Talk:Protector Shoal/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 23:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The seamount erupted in March 1962" needs to be stated in the body.
Er, it is - the pumice raft was erupted a few days before 14th March 1962. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]
I've recast this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:25, 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.
Hmm, not sure how to remove the map and the hemisphere image shows Zavodovski, not Protector Shoal. Removed that image instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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):

Map

That works better; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and geomorphology

"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]

Then how about, "referred to in the literature as ..."? RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:25, 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.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's producing Error in convert: Ignored invalid option "adjective=true" errors. I should have emphasized the "or something like that" part :-). Looking at Template:Convert#Adjective: a 10-mile distance, it looks like what you really want is adj=on. RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

Consider combining this with the preceding Geology section. I don't think breaking it out into its own short sub-section adds anything.
Eh, I think it's long enough for a section, 'specially since the rest of the higher-level section isn't that much longer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly either way, so this is fine. RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1962 eruption

"which was probably erupted a few days before", I assume this should be "which had probably..."
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Not a WP:GACR, but I recommend adding alt text to all images per MOS:ALT.
No issues spotted with copyright.
Article is appropriately cited to what appear to be reliable sources.
Images all appear to be appropriately licenced.
No other issues spotted with WP:GACR

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]