Wikipedia:Peer review/Glacier retreat/archive1

Glacier retreat

The editors of this recently created article are requesting peer review to ensure the article meets WP:MOS. The information provided in the article is well referenced we believe and our hope is to have the article become a Wikipedia:Featured article in the near future. Any and all suggestions to help us make this article better are welcome.--MONGO 10:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part this looks pretty good. Some comments:

Glacial retreat is not a universal phenomenon. The glaciers have been expanding in the Scandinavian countries and Iceland. I think it is important to mention this for balance purposes. (Plus it demonstrates that climate change can have unexpected and even counter-intuitive consequences.)
Some of the paragraphs are overly long. (Such as in the introduction.) You might want to split up the largest paragraphs to make reading a little less tiresome.
You'll probably get dinged about avoiding bulleted lists.
I noticed your references are all just external links. However links can go away. So, where possible, I suggest entering your cited references in the standard reference format. I.e. giving the author(s), article name, year, and publication source.

Thanks! — RJH 16:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the observations. Should we change the external links as summarized to demonstrate the publication, autheor etc, or do you think we simply need to located the actual printed versions of this referencing. Much of the web based information is also in printed form in almost the identical format, especially the USGS stuff s this should be no big deal. I agree the article needs some trimming. Looking the article over, there was mention of the glaciers in Norway expanding, but this is currently not the case as it appears that this expansion was due to a temporary increase in snowfall rates which have now returned to normal. I'll look into the iceland information. Appreciate your assistance.--MONGO 19:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For an example on how to format the references see Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style. You may find the m:Cite/Cite.php style of keeping track of references more useful (see Hugo Chávez for an example of how this system works). Other comments:
- Make opening sentence a definition of the topic that provides context. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Lead_section.
- "...the most important topic in the field of glaciology." is a bold statement. If it stays it will need to be backed up with a reference. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Avoid peacock and weasel terms
- "How many of our glaciers are now in disequilibrium?" - Avoid asking questions, just present the facts.
- The space between "Europe" and "Alps" is currently blank. That space can be used for providing an overview of glaciers in Europe (in general). Same goes for "Data sources" and "Terminus location" (in general: does kinds of data are useful, why is that important and what is done with the data?)
- At WP:FAC you will likely be asked to make imperial conversions of the metric data.
- For the lists, see Wikipedia:Embedded list and Help:List#Purpose of lists.
- The order of "references", "see also", etc sections are listed here Wikipedia:Section#Appendix sections. However, "see also" sections are discouraged at WP:FAC on the basis that if it is important enough to list at the end it should be important enough to mention in the body of text (making the duplicate link unnecessary).

--maclean25 21:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed ponits one and two...worked on providing a short intor as mention by your point three above. You're also right that the measurements need to be both metric and standard, in that order as this is an international article and metric is used more commonly on the international scene. I'll remove the see also and check the order of ending references and additional reading...appreciate your imput as I had overlooked these points.--MONGO 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate footnote-type refs. But thats just my opinion... if they are there, why are refs done as "sentence.[ref]" rather than "sentence [ref]."?
"Glaciers respond to climate change in an attempt to achieve equilibrium" is teleological.
"If a glacier cannot achieve a point of equilibrium through retreat..." - what isn't made clear here (not sure where to say it) is that as the glacier retreats (uphill; to a colder region) it becomes stabalised, since melt decreases
"in Italy all 69 observed glaciers were in retreat" contradicts "In the Italian Alps the percentage of retreating glaciers has increased from 34% in 1980 to 96% in 1999"
Norway: should probably ref the importance of the glaciers/snowpack for hydropower?

William M. Connolley 23:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point one...I put the period first for, I dunno..I thought that the reference was after the statement. I'm not fond of the re/not style either, but was told by numerous editors recently on one of the articles I worked on that this was the preferred style over html links. Point two...does indicate intelligence of glaciers...and that needs to be changed. Point three, glaciers may become stabilized, but only if there is a continuing supply of snow and cold to support stabilization. The process of stabilization may slow or abate, but none of the evidence seems to indicate that this abatement is anywhere in the near future. I'll try and work that into the article. Point four, is contradictory a bit and it needs to be corrected. Point five is a revelation and deserves mention....thanks for the imput and your contributions.--MONGO 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mount St. Helens glacier is also expanding, although that seems to have more to do with local geologic factors. Durova 03:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. St. Helens lost most of it's glaciers after the 1980 eruption and the interior glacier now in the crater is a brand new one since then. The recent activity in the crater from volcanism has seriously deformed and in many ways actualy reduced the size of htis glacier in the past year. It deserves mention though for sure.--MONGO 03:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]