Talk:Eifuku/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 11:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article about a subject that takes me back to work I was involved in a long time ago with tropical coastal managers. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Review

The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, 99% of authorship is one user, Jo-Jo Eumerus. It is currently unranked.

• The images are licensed under Creative Commons or listed as in the Public Domain. Please add tags for US copyright to USA Northern Mariana Islands location map.svg.

  Hmm? I don't see any US copyright tags that would apply beyond the CC ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Interesting. The CC tags seem to be German. Are there US ones as well? simongraham (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  As far as I know, they are valid no matter the language. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• The bibliography is not consistent as per WP:CITE. For example, can you please ensure that the journal references follow the same format. I suggest this means moving the full references of the journal articles like Stern et al 2004 and Hein et al 1987 to the Sources section and then use the sfn template to create short footnotes like Davis & Moyer 2008.

  I think it's actually OK to use this kind of mixed style when one source is used for one page and the other for multiples. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  I understand, but unfortunately the articles referenced are not a single page in length. I think we need to make them consistent. I have edited the references for Anderson, Johnson & Nonaka 2018 and Rossi & Tunnicliffe 2017 to show what I mean. simongraham (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Well, that's not the point. The point is that sometimes I use only one page of a reference and sometimes several. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  This is not a hill I want to die on. For a GA, the the references must be "presented in accordance with the layout style guidelines" and I think broadly it is. simongraham (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• In the first sentence, NW Eifuku is italicised and mentioned as synonymous with Eifuku. Please amend this and name the two seamounts. This is repeated in the second paragraph of the section about the Geography and Geology. Please can you check throughout the document and ensure it is clear that NW Eifuku is the name of one of the seamounts not both.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Excellent work. I have amended the first sentence to "Eifuku and NW Eifuku are two seamounts in the Pacific Ocean." to align with MOS:BOLDSYN and created a redirect from NW Eifuku. I also amended a sentence to remove the ambiguity about the two mounts. The two paragraphs in the lead each mention "Champagne". I think it would flow better if the mentions were continuous. What do you think? simongraham (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Eh, I think the current formulation does do the job of firstly mentioning why the seamount is important and then only discuss the feature in more detail. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  OK. I guess it is good enough for a GA, but I suggest that the lead will need substantial development if you want to go for FA. simongraham (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• It is not necessary to put a footnote for each sequential sentences which has the same reference. This means that the reference at the end of the first sentence of the Geography and Geology section "The Eifuku seamounts are located northwest of Farallon de Pajaros island in the Northern Marianas." Is likely to be redundant.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• "The Northern Marianas are part of the c. 2,500 kilometres (1,600 mi) Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc between Japan and Guam..." Please add the adj parameter to the distance.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Animals are not frequent here, the shrimp Opaepele loihi is the most important species …" is a run-on sentence. Please replace the comma with either a semi-colon, add a conjunction or make this into two sentences.

  I've split that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• The paragraph "There are differences between the microbiotas of different vent sites, with distinct metabolic traits and species composition." is very short. Is there any more information that can be added or can it be merged with another paragraph?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Please ping me when you have had a chance to look at these and I will take another look. simongraham (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for your work on this. simongraham (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   it contains no original research;

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

   it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

4. It has a neutral point of view

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.