# Talk:Macauley Island

This review is transcluded from Talk:Macauley Island/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 13:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, this is outside my usual comfort zone... I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Woop, that was quick. I'll get a better lead in ASAP, might take a day or so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
A better lead is now in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lead:
"subaqueous" wouldn't "underwater" be more understandable and less jargony for the lead?
Yes, so done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
"The island is part of a protected area." but the geography section says "the islands are within the Kermadec Islands Marine Preserve and the Kermadec Benthic Protected Area" which would be two protected areas?
I think that Benthic does not automatically include the emergent landmasses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Geography:
"The volcano rises from a depth" I thought we were talking about an island? which volcano - one on the island or ??
The island is a bit of the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
link or explanation for "lineaments"?
Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Macauley Island:
"from an average elevation of about 100 square metres" heights aren't usually in square metres?
Yeah, seems like a typo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
ROFL... nothing change here but "45 metres (148 ft) deep Grand Canyon" as someone who's seen the Grand Canyon in Arizona... ROFL...
You know, I was thinking the same! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
a quick explanation of who H.D.M. Haszard was that he got the little rock/island named for him?
Well, my Google-fu failed me completely on this guy. But found a link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Geology:
"24 kilometres (15 mi) [10] west-northwest of Macauley Island lies" we don't start sentences with numerals - you'll need to rephrase this somehow...
Attempted to spell this out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Composition:
"Most of the rocks have a basaltic composition" rocks where? On the island? In the submarine volcanic zone? We were last talking about the underwater volcanoes so it's a bit confusing...
Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I mostly followed along until "with the exception of that Macauley Island rocks have a largely uniform composition" ... we've just discusses all sorts of strange things that make up the rocks and it's largely uniform? Layperson is going to be "WTF?" here
Is it clearer now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Climate:
"The climate of Macauley Island is expected to resemble that of Raoul Island" expected? Expected implies that ... no one has actually been there to experience it. I suspect you mean "The climate of Macauley Island is generally resembles that of Raoul Island"?
The implication is right - we don't have weather records so scientists guess it's similar to Raoul. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Is there a "type" of climate - like "continental" or "subtropical"?
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Eruption history:
Do we have dates for the various eruptions we discuss below? I'm ... not seeing any. I would expect them to be given if known, even if just estimates
No, we don't have dates except for the Sandy Bay Tephra and even there sources disagree. Trust me, the art of telling how a rock was emplaced is a totally different one from the art of telling when a rock was emplaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
"Several 130,000, over 40,000 years and 30,000 years old tephra layers identified in marine cores around Macauley Island may originate from eruptions there." This one is ... very confusing at first. Can we reword it so that we start with something like "Tephra layers dating to ..." so that the subject is clear?
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
"and all the rocks appear to have been emplaced above sea level" I have no idea what this means - I'd normally expect "emplaced" to be human activity but it's clear from context this isn't the case so... the reader who isn't a specialist is utterly confused.
I think anthropomorphism will can help there-a volcano puts rocks into places. I am unkeen of using other words because they imply things that aren't necessarily expressed in the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
"during a sea level lowstand" link/expanation for "lowstand"?
Recast this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
"numerous blebs" link/expanation for "blebs"?
Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Pre-Sandy:
"they reack total thicknesses" did you mean "reach" or is this some jargon that needs a link?
Typo, fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Sandy Bay eruption:
"Caldera collapse and collapses of caldera flanks may produce tsunamis which may have" suggest "Caldera collapse and collapses of caldera flanks perhaps produced tsunamis which may have"
Redone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Historical eruptions:
"There is evidence that a lake of molten sulfur once filled the Macauley Cone crater[145] and left sulfur deposits with thicknesses exceeding 1 metre (3 ft 3 in).[" suggest moving this sentence to the end of the paragraph, as it intrudes into a bunch of information on the vents/waters. Or move it to the second sentence of this paragraph.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Do check my copyedits to make sure I didn't inadvertantly change meaning.
Not seeing anything problematic here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation - everything it's flagging up is the long article titles that scientific papers end up with....
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
All these look good. I won't certify that the prose is up to FA standards, but it's readable and understandable, which is what GA wants. Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

So, way back when this was passed as a GA but Ealdgyth noted that the prose may not be adequate. I was wondering if anyone could go over the prose and see if it passes muster. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus  - I'm happy to review the article, but I'm busy today.  If you create a peer review page for the article, then remind me in 2 days, I'll do a thorough review then. I already see some areas where it can be improved for FA quality.  Noleander (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Added the peer review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)


### Macauley Island
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC in the future, but there were comments that the prose and perhaps other aspects weren't ready for it yet.
Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Traumnovelle
Just a quick look but I noticed the sence 'but it is likely that Polynesians visited the island during the last 700 years despite the lack of direct archaeological evidence.' Which should state why it is likely Polynesians visited the island. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This is what the source says: There is so far no archaeological evidence by which to date their arrival on Macauley Island but it is likely that they reached the island at about the same time as reaching Raoul Island, given their rapid patterns of discovery within other Pacific archipelagos of similar size. Kiore or Pacific rats (Rattus exulans) are most likely to have been introduced by Polynesians to Macauley Island at the same time (Wilmshurst et al. 2011). The first account of the islands’s vegetation by Captain W. Sever of the Lady Penrhyn in 1788 is of a deforested island (see Oliver 1910). Although Macauley Island was uninhabited at that time, its deforestation is entirely consistent with Polynesian settlement, even periodic, on islands throughout the Pacific, where existing forest was cleared to make way for agriculture (Rolett & Diamond 2004). I must confess that at the moment I am not sure how to formulate this in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Are there more sources that support this? With just one source I'd consider it a theory rather than an accepted belief. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
My impression is that this one of these cases where the evidence is sufficient (there aren't any other plausible mechanisms) so it's a question of how to formulate this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Kusma
Will try to leave some comments. —Kusma (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The geography really would benefit from something like a bathymetric chart to make it easier to understand. Is it correct that this one is PD?
Sorry, need to interrupt myself already. —Kusma (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, "Image courtesy of New Zealand Nat. Inst. of Water & Atmospheric Research," means that it's a New Zealand work not an US work, so probably not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
If you think the Smithsonian is illegally promoting the image as PD, you should consider using something like {{external media}} to link to it prominently. Without some image, it is very hard to visualise the volcano (as opposed to the island). —Kusma (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Done. Bad website design with regards to copyright tags is pretty common; I wouldn't read too much into it. The thing though is that "Image courtesy of" is usually a sign that the website is displaying someone else's image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Lead: what is the protected area called? Link?
Pluralized this instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Does the volcano have a name? A lot of the article is about the volcano or about the wider island group; it might be good to clarify the scope.
This isn't one of these volcanoes where each component has its own name, so everything is lumped under "Macauley Island" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Eruption history: "easily" for geologists or for the average Joe?
Geologists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
History: link to the specific ship instead of to the list.
I guess it's the Lady Penrhyn (1786 ship)? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes. Interesting ship: part of the First Fleet, then making some discoveries on the return voyage (even if that wasn't quite the plan). —Kusma (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Added, hopefully this won't raise any OR concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
First discovery should probably be clarified to European discovery.
I admit I am unsure whether this is Wikipedia standard for these claims. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
I would expect the history section much earlier and closer to the geography.
Moved it up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Did the excavations find anything at all?
Maybe, but the two Johnson sources aren't online. I'll ask at WP:RX Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Apparently only charcoal and some things that might be tools but the researchers hedge on that interpretation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Generally there is quite some specialist geology terminology but it is not too bad overall.
Hope these are useful, —Kusma (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Dracophyllum
After sending you the reports you wanted I decided to try and find some images. I've have added them quite hastily but I hope they are useful. Sorry I don't have time for a full review, my only other note is that I would insist on a better map for the infobox at FAC, possibly also a reproduction of one of the maps from the report. You can find other images of stuff on the island here. cheers, Dracophyllum 06:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a lot of images of plants and animals - good illustrations for the flora/fauna, but I see you already expanded this. Any map you'd like to recommend for reproduction? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)