Talk:Davidson Seamount/GA1
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll begin making some copyedits as I go - feel free to revert if I inadvertently change the meaning. I'll jot down some queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Age section very stubby - anything else you can add to it? i.e. is it the same age as the other seamounts in the group?
- Sure, I'll do that tommorow (a bit late here now...) ResMar 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the two closest dated seamounts (Pioneer and Guide) are bit far off, and are dated around 11 and 16.6 million years, respectively. Considering the 9 to 15 range for Davidson it's not all that informative...I went and merged the two subsections. ResMar 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- In the Ecology section, would be good to maybe list one or more of the most unusual endemic benthic species. Also, how does it compare with what is known of other seamounts?
- See the quote, section deep-sea coral, it describes how Davidson is unique from the rest of the seamounts in the area. As for a list, um I'll look into it. ResMar 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Um well after probing around the web I could find a few more species besides those mentioned in the article, but for the most part I can't really find a good sample of species at the seamount that represent it accuratly...ResMar 19:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Davidson is interesting to volcanologists because of its unique geology, and biologists want to know about its ecology. - odd wording. I'd make it more about interesting/unusual biology rather than biologists wanting..x
In a press release dated November 20, 2008 - make an inline, not direct link.
Otherwse looking pretty spiffy - nearly there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh my, almost forgot I had an active GAN before I lulled off...um ok I guess I'll do it then...thanks for not closing it :) ResMar 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
1. Well written?:
- Prose quality:
- Manual of Style compliance:
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
- References to sources:
- Citations to reliable sources, where required:
- No original research:
3. Broad in coverage?:
- Major aspects:
- Focused:
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
- Fair representation without bias:
5. Reasonably stable?
- No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
- Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Images need WP:ALT text.
Overall:
- Pass or Fail: