1877 - 1977 discrepancy is due to a typo somewhere but it's nowhere explicitly flagged as such.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 16:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ganesha811 ( talk · contribs) 20:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 ( talk) 20:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
Pass! Issues fixed - made some last-minute copyedits myself. Congrats to @ Jo-Jo Eumerus: and everyone else who worked on this article. Ganesha811 ( talk) 20:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk) 06:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk). Self-nominated at 20:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC).