Talk:Vema Seamount

Vema Seamount has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 21, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Seamounts (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Seamounts, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SeamountsWikipedia:WikiProject SeamountsTemplate:WikiProject SeamountsSeamounts articles

Fisheries and Fishing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Volcanoes Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Google Scholar

Source for the newest additions

Is there a source for the newest additions to climate and geography? I don't want to simply revert but they need one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost one week, probably long enough to expect sources. I've backed out the unsourced edits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Annals of the South African Museum - Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (1975) (17796268863).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Annals of the South African Museum - Annale van die Suid-Afrikaanse Museum (1997) (17800769684).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of hydroids

Parking this source here pending comments on whether we want to list them out like the fish are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A listing of hydroids would, I think, be appropriate here, as would any other species recorded from the area, and which could be split out if it gets disproportionate, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This one also exists but for sponges. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vema Seamount/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 07:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review the article. AM

Review comments

Lead section / infobox

Link fathom (here and in the first section); algae.
In the infobox, the upper location map in not needed (the ‘map=’ and ‘map caption=’ lines can be omitted or hidden). I have produced an accurate map of the seamoun::t here, which I would consider using instead.
Done, but what is the licence of the contours? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link, the data licence needs to be put on the file page as well, however. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 08:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AWS provide an Open Data service. AM

1 History

the research ship RV Vema – Vema is in italics.
Done. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 08:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vema is one - ‘Vema was one’.
~~I would amend Vema lies to ‘It lies’, as Verna appears four times in this paragraph.~~

2 Geomorphology and geography

~~Link South Atlantic Ocean; bathymetric.~~
'~~'away is redundant.~~
Imo the sentence beginning The cities of Cape Town needs to be copy edited to tidy up the prose.
Another unrelated seamount – ‘A seamount’?
~~Move the link to seamount to where it first appears.~~
Done. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 08:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Another" bit is solved. I think the sentence with the cities is fine as-is and isn't easy to find a better formulation for, anyway. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 19:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. AM

3 Geology

Consider a link to Volcanic rock.
~~If possible, move Olivine apart from basalt, to separate the links.~~
Vema hotspot should not be in bold.
''Vema is an intraplate volcano and is considered – is the start of a long run-on sentence. Consider amending to something like 'Vema is an intraplate volcano. It is considered to be the present-day location of a hotspot, the Vema hotspot, which may have moved farther south or west (by about 200 kilometres (120 mi)) since creating the Vema Seamount. It may be inactive.’
~~The image doesn’t illustrate any part of the text here, and so should be removed.~~
Um, it does show Vema in relation to other hotspots. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't agree. The map doesn't illustrate or explain the text, and so is purely decorative. It should be removed or replaced. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK removed it. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 19:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seismic tomography has shown to agreed upon seems to be text about the hotspot’s origin. It would imo be better being a separate paragraph.
~~The text from Earlier volcanism onwards is off-topic. If you feel readers would find it useful, it should be put into a note.~~
No, currently the article discusses both Vema the seamount and Vema the hotspot, as there isn't enough information to justify two separate articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's acceptable for the article to contain information about the hotspot, which created the seamount. What else the hotspot created over long periods of time is off-topic, and at best it could be placed in a separate note. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Put it in a note then. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 08:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4 Water conditions

decreasing downwards – ‘and decease with increasing depth’ sounds better imo.
the cold Benguela Current does not reach the seamount, which is instead influenced by the South Atlantic oceanic gyre is part of another run-on sentence, and should be made into separate ones.

5 Biology

~~Link cryptic (Cryptic species complex?).~~

Needs some attention still. As the term has several technical meanings (some being biological), the wiktionary link is not sufficient. Perhaps a brief explanation in brackets could be added. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Put a synonym instead. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 08:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would add a comma after large parts of the seamount.
with the late 1970s and 1980s seeing the initiation of Mackerel scad and tuna fishing, respectively – consider copy editing this to improve the prose.
used – ‘exploited’?
on Vema Seamount – ‘there’ is better imo.
~~Why is threatened in quotes – it could be read to mean that the word is inaccurate.~~
Because that's a formal term in this context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but my point stands, and I would make sure the meaning of the text here is made clearer. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but from what I know quotes are the normal way to mark such terms; scare quotes are distinguished by context. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 08:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. AM

7 References

~~A number of the sources are written in full within the References section, whist many others are put in the Sources subsection. The citations used need to be amended so that the style is consistent.~~
That's just a style thing; one type of references when only using one page number, another when using multiple. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

8 External links

~~(Not GA) I would amend the title to ‘Further reading’.~~

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 28 August to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done, save as noted - perhaps you can also check the talk page comments? Noting here that I'll be away until the next weekend, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'm unclear here, are you asking for an extension for how long I am placing the article on hold? Amitchell125 (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've just handled the other issues, minus one where I don't agree. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 08:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work so far on the review, there are a few outstanding issues which need to be discussed/sorted to wrap things up. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.