This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Seamounts, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SeamountsWikipedia:WikiProject SeamountsTemplate:WikiProject SeamountsSeamounts
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
That's still not entirely clear. I guess in probably erupted a few days before, what you're trying to say is "It certainly erupted, but it's not clear exactly when; probably a few days before", so please rephrase to make that clear. RoySmith(talk)16:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The interactive map doesn't add anything useful. The hemisphere image at the top works well to show the reader where the shoal is; the map however is just a featureless blue field that doesn't add anything. I'd delete it.
I don't know how to remove the map either, but it really is useless. Perhaps you could ask on the infobox talk page? The hemisphere image was exactly the right thing; you should put it back. RoySmith(talk)16:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the hemisphere map is simply wrong as Protector Shoal is located at some distance from Zavodovski, outside of the red circle. So I won't readd it. But I'll ask on the infobox map. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mostly use metric as the primary unit and convert to imperial, but reverse this for the Height field. Pick one way and be consistent.
Done. ~~
Jo-Jo Eumerus For the map, how would you feel about (with the coords properly tweaked to get them right):
"about seven distinct seamounts[1] that are unofficially named[2] after ships:[14]" why do you say "unofficially"? Collins et al. 2022 says "eight large seamounts, all named after ships.", nothing about it being unofficial. Also, why "about seven", when the the source says "eight"?
Because another seamount was discovered later. The names are unofficial because sometimes scientists name features for convenience - but unless they are recognized by the IHO, they aren't official names. And these names aren't official yet, I didn't find them in the SCUFN/IHO/GEBCO archives. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"initially it was thought that "Protector Shoal" was a 27 metres (89 ft) deep seamount", "adjective=true" (or something like that) in the {{convert}} will get you "meter" instead of "meters". Likewise with "2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi)" and a few other similar places.
OK, this passes now. I still want to get the map to show up properly in the infobox (see thread on Template talk:Infobox seamount), but I can't justify holding up GA approval over that. This is a nice article about an interesting subject, thanks for submitting it. RoySmith(talk)15:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm open to being convinced. But the wp article it links to says it is "an archipelago off the southernmost tip of the South American mainland." I don't see this article or that one stating that it is in fact itself part of South America, rather than off of it. What do you know, not in either article, that makes you pretty sure? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:59D9:28DE:BCC:4796 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, I also need to provide the QPQ still. Often when I am done writing an article I don't have steam to do the QPQ review. I've put a sentence in, keeping in mind that the pumice has to first get past South America before it can get to TDF. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted to Good Article on 11/22/23, DYK check reports over 10,700 characters, well cited, neutral, earwig reports violation possible (over 40%) for three sources, long name matches on citations, others reported violation unlikely, QPQ done, hook interesting, length checked ok, cited.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: While the title of reference Risso, Scasso & Aparicio 2002 is definite, the Abstract says "most likely". Is there a more definite conclusion in the article? I can only access the preview. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not even consider any origination other than at Protector Shoal, ruling out Deception Island on compositional grounds. I don't remember any other source disagreeing with Risso 2002. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]