Jump to content

Talk:Surtsey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSurtsey 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 so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 14, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 19, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
July 18, 2008Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article


some statements which should be referenced

[edit]

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" Cited — 69 as of 2008. WilliamKF (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think these are some very good questions, and until they are addressed by a professional, the article needs to be in dispute. Are there 60 species, or 61? Could there only be 59? These are questions of significance. Mwahcysl (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have room for this picture?

[edit]

Satellite photo/NASA — Sverdrup 12:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Linking units

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Volcano

[edit]

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

People on Island

[edit]

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

references?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

WP:FAR nomination of Surtsey

[edit]

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)[reply]

Some of the sources are no longer working, like source 16. Gatemansgc (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Needed

[edit]

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)

It has been referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.34.175 (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

coordinates

[edit]

Is there any point in having two sets of identical coordinates seperated by one line of text? I don't think the ones in the lead add anything and they just make it look cluttered to me. Richerman (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're quite right - remove it, I'd say. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor syntax for a leading article.Sean McHugh 02 (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article

[edit]

What a nice little article. My only recommendation: The first picture in the "Future" section, captioned "The island of Surtsey in 1999", is the shot that gives the clearest picture of Surtsey, and probably belongs up in the intro section. The volcano picture is prettier, of course. Tempshill (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

footbnote 16 (this) is a broken link. Could someone fix it? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Avenue (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers mate! Totnesmartin (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

[edit]

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fix: The co-ordinates are infact 63.4 West

  • [TYPE HERE]

--217.33.147.2 (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not 63.4 West - that would be in Canada. If you mean 64.4 North, that would put it due west of Heimay, not southwest. The existing coordinates check out fine in Google Maps, Bing Maps, and Blue Marble Navigator. --Avenue (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

[edit]

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

63° 18′ 10.8″ N, 20° 36′ 18″ W

should be: 

63° 18' 9.25"N,  20° 36' 11.87"W

—vicganon (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The article is about a rather large feature, and the coordinates are given with sufficient precision (thousandths of a degree, or to about the nearest 100 meters), indicating a point roughly at the island's center. Giving the coordinates to a precision of hundredths of a second (approximately to the nearest foot) is clearly overkill, and the exact point specified by your coordinates doesn't appear to be significant in any way (not the volcano's highest point or anything). See also WP:GEO#Precision guidelines. Deor (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Surtsey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Surtsey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How far away is the closest land?

[edit]

If we can find a source for this, would be good to add to the article. A quick look at Google Maps shows it to be about 10 miles from other islands, and 20 miles from the mainland. This would be useful context when reading about life colonizing the island from other locations. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

was it 1964 or 1963?

[edit]

britannica says the surtseyan eruption started in november of '63, is this page maybe wrong? Lio B (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KingcCake, an IP changed the year in the lead in Sep 2022 and nobody else caught it. It's been fixed. Schazjmd (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who named it?

[edit]

Basic information to add to this article: exactly who named this island. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The name was assigned by the Icelandic Naming Committee. Schazjmd (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Surtsey&oldid=1233902592"