Talk:The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs/GA1

GA Review

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

Commencing review

I will undertake this review. The article appears neutral, stable and well written. It is generally well-referenced, and all images appear to be in order.

I have added a courtesy credit to one of the images, which is not mandatory, while a second (the aerial view of the Keeling Islands) appears to require acknowledgement of source. The use of the images itself is not at issue.

I have undertaken some copyedits. Please check that these have not changed the sense of the piece.

Thank you for tackling this, the only edit which was problematic was the description of Henslow, which I've modified. . dave souza, talk 20:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific points

"The formation of coral atolls was a scientific puzzle at that time." Since this is the first sentence of the body text, we need to be told explcitily what "that time" was.

Rephrased to tie this in to the Beagle setting out, and added more information from new source. . dave souza, talk 20:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There he tested his ideas and found some facts opposing them, noting 16 volcanic craters that resembled atolls in being raised more on one side, and five hills which appeared roughly equal in height as the proponents of atolls forming on submerged volcanos had proposed." I wasn't sure what was being said here, and found the phrase about vocanic craters confusing. Perhaps the fact that the islands lacked reefs needs to be stated earlier and then explain this initially challenged Darwin's theory?

Looking at the source, have rewritten this: the volcanos and hill heights were in line with the old theory, which he'd abandoned, and the lack of reefs was neutral to either theory. . dave souza, talk 20:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...he wrote the first full draft of his theory on the way to New Zealand on December 21". Sounds as though he wrote it in one day, whereas i think you mean that was the date they arrived in NZ.

Have rewritten this having checked the sources. I wasn't sure if he'd examined the coral on Tahiti, as it gets little mention in his diary, but that was apparently written after the Essay where he put all his notes on corals. . dave souza, talk 20:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"down to about 10 fathoms (5 m)". I'm pretty sure this is wrong - a fathom is two yards, and therefore approximately two metres, so 10 fathoms is closer to 20 metres. Ditto for "about 20–30 fathoms (10–15m)" Later measurements in "Darwin's findings and modern views" seciton appear correct.

Ouch. Have revised, using a calculator and remembering this time that a fathom is 6'-0" . . dave souza, talk 20:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be more logical to have the section on "reception" after, rather than before, the section on "structure of book".

On reflection, agree and have changed it accordingly. . dave souza, talk 20:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"He and Lyell were unable to answer the question as to why similar depths had not been found in fossil coral limestone onshore." This section was not easy to follow, and in the preceding sentence, I wonder if "thicknesses" would be a better word than "depths"?

Have rewritten the relevant sentences. . dave souza, talk 22:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent article otherwise. I will drop back in to see how things are going. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dave for the prompt revisions. It looks in good shape, and is being passed. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! Many thanks, dave souza, talk 22:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]