Talk:Cold core ring

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next couple of days. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@AurumIsGold: first of all, thank you for writing an interesting article, I learned a lot. Secondly, I think that at the moment it is a good distance from GA. The issues are described below, but the most important are a poor lead, uncited information, unclear prose, and incomplete breadth. I think it will take quite a bit of work to bring this up to GA standard. If you are willing to put in a lot of work in the next week to fix the article's issues, we can continue the review. Otherwise, I can fail it for now, and you can take all the time you need to fix the article, and then re-nominate it. I will then be happy to pick it up again as the reviewer so you don't have to wait. Let me know what you would like to do. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Some suggestions for articles to use as exemplars and inspiration: Eye (cyclone), Squall line, Trade winds. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A number of prose issues. Beyond nitpicks, which I can fix myself when the time comes, there are quite a few sentences which are difficult to follow in context. Examples: "Cold-core rings are the product of warm water currents wrapping around a colder water mass as it deviates away from its respective current." What is deviating? The mass or the currents? What current does the mass deviate from, a separate cold current? "The nature of eddies are such that the center of the eddy, the outer swirling ring, and the surrounding waters are well stratified and maintain all of their distinctive physical, chemical, and biological properties throughout the eddy’s lifetime, before losing their distinctive characteristics at the end of the life of the cold core ring." Is this a definition of an eddy? If an eddy didn't maintain its own properties, would it exist at all? i.e. what are you trying to say here? "All eddies are capable of transporting energy, momentum, heat, physical and chemical water properties, and even small organisms across very large distances, even when surrounded by waters that would not be conducive to the same." Conducive to the same organisms? Or to the transport of energy/momentum/heat/water properties? Isn't the idea of a an eddy that it is separate from a current (which transports water) and instead keeps water relatively still? There are other prose issues, but these clarity concerns are foremost.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section contains detailed information not found elsewhere in the article, such as depths, direction of swirl, lifespan, and end of life. Generally, the lead should *summarize* information found elsewhere in the article, not provide separate information (apart from a basic definition). That is why lead sections do not strictly need sources - the information will be found and cited later in the article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The first paragraph of 'Characteristics and Structures' is entirely uncited. The last two sentences of 'Formation' are uncited.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass - sources that are present appear reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See comments under 2a.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Some close phrasing here: "separate from their respective ocean current and move into water bodies with different physical, chemical, and biological characteristics" (article) vs "separate from the respective current or front meander and move into water masses with different physical, chemical and biological characteristics." (source) Rephrase article to avoid copyvio.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There seems to be a lot of research on planktons, amphipods, and other organisms in cold core rings, judging by Google Scholar. While this is covered briefly, greater detail seems to be justified. Additionally, work appears to have been done on interactions between cold core rings and tropical cyclones, which does not appear in the article - would be good to add.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Some aspects of cold core rings come in for detailed treatment while others are given a little less attention (see 3a). The article uses the term "eddies" a great deal as a synonym for this particular type of eddy, cold core rings, which may be confusing to the reader.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues with neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues with stability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The images are probably fine, but it would be great to track down an original source for File:Zooplankton.jpg and File:Golfstrom.jpg if possible. I wasn't able to locate the government origin for either using Google reverse searches and so-on. If this is not doable, however, I understand.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	It would be helpful, especially on File:SST Gulf stream.jpeg, if the captions were more explicit about where in the image the cold core ring is. As a novice to the subject, it is not immediately clear to me what I'm looking at and which part is the feature of interest.
	7. Overall assessment.

I would prefer if you fail the review for now so that I can get some time to fix up the article. Thank you very much for your helpful feedback. AurumIsGold (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. If you do nominate the article again, feel free to ping me and I promise I'll pick up the review right away so you don't have to wait. Happy editing! Ganesha811 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)