Talk:Ballast Island (Japan)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 16:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a Japanese island has rapidly fluctuated in size? Source: Kayanne et al. (14 July 2016). "Eco-geomorphic processes that maintain a small coral reef island: Ballast Island in the Ryukyu Islands, Japan". Geomorphology. 271. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2016.07.021. Retrieved 27 February 2024. Pp. 87-90
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Anomalites

Created by Generalissima (talk). Self-nominated at 20:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Ballast Island (Japan); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - This is so nitpicky, but I suggest we use "fluctuated" instead of "alternated". The latter typically implies a binary of two options, whereas "fluctuated" is used more for an ebb-and-flow; the source uses "fluctuate" as well.

QPQ: - pending
Overall: @Generalissima: Earwig CD clear, new and long enough. Did some copyediting on the article. Will wait on QPQ. One thing: can I ask why you decided to forego almost all use of the convert template? I assume to avoid overuse, but I think the article could greatly benefit from including imperial units to improve accessibility. – TCMemoire 00:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• @TCMemoire: I genuinely just forgot about converting to imperial since I'm usually so focused on making imperial units metrics; let me fix that! Fluctuated is a better wording! Fixed that. Generalissima (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: Sorry for the delay, been keeping an eye on Anomalites to see when it gets passed. Once that goes through, I'll pass this DYK. I also see you successfully got it to GA in the meantime--congratulations! – TCMemoire 21:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Neato, we're good to go. – TCMemoire 10:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Name

What is the origin of the name? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, I could find no sources that mention this. Generalissima (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Actually, good news: after some digging and help from a Japanese-speaking friend, I found and cited the name's origin. Generalissima (talk) 02:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ballast Island (Japan)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 19:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

• Pretty short article; I get that there isn't much coverage of it, but after some digging I found some sources covering snorkeling in the region (1), and some scientific papers that mention some of the fish found there (1, 2, 3, 4). Two of these fish have holotypes or lectotypes from the island, so they definitely seem worth mentioning.
  • Added these to the article. -G
• "gravely composition" Think this is supposed to be "gravelly".
  • Fixed. - G
• What's settlement dispersal?
  • Sediment, my bad. - G
• "a size it has largely remained since" sounds weird, maybe "remaining around this size since"?
  • Good change, fixed. - G
• Images are fine. Spot-checked both the English-language sources, AGF-ing on the Japanese one for obvious reasons.
• That's all. AryKun (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@AryKun: Made changes per your recommendations, thank you so much! Generalissima (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed