Talk:Blue-ice area/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) 19:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi!

What an interesting topic! I will be reviewing this article over the next couple days, potentially making minor copyedits or improvements. I will also gradually fill out my review here. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Overall status

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Review

Prose & copyediting

• The two clauses in the last sentence of the lede don't appear to be correlated in any way. Should they really be linked with subordinating conjunction?

  No; I've split them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• First sentence in the "Appearance" section: "Blue-ice areas have a generally smooth but often rippled appearance." Should this use "and" instead? "But" implies contrast, but ripples (e.g. in a pond) are generally considered smooth. This sentence is also partially duplicated later in the paragraph. This redundancy should be removed regardless.

  Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• In the third paragraph of the "Appearance" section, "entrain" should be linked, unless I missed a link earlier in the article.

  Replaced with a synonym. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Blue ice", in the first paragraph of the "Occurrence" section, should probably be linked.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Why is "blue" enclosed in parentheses in the first sentence of the "Origin" section?

  For some reason the source does use a parens as well; I figure we can safely remove it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• What are your thoughts on rewriting the last sentence of the Origin section? Currently, it is this: "Shorter term fluctuations in the area covered by blue-ice areas are associated with changes in mean wind speed, and a small decrease of the land surface covered by blue-ice areas is projected with global warming owing to decreased wind speeds." It could be rewritten to: "Changes in mean wind speeds cause short-term fluctuations in the land covered by blue-ice areas. Global warming is predicted to decrease wind speeds in the blue ice areas [or the entire Antarctic?] causing a small decrease in the land surface covered by blue-ice areas."

  @Reaper Eternal:I think that works, with "Antarctic". Note that the source sentence is Since the surface wind speed over the interior of Antarctica is determined mainly by the inversion strength, which in turn is likely to decrease under greenhouse warming as a result of enhanced downwelling longwave radiation [Van den Broeke, 1996], we can tentatively argue that the surface area occupied by BIAs will decrease as a result of projected future climate warming. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Breadth of coverage

• Will this article help? It covers the detection methods of blue-ice areas and claims that there are two main sources: melt-induced (primarily coastal) and wind-induced (primarily interior). It also confirms Bitanja's 1999 paper (cited in the article already) as to the area of Antarctica which is covered in blue ice.

• Winther, Jan-Gunnar; Jespersen, Martin Nørman; Liston, Glen (2001). "Blue-ice areas in Antarctica derived from NOAA AVHRR satellite data". Journal of Glaciology. 47 (157). Cambridge University Press: 325–334.

• Hrm. Maybe I am not reading that deep enough, but to me it sounds like most of that information is already in the article. Regarding the melt-induced blue ice areas, most sources I saw on the topic tend to restrict the concept to non-melt based, something that is also noted in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Image use

• File:Icemvmt.png has its captions in German. A copy should be made with English captions.
• In addition to being in German, I can't verify that File:Icemvmt.png is actually from NASA. The link is dead, and NASA generally uses English. Are we sure about the licensing status of this image?

  I was able to find the image, in English, on an old version of NASA's site via reverse image search [1]. Apparently, it was originally a GIF and in English. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Other

• This article isn't linked from many other articles. Are there other articles that should link here?

  I did look for them after mainspacing this article but there weren't many. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

More to come soon.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal:Replied to points so far. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, been a bit busy. I'll try to get to this tomorrow! Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Ping. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal:Got the ping, is there a problem pending solution? It seems like I answered all concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

See the "Image use" section of this review. I dealt with one thing (the apparently-inaccurate copyright), but the concern about the image being in German remains. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal:Ah, that one. Replaced it with an English version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This article now passes the GA criteria. Thank you for your work! Reaper Eternal (talk) 06:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)