Jump to content

Talk:North Sea/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Sudden flood'

[edit]

Couldn't figure out if this is there already. [1] Anchoress 20:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is another source based on the same report in Breach of ice age lake made Britain an island, Guardian Thurs 19th July which may help?— Rod talk 09:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Question

[edit]

Can / should this translation Island Kayaker/North Sea from German Wiki be merged into the current article to help with the Article Improvement Drive? I have referenced some sources into the article.... I started some merging of the two articles, while looking up resources about the various chapters simultaneously, for a few sections.... SriMesh | talk 03:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Articles with unsourced statements since July 2007 | All articles with unsourced statements

[edit]

Can these templates be removed? Have been adding sources and references. Are they enough? How is the template acknowledged and discussed?SriMesh | talk 04:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check#North Sea - Thank you. SriMesh | talk 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article candidate yet?

[edit]

I'd hate to put any article through the process, but this does look like a featurable article to me, at least. Hats off to all of you. --Wetman 23:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite yet, I feel. i've given the article a quick gander and there are still a few problems:
  • Several spelling mistakes, typos and some clumsy english in places, but this is easily solved.
Spelling mistakes corrected via MS word and two grammar fixes. More needed.SriMesh | talk 05:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • some irrelevance and imbalance. For instance, the Battle of Trafalgar (which wasn't in the North Sea) is mentioned, but the Battle of Copenhagen (which was - just) isn't. Also, the map of the Amber Road isn't relevant, as it is only tangential to the North Sea. The Amber Road has its own article where the map can go.
These sections and images have been replaced.
  • Despite the large number of citations (and isn't that a pleasure to see for once), there needs to be a few more, especially for the part about the moving islands, which is quite a claim and needs a proper reference.
  • Sections on culture and wildlife are missing.
  • Some of the redlinks need to be filled.
  • It's now 88K, which goes against the WP:SIZE guidelines. But at least it's finally bigger than Loch Ness Monster which somebody was moaning about.
  • there are probably things that I've missed.
But having said that, it's great to see how much this article has come on. It's the first time I've been involved in an improvement drive and it's been a pleasure watching (and helping) this article grow. Totnesmartin 11:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Orkney photo by the list of islands is a bit sad. There are various more dramatic ones at, for instance List of islands of Scotland but I don't want to add to the burgeoning article size. Ben MacDui (Talk) 11:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the one I found is less boring. Totnesmartin 13:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited through the first half: I hope the rationale for my edits will be self-explanatory: mostly for idiomatic flow and tighter, clearer relations of ideas. Some explanatory phrases for the reader. I left some comments in the html where the sense was deeply muddled. --Wetman 11:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New infobox image

[edit]

The new infobox image with different parts of the sea labelled is very difficult to read in the article and not easy even at the larger size on the image page itself. is this just my computer/browser/something else or are other folks having the same problem? Jieagles 16:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to download the full resolution version, available under the image page just under the picture. By the way, this happens a lot with maps and diagrams on WP, personally I accept it "just one of those things", but perhaps there's room for improvement in the coding? On some sites you can enlarge a picture by moving the mouse over it, but don't ask me how it's done, I know more about Japanese undersea volcanoes than HTML. Totnesmartin 19:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


At least two of the labels in the infobox image are incorrect the Norwegian Trench runs much closer to the coast of Norway, reaching its deepest along Norway's southern coast. Second, the Scapa Flow is between several of the Orkney Islands not northwest of them. - Jieagles 00:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you use the imperial measure units as default and then the metric as comparasion. This is an international page, so it should be the other way round.

Infobox

[edit]
North Sea
LocationAtlantic Ocean
Coordinates56°N 03°E / 56°N 3°E / 56; 3
Typepart of Atlantic Ocean
Primary inflowsForth, Ythan, Elbe, Weser, Ems, Rhine/Waal, Meuse, Scheldt, Spey, Tay, Thames, Humber, River Tees, the River Wear and the River Tyne
Basin countriesNorway, Denmark, Scotland, England, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and France
Max. length600 mi (970 km)[1]
Max. width350 mi (560 km)
Surface area222,000 mi2 (575,000 km2)[2]
Average depth308 ft (94 m)[3]
Max. depthc.2,165 ft/660 m[2]
Water volume94 000 km

I removed {{infobox lake}} from the article as the infobox is meant for lakes, rather than any "body of water". – User:Docu

Is there any reason that seas should not use the lake box template since there appears to be no other appropriate template? if not then it ought to be put back and if so then someone who knows better how they're done should create an info box with the information because its useful to have it in one place at the top and some of it appears nowhere else in the article. Jieagles

The infobox was made for lakes. Recently we removed {{lake project}} banners from a series of sea lochs, mainly because we didn't want infoboxes on these either. Besides, some of the fields are useful mainly for lakes and descriptions of some fields link to lake specific pages. – User:Docu

Someone should probably make a duplicate and rm the "surface elevation" parameter and change "lake type" to something more appropriate; apart from that, I don't see any problems. 82.71.48.158 18:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
made Template:Infobox Ocean (mostly copy and paste from infobox lakes}, tried to make it unique to oceans though with some fields - which need to yet be filled in like salinity, benches (higher areas) and trenches(lower areas).SriMesh | talk 01:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many uses of Images

[edit]

I don't think all the images shown in this article is needed. I think we should put on in each article, depending if it fits or not. A Raider Like Indiana 16:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islands

[edit]

The table in the 'Islands' section isn't sorting properly. When I tried to sort by area, the table was sorted according to the first digit of the figures, regardless of whether it was a tens or hundreds digit. Does anyone know how the table could be made to sort numerically rather than alphanumerically? CarrotMan 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is because the table cell content is alphanumeric. Try removing the km2 to the header and things might work better. It may then be like the List of islands of Scotland where sorting cycles through forward and backward, numeric and alphanumeric. Finavon 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that appears to work. Should this list include all the larger islands in the Scottish Orkney and Shetland Groups? I think they are all considered N Sea. Four are included but not all that are larger than Canvey Island. The link in my previous edit has details. Finavon 20:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article / Wikiproject Review?

[edit]

After so much work done to this article, should it now be placed into Good article review, Peer review or each wikiproject peer review board as per above banners to see if it ready for Good Article rating or maybe FAC rather than B ? SriMesh | talk 01:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let's do that. Peer review first I think, then GA review if the peer review goes ok. Totnesmartin 11:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Automated Peer Review

[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]

done. This error no longer appears at the semi-automatic peer reviewer. SriMesh | talk 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. This error no longer appears at the semi-automatic peer reviewer. SriMesh | talk 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. Jieagles 01:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This page is 89 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.

done. This error no longer appears at the semi-automatic peer reviewer. SriMesh | talk 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 000 tons, use 000 tons, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 000 tons.[?]

done. This error no longer appears at the semi-automatic peer reviewer. SriMesh | talk 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got all of these Jieagles 22:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 100 ft.

I believe all units are spelled out the first time and abbreviated thereafter (see discussion below) Jieagles 22:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done. This error no longer appears at the semi-automatic peer reviewer. SriMesh | talk 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. This error no longer appears at the semi-automatic peer reviewer. SriMesh | talk 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]

done. SriMesh | talk 05:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done. SriMesh | talk 05:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done. SriMesh | talk 05:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: armor (A) (British: armour), harbour (B) (American: harbor), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defense (A) (British: defence), recognize (A) (British: recognise), colonize (A) (British: colonise), modelling (B) (American: modeling), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • “In the year [of] 2000”

done. This error no longer appears at the semi-automatic peer reviewer. SriMesh | talk 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]

done. This error no longer appears at the semi-automatic peer reviewer. SriMesh | talk 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now the rivers are listed largest to smallest in square meters per second discharged into sea. Jieagles 17:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Will work on these and above points over the next while. If any others are reading this and are copyediting, please place checkmarks on done items! Any help would be very much appreciated also. Thanks, SriMesh | talk 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Peer review by a member of WP:NL

    • It is a reasonably good article but I think it is still at B class (not saying anything about GA or FA classes).
    • Weaknesses:
      • Introduction is too brief (one paragraph). Also in this brief context the reference to a name long ago out of use seems a bit irrelevant. The images in the introduction section are not fully complementary, an infobox is now becoming standard for many articles so perhaps something like that may work here as well
added another paragraph to intro. Added infobox for oceans see also above
      • The order of the sections should be considered as I think the current structure does not facilitate a very good flow
      • Naming sections seems a bit at an awkward location and the list at the end of this section disrupts the reading flow

done. Jieagles (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Geology - Tectonics image is in French not preferred here

done. This error no longer applicable as different image has been supplied by someone. SriMesh | talk 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Island section is only a table. Not a single line of introduction. Are there fifty, are these the top fifty isles. This is unclear.

Added some clarification. Not all islands are listed, just some. done. This error no longer applicable as island section is now separate article SriMesh | talk 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Headings in the history section are awkward (History section if named thus should discuss Geological history and the landbridge in the Ice age) or be renamed. Same for other subheaders. The first section is about acces to Britain (which remained important in WWII), the next are about powers (Roman, Hanseatic, Dutch, English) the later about conflicts (WWI, II). This is inconsistent. A single approach has to be chosen and the section rewritten.
      • Marine traffic and Ships and shipwrecks sections are underdeveloped.

done. Section was summarized and headings renamed. Jieagles (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Culture and language section. Largely irrelevant, in any case to listy, overly detailed. (also missing image)

done. This error no longer applicable as culture and language section is now separate article SriMesh | talk 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

[edit]

For the size parameter....and for lists to be converted to prose. Should the languages and culture sub sections be made into a separate article linked to this one? The new article could be written in prose and not in lists. The image has also been red linked. SriMesh | talk 05:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think both of the long lists--that is the languages and the islands--should be split into seperate pages either lists or as regular articles for someone to improve. Jieagles 01:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the language section? Why was it removed? I think it's very important to emphasise the cultural, not just the geographic role of such seas. In the case of the North Sea, the Germanic languages have more or less evolved around it. --MacRusgail 17:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The languages section was moved to its own page called List of languages of the North Sea which is linked from the See also section. It was moved, along with the islands list, because the page was very long and the lists lacked the context to make them really useful on the page (in my opinion). i think that a section on culture and languages would great and would make the link to the list of languages more accessible (right now its at the bottom among all the other lists), but the section consisting just of the list is not as useful. Jieagles 18:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The article is decent, although I wouldn't say it meets the GA criteria at the present time, as there are still some significant issues with several items of the criteria.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Criterion 1-3 above are the most critical for GA status, and this article has major shortcomings on all three. First, the prose is pretty choppy in many areas, and it's quite evident that the article has been edited by many people, as it doesn't seem to flow quite right in many sections. There's also several run-on sentences and sentences where adding a comma or two would help a lot. So I would think that a good copyedit of this article is in order. The article does mostly meet the manual of style, with a few exceptions. Mostly, the 'see also' links are not done right – these should be placed at the top of the section, not at the bottom. And I would also avoid listing see also items in a bulleted list when putting them in a section (instead, list each link on one line separated by commas). The 'see also' section at the end is also quite long, and could be pruned – starting with removing any links to articles that already appear in the text above. Also, remove the subheadings for 'articles' and 'lists', and simply list any remaining see also items in alphabetical order.

With respect to verifiability, the article is short on reference citations in many areas. Any key facts and figures, and other information that is likely to be challenged, needs to be cited. A statement like, "This area contains the world's greatest concentration of industry: 15% of the planet's industrial production takes place in the catchment area of the North Sea." needs to have a source. Also, you need to fix statements like this: "This places the North Sea at the 13th largest sea." – in what? the world? Europe? the arctic? the solar system? Be more specific. The history section is also seriously lacking in citations as well – there's lots of work today here.

With regard to criterion 3 (completeness), the article is mostly complete and focused, but it lacks information on the biology & ecology of the north sea. What sorts of aquatic and marine life inhabit the region? The only real mention of this is in the natural resources section, discussing the fishing industry.

The order of sections is reasonably good, though I would consider promoting the history section. It usually comes near the beginning of the article – first or second (in this case, just after 'naming' would be appropriate). Also, consider renaming 'location' to 'geography', as this would be a better and more descriptive title for that section. You also might want to consider combining the 'natural resources' and 'marine traffic' sections into a single 'economy' section, since they all seem to be connected. It's a little bit awkward with a discussion on 'marine traffic' in its own main section at the end, and doesn't quite fit under the section titled, 'natural resources', even though the marine traffic is related to spreading those resources with other markets in the world. So a single 'economy' section would probably be more appropriate here.

Other than these issues, I think the article is quite good. I think the article can be renominated at WP:GAN once these issues are addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put in a strike through on items which have been addressed in this peer review IMHO SriMesh | talk 03:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glaring mistakes in image

[edit]
image in question

The geographic descriptions in Image:North Sea.jpg are mostly good, but some are obviously wrong. "Scapa Flow" belongs into the southern part of the Orkney islands, "Pentland Firth" is too far west and ditto "Norwegian trench". Some more may have escaped my attention. Sorry, I have neither access to the original files nor any capability with handling images, so I can't improve it myself, but this should certainly be corrected. Kosebamse (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the image with an unlabeled version until such time as the image is corrected. I also have not skill with image manipulation. The image in question is to the right. Jieagles (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed above water systems from map that were in the wrong place. SriMesh | talk 22:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal icon placement

[edit]

FYI, you can add a link to Portal:Norway in this article, by placing {{Portal|Norway|}} at the top of the see also section (or the external links section if the article has no see also section). This will display

Cirt (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article fixes

[edit]
  • As of today's date the W3C Link Checker was used to check if the external links are valid as well as opening them to try to fill out citation templates. Have updated re-directs and replaced 404 and web document not there errors.
  • As of this date, also replaced American spelling to British except in one instance of a title of a linked document. using the word modelling (A), and not the modeling (B). Just for future reference so these words don't appear again... For future edits use... the British version of... armor (A) (British: armour), harbour (B) (American: harbor), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defense (A) (British: defence), recognize (A) (British: recognise), colonize (A) (British: colonise), modelling (B) (American: modeling), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur)
  • Any new measurements added comply with mos Conversion templates.
  • Reviewed the previous comments set out at peer review as well as at the semi automatic peer reviewer as well as brought forward at the former GA Peer review. Replaced all capitals on directions to lower case leaving only capitals on formal placenames for east, south, north, west. Put strike throughs on items completed IMHO.
  • There are a few left to do on the above comments brought forward... such as the Table of Contents being too long for the Semi Automatic peer reviewer.
  • As for the peer review, pop in and check out the reviewer's comments about tonnage, jagged coasts, salinities and citations...either strike out or reply.
  • As for the previous GA Peer review, the items still to go are ...With respect to verifiability, the article is short on reference citations in many areas. Any key facts and figures, and other information that is likely to be challenged, needs to be cited... The history section is also seriously lacking in citations as well.
  • The other aspects of the GA criteria seem to be fulfilled....so just a short list of previous comments to putter on.SriMesh | talk 22:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Snippets from "The British Isles and the Age of Exploration"

[edit]

Please rephrase those that you use, to avoid WP:COPYVIO. Here's the correct citation: Smith, H.D. (April 1992). "The British Isles and the Age of Exploration - A Maritime Perspective". GeoJournal. 26 (4): 483–487. doi:10.1007/BF02665747.

  • 1490s-1750 (approx) "by definition all [British] external trade with the European mainland was maritime. But so too was much internal trade, not least because of the relatively undeveloped state of the roads beyond the lowlands of England. In particular, therefore, the intra-national trade of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland was carried on by coastwise shipping, operated from numerous small ports, which were especially developed along the eastern coasts of England and Scotland, in suitable locations for the continental trades, and with inland connections via navigable rivers in a number of cases."
  • "In the half century from 1490, English trade was focused on three major regions, which were the outcome of a long period of development dating back to the High Middle Ages. First was the northern European coastlands stretching from the Elbe to Brittany, from whence came wine, salt, domestic goods, linen, dyestuffs and metalware. Second was Scandinavia and the Baltic, the source of imports of timber, naval stores, grain and fish. Thirdly was the Mediterranean, from whence came luxury goods including fruit, spices, dyestuffs and high value cloth. By far the most important export was cloth."
  • "A notable maritime feature was the monopolisation of the export trade of the Northern Isles from the mid-fifteenth century onwards by itinerant Hanseatic merchants based mainly in Hamburg and Bremen"
  • (early 16th cent) "Even at this early stage the Low Countries and German lands may be seen as a central economic focus, with the Spanish Netherlands as a crucial piece of empire providing the link with the then dominant political and military power in Europe and overseas. Just how important this was is demonstrated by the collapse of the banking system after 1550, and the decline of Antwerp in the later sixteenth century. Antwerp had by then not only replaced Seville as the principal port of the Spanish Empire, but was the great entrepot for European trade." Antwerp being Spain's major port would be a DYK if this article were a stub.
  • 1600-1650s "Meanwhile in northern waters the Dutch expanded their herring fishing to a peak by mid-century, and also developed the cod and whale fisheries" (not sure where the fishing grounds were, but N Sea was the route)
  • "The second half of the seventeenth century was dominated by the conflict between England and Holland, in terms of ideas, economic competition and naval warfare. ... England emerged as the dominant maritime power in north west Europe at the end of the seventeenth century, as Dutch sea power declined."
  • "by 1805, Trafalgar finally sealed the maritime supremacy of the Royal Navy, and ushered in the Pax Britannica at sea, which lasted until 1916 and the Battle of Jutland."
  • "... in this post-1700 evolution, Scotland was a leading country in its own right during the industrial revolution stage, the period of the Scottish Enlightenment ... including the establishment of a great herring fishing, in which it became the European leader during the third long wave from the 1870s onwards" --Philcha (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Ensured that the above concepts were all mentioned in the article History of the North Sea with citaitons and without plagarisms. Also summarised concepts in the North Sea article as well. Thank you kindly. SriMesh | talk 02:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snippets from "Reconstructions of the continents around the North Atlantic at about the 60th parallel"

[edit]

Please rephrase those that you use, to avoid WP:COPYVIO. Here's the correct citation: Torsvik, T.H., Van der Voo, R., Meert, J.G., Jon Mosar, J., and Walderhaug, H.J. (April 2001). "Reconstructions of the continents around the North Atlantic at about the 60th parallel". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 187 (1–2): 55–69. doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(01)00284-9.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

  • The article is based mainly on paleomagnetic data, i.e. comparing the directions of magnetic fields in rocks of similar age, including working the locations of these rocks to the magnetic poles at the time. The bulk of the results are of Late Carboniferous–Early Triassic and Early Tertiary age - suitable Jurassic and Cretaceous rocks are rare, and geological activity in Europe at the time (e.g. microplate movements and formation of the Alps) has makes the European ones hard to interpret.
  • On more detailed reading I find that the Torsvik et al article is about the continental plates, which include their continental shelves, and says nothing about the N Sea as a functioning sea. So I now think it's of little help for North Sea. --Philcha (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (2002–2007), MUMM North Sea facts, retrieved July 19, 2007{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  2. ^ a b Answers Corporation (2007), North Sea: Definition and Much More from Answers.com, retrieved July 19, 2007
  3. ^ OSPAR Commission, for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic. (2007), Geography, hydrography and climate (PDF), retrieved July 19, 2007
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Sea/Archive_2&oldid=1092072907"