Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David A. Johnston/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:16, 30 April 2010 [1].

David A. Johnston

David A. Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Carcharoth, ceranthor 23:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC), Awickert[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a well-written, comprehensive, engaging, and well-illustrated account of Mr. Johnston. I mentioned this as a collaboration to Awickert, knowing it would take a lot of work, and thought it would be an impossible task. But the invaluable work of Awickert, Carcharoth, and several others has improved this article to a very high quality.

It was a difficult article to take on, and a very sensitive one at that. Johnston's shortened life was still one full of vitality, and I think this article reflects that. We have worked (more Carcharoth and Awickert) to acquire high-quality sources and fine-tune the prose so that the article met a featured article quality. Because of our determination to create a high-quality account of Mr. Johnston's life, I think the article has turned out well. I hope that anyone who reads it will agree. ceranthor 23:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional addendum: After checking with Ceranthor, I left notices on the talk pages of the three WikiProjects that seem most relevant to this article ([2], [3], [4]). I think this would normally be done at the peer review or earlier review stages, but I've done it here because those earlier reviews haven't taken place and I think getting input from other editors active in the relevant topic areas is needed here to make sure the article is as good as it can be. I've also asked anyone who comments here due to those notices to say how they became aware of the article. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment . Was still adding some more material and quotes and tidying a few things, but have finished that now. Will be available to help address any concerns raised, especially if it relates to parts of the article I worked on (mainly the images, memorials section, and copyediting in various places), plus suggestions made on the talk page. I do have some ideas on some rearrangements that could be done in the text, but will wait and let people review the nominated version first. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - well written, referenced, illustrated, timely and comprehensive. Fixed a couple minor bits - spelling and links. The authors are to be complimented, well done. Vsmith (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. We have worked hard on this article. :) ceranthor 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking the time to look it over, Awickert (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "The eruption blew more than 1,000 feet (305 m) of rock off of the volcano..." is unclear. Does it mean the peak of the mountain is now 1000 ft lower than prior to the eruption? The current phrasing almost implies a volume of rock being removed from the mountain with a value that has mismatched units. It also needs to be referenced; I can't find it in the citation at the end of the sentence. -Atmoz (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it is mentioned in the latter half of the reference. I will fix the phrasing. ceranthor 22:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and per the ref, I just made it more precise to 1313 ft. Thanks for catching that, Atmoz. Awickert (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 1EVENT only apply to people with marginal notability? Johnston became quite famous for his involvement with the eruption and his legacy is almost as famous among volcanologists. I believe that the amount of sources support this. ceranthor 17:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1EVENT only results in merger (or deletion) where the individual is of marginal notability. Here I am not proposing merger, just that this type of article should not be showcased, since it has a very real problem. 1EVENT always applies where an individual is significant [only] for their role in a single event. --Bejnar (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the subject (whose name was Johnston, not Johnson) was a geologist who had gained his PhD two years earlier and was employed by the USGS at the time he was killed in a volcanic eruption, hence the usual approach of a career retrospective is difficult to do here. What has been done is a summary of his career from published memoriam articles and obituaries, an account of how he died, and a look at the legacy that resulted. Not a normal sort of biographical article, because a normal biographical article is difficult to do here for obvious reasons. Johnston clearly wasn't notable at the time of his death, but if there is a legacy then that can provide the basis for an expansion of the article. Most articles of those known only for the manner of their death will never be expanded, but some of them have possibilities, as I hope this article demonstrates. I have more to say about WP:1E articles resulting from natural disasters, but that is getting off topic, so I'll go to your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that WP:1E applies here. Rationale:
  • WP:PROF #1 ("The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources") and #7 ("The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.") The obituaries, etc. talk about the importance of his studies of the gas phase in volcanic eruptions, and he was highly involved in warning the public about the danger posed by Mt. St. Helens.
  • Per WP:1E: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." The event clearly was large. Dr. Johnston's role was, per my research, also large, because he worked to quantify the volcanic hazard and keep people away from the volcano, and he was often interviewed about this.
  • Per WP:1E: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." (See my comments on his role above)
  • If you don't buy that, WP:1E says that, "On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles,"
  • WP:TOOLONG and WP:UNDUE: David A. Johnston is 50 K, Mt. St. Helens is 51K; they couldn't be combined without deleting a lot of the info that we've assembled, which would be sort of a bummer; I think that a forked article on Johnston is a much better solution in this case.
Awickert (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on further thinking about this, I'm not entirely sure that his publications alone would meet WP:PROF. But I do think that there are quite enough other factors that make this individual notable, and following his death, there were many things named for him (which can't necessarily be said for the other individuals who died). Awickert (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either Awickert or Carcharoth. We thought it was a nice touch to show that he had work published. ceranthor 17:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awickert started the section here and if you click through the next few edits, that pretty much covers that section. I suspect it is "selected" because it would be difficult to get a complete list of publications. I suppose it is a question of whether you include an incomplete list, have criteria for selecting the papers to be mentioned (e.g. only those mentioned secondarily), or leave the list out altogether. Carcharoth (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a list of his major publications (i.e., everything not including conference abstracts). What is the reason for concern? (Is it the section heading?) Awickert (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed to "major publications", hope this is better. Awickert (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing some copyediting... will post questions along the way
  • Why "Mt. Augustine" in some cases but "Mount" in others?
  • The gas phase is extremely important in propelling volcanic eruptions; Johnston therefore mastered the many analytical techniques required to tease information about gases present during eruptions out of glass-vapor inclusions in phenocrysts embedded in the lavas. I'm not sure how "therefore" applies here.
  • Refs use inconsistent date formatting (day month year and month day year).
  • The "Final signs" and "USGS team" sections seem a bit disorganized with regard to Johnston's death, especially since the first section, which details his situation, doesn't explicitly state that he died.
  • What road were the workers building when they found Johnston's trailer?
  • Dr. Stephen Malone described Johnston as a "fire dog"; he agreed that Johnston died in a way that he would have preferred, and that he "was very good at his work." - The wording here seems a bit... I don't know, I just think "preferred" isn't really a great word choice.
  • Glicken was being mentored by Johnston, who relieved Glicken of his watch at the Coldwater II observation post 13 hours before Mount St. Helens erupted. Glicken was leaving the post to visit the University of California graduate school, but after the eruption he missed the flight in a frantic search to determine whether Johnston was alive. - It seems like this information was already presented previously.

I hope my contributions and comments have and will continue to help build an article that does justice for this brave man. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Julian. Don't want to break up your comments, so:
  • Mt. Augustine: I'm confused as to what to do, but I changed them all to "Mount" as per my best guess. My gut says "ah, they're the same", MOS:ABBR (which trumps me) says that things like "Mount" and "Saint" should be spelled out, but the highly-relevant Mount St. Helens article has "St." instead of "Saint". Ah, well, I think making them all "Mount Augustine" will work.
  • "Gas phase": wow - this was one confusing sentence (and I wrote it!). Separated it into three sentences, hopefully it is easier to read now.
  • The idea is that these inclusions can show what gas phases are present. I brought it back to two sentences to hopefully connect this better, The gas phase is extremely important in propelling volcanic eruptions. Because of this, Johnston mastered the many techniques required to analyze glass-vapor inclusions in phenocrysts embedded in lavas, which provide information about gases present during past eruptions. If it still doesn't make sense, let us know. Awickert (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the gas=important --> study evidence of gas in past eruptions thing seems very clear to me, but if it doesn't to you, then maybe it is a real problem. Would you (or any other watchers of this page) have a better way to say this? Awickert (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly the disconnect is not making clear that gases coming out of the molten rock makes it explode and turn into ash? At least I think that is what happens. And some of the gases left in the rock can be analysed by volcanologists before, during and after eruptions to find things out about the volcano and its magma? Or maybe, the question is why analysing the gases helps? Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What it is is a positive feedback in which decreasing pressure as the magma rises allows gas bubbles to expand, further decreasing the density and increasing the buoyancy of the magma, and so on until the eruption. Tephra are actually the small bits of material between these bubble walls, which is why they are so sharp. I'm not actually sure if it's the gases themselves, or simply products of the gases, that are analyzed after the eruptions. But I do know that volcanologists use such studies to find the gases present in previous eruptions to understand what caused them. I'll try to see what fixes I can make in the morning, Awickert (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dates: Made them all YYYY-MM-DD
That's all I've had time for now; I'll ping Ceranthor and Carcharoth right before I go to bed (in say, 5 minutes...). Everything I haven't yet done will be fixed up within the day. Awickert (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK - some more, signing individually to keep discussion together better Awickert (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC):[reply]
  • "USGS team" and "Final Signs" sections: The USGS team section is anachronistic (in its first paragraph) because we organized that part thematically; it seemed to me at least that it was better to separate the larger scale of the eruption from the individual stories than to put everything together in one big section (which IMO would be pretty messy and more difficult to logically navigate). As far as not actually saying that Johnston died, we do write that, Before being struck by a series of flows that at their fastest would have taken less than a minute to reach his position, Johnston managed to radio "Vancouver! Vancouver! This is it!" to his USGS co-workers. Seconds later, the signal from the radio went blank.[20] Initially, there was some debate as to whether Johnston had survived; records soon showed a radio message from fellow eruption victim and amateur radio operator Jerry Martin, located near the Coldwater peak and further north of Johnston's position, reporting his sighting of the eruption enveloping the Coldwater II observation post. As the blast overwhelmed Johnston's post, Martin declared solemnly, "It's gonna get me, too." before his radio, too, went blank.[21]. I thought that his death was pretty obvious here, but do you think that adding on a sentence that says that he died would improve clarity? Awickert (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit, Julian. I've copyedited the copyedit to fix a few things, but most of it was a real improvement in wording - thanks. I've also looked at Awickert's changes, and agree with them, and hopefully those changes address your comments. Carcharoth (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and make the TFA for the 20th anniversary of the eruption on May 18th! I was going to copyedit this article but can't find anything wrong with it. Comprehensive, great prose, high quality references and all other FA criteria met. Great work! --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 20:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (30th anniversary, actually, but still thanks for the compliment!) Awickert (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn I'm getting old! Lost 10 years there... :) --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 12:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward

Cited. ceranthor 19:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By March 26, more than seven earthquakes over magnitude 4.0 had been recorded, and the next day, hazard warnings were publicly issued"
Cited. ceranthor 19:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By late March, the volcano was erupting up to 100 times per day."
Cited. ceranthor 19:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he was called "an exemplary scientist" by a USGS dedication paper, which also described him as "unaffectedly genuine, with an infectious curiosity and enthusiasm." - uncited quotes
      Cited. Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Co-worker Andrew Alden states that Johnston had great potential, declaring that he "had many friends and a bright future"." uncited quote
      Cited. Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, most of his colleagues and family asserted that Johnston died "doing what he wanted to do." " uncited quote
      Cited. Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There have been several tellings of Johnston's story in documentaries, films and docudramas about the eruption." - this is also a single sentence paragraph. consider integrating it with the following one.
      Expanded to lead into this section. Carcharoth (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
    • Reference # 3 is not following a punctuation point
      I think you were referring to the mid-sentence references after "Pete Lipman". I think I've fixed this here. I'm not sure what the consensus is on whether references in the middle of sentences break up the flow too much (which is what I presume you mean when you say references should follow a punctuation mark), or whether it is better to put a reference immediately following the information it sources. In this case, the sentence is a combination of information from both sources, so having both sources at the end of that sentence seems a reasonable way to present things here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes http://sthelenshero.homestead.com/DavidJohnston.html a reliable source?
      The site appears to be hosting (with permission) a newspaper article. See here: an article from 1995 that was in the Longview Daily News. The other page used (here) quotes from other newspaper articles. What should be done in cases like this? I've also taken the opportunity to double-check the other sources used, and I'm happy with all of them except this one, and since the information about the Hoffstadt Bluffs plaque is sourced to a newspaper article already, I will move the olywa.net reference down to the external links. Carcharoth (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I noticed that the Brettman reference (the Longview Daily News article from 1995) was already being used elsewhere, so I combined the references and used the homestead.com site as a courtesy link - the questions remaining are whether to accept the "with permission" statement and whether the transcription was reliable. Ideally, someone would verify this, but I can't find the article online anywhere else, though I did find this. Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree, you could just site the newspaper article directly, and cut out the middleman. Maybe put the link in external links? —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe this has been done. ceranthor 19:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      It has, and I've now included it in the external links as well and bypassed the other reference that was being used (it was to a summary of the news article, when citing the news article direct is simpler). I think the original concern raised has been addressed now. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reference # 12 should only have the title linked, not the date and year
    • Ref # 14, 16 should be delinked - the link is at the reference entry
    • This is common I see. Only titles should be linked. Check out WP:CITEX for detailed examples. Consider using cite templates, as this will format the references properly by default.
      First two points about the references I agree with and will aim to fix (sthelenshero.homestead.com can't be considered reliable, but it does provide its sources, so it can be verified and bypassed, and included in the external links as a courtesy). Regarding references 12, from what I can tell, cite templates have been used for this and other references, and what you are calling "date and year" are part of the title of the work. References 14 and 16 are courtesy links to the specific pages as displayed on Google Books. I am not sure what you mean by "the link is at the reference entry". Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) PS. The reference numbers will change in a few minutes, so I will try and note which references you were referring to here.[reply]
      Sorry - I should be more clear. Titles are the only parts of references which should be linked to the work. Authors, page numbers, and years should not be linked to the source, but possible to other things. I won't haggle on this, but what is customary is for the reference in the list of books to be linked to where it is available online, but to not link the individual shortened citations. In short, only full citations should be linked to the source, because the shortened citations do not contain a title to link from. WP:CITEX provides many examples of how this is done. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I get this now. I've made changes here and here. It does mean that people have to go and look up the reference themselves, but that is needed here as some of these previews are limited and not all page are available online. There should really be links from the shortened references down to the list of books, but that is fiddly so I'll leave that unless someone asks for it to be done or does it themselves. There was also one book (the Harris one) listed in the references but not in the bibliography, but I've fixed that now. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images

I have to oppose for now, primarily because of the needed citations. I suspect those can be easily addressed though. The prose is my secondary concern, there are a few rough patches, but nothing terrible. If you can address these issues, I will give the article a second read and see if I can detect any more prose issues and consider supporting. This article is coming along very well, it is really interesting to see how his death had an effect on things. Good job! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will try to address your concerns asap. We must be ready by May 18, or else we'll be in trouble. Thank you very much for the suggestions. ceranthor 21:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and fixed some of the easier prose-related issues to honor my promise to copyedit this article. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck off the ones that are resolved. The reference issues are the only ones that are preventing me from supporting. :) Good job. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very, very much Mav. I have been limited this week in terms of freedom in general. Your help is greatly appreciated. I am going to try to fix the remaining concerns tonight. ceranthor 19:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we have resolved the majority of your concerns, Charles. Correct me if I am wrong, of course! ceranthor 19:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support yes you have! And I am glad to support this article. Let me note I think it meets all the FA criteria - my conditional support is based on the general notabilty of the subject; I think that is still open to debate but, so long as consensus is that it is notable, you have my full support. As an article it is excellent! Good job. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support, nonetheless. :) ceranthor 21:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/David_A._Johnston/archive1&oldid=1091467662"