Talk:Surtsey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is undergoing a featured article review to ensure that it meets the standards of a featured article. Please add a comment to assist the process and/or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal. When the review is complete, a bot will update the article talk page.
Featured article star Surtsey is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
August 19, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Iceland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Volcanoes

This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance to WikiProject Volcanoes on the project's importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

Contents

[edit] some statements which should be referenced

I put an object comment on the FAC page. Here are some example statements which I think should be attributed via references.

  • "The loose pile of unconsolidated tephra would quickly have been washed away"
  • "It is estimated that about 0.024 km³ of material has been lost" (by who?)
  • "In total at least 60 species of plant have been found on Surtsey"
  • "Species that have been seen briefly on the island include whooper swans,"
  • "It had several causes: settling of the loose tephra..."
  • "which formed in the same way as Surtsey several thousand years ago,"
I've added cites for many of these. I haven't provided a cite for the statement that unconsolidated tephra would quickly wash away, though, as I think it's really a common sense straightforward fact that can't realistically be disputed. Worldtraveller 11:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


I've come across an alternative source that disagrees with one of the facts mentioned. According to a New Scientist 'Histories' article (subscription required, or New Scientist, Jan 2006, p48) :
  • Flowering plants and grasses (sea rocket, lyme grass, sea sandwort, cotton grass, ferns) were present from 1965, mosses from 1967, and lichens from 1970.
However, the article confirms 60 plant species, and the whooper swans, geese, and ravens, and also mentions snow buntings.
86.139.75.238 01:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do we have room for this picture?

Image:Surtsey.jpg — Sverdrup 12:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


  • amazing picture,room should be made for it.Maybe in the "A permanent island" section.

Picture added Nik42 04:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking units

I hate that I have to waste time on this, but you know, 3RR and all that...

User:81.179.99.161 insists that these three units be linked:

...which began 130 metres below sea level...

This one's fine: I guess it's possible that some readers might be unfamiliar with the meter, or so dumbfounded by the bizarre spelling that they need to click it.

...when the island reached its maximum size of 2.7 km².

These two are just wrong. 1 E3 m compares orders of magnitudes of length, not area. Same with kilometre. These links are more likely to confuse that help. —Keenan Pepper 02:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So why not correct them? Why remove links using the dishonest edit summary of 'units'? 81.179.99.161 08:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Because there's no reason they should be linked. Please read Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Also, quit saying the edit summary was "dishonest". It was brief, but not intended to deceive. People make edits with blank summaries all the time and no one accuses them of dishonesty. —Keenan Pepper 16:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If an edit summary does not correspond to what the edit is, I think that's dishonest. As for context, I think when giving an area, a link to an article about area is certainly relevant. 81.179.99.161 19:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volcano

An Anon requested more info on the volcano; I'm moving the request here for appearence reasons. RJFJR 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People on Island

Missing information about people activity on island. Small house for science, helicopter pad and lighthouse. [1] --Chmee2 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] references?

Am I the only one that has trouble with viewing the third reference and onwards?--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. A <ref> tag was not closed properly. Lupo 23:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FAR nomination of Surtsey

I have nominated Surtsey because it does not seem to meet the featured articled criteria 1.(c), 2.(c), and 4. It is quite short, and is not of comparable length to current FA's. It is very under-referenced, and some of them aren't in the {{cite web}} form at all, just in <ref> tags. I do not believe that this fits the FA criteria any longer. You are welcome to comment at the review. Dreamafter (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Needed

The article claims: "It is estimated that about 0.024 km³ of material has been lost due to erosion – this represents about a quarter of the original above sea level volume of the island", and the reference given just afterwards justifies only the first part of the sentence. Is there a reference for the second part ("this represents about a quarter of the original above sea level volume of the island")? Thanks, 18:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)