Wikipedia:Peer review/Sea level rise/archive1

A prior review got rather caught up in a minor issue. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Sea level rise-old/archive1 for that. I've copied the rest to here. William M. Connolley 14:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

A Notes section should be used to store all inline citations in, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. Also, the lead need expanding greatly based on the length of the article, the lead should summarize concisely the entire article into one or two paragraphs, see WP:Lead. I'm not too keen on the amount of tables in the article either. Looking good so far, though. — Wackymacs 20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the tables take up a lot of space but so far are the best way to organize the numerous factors. Maybe I should try reducing the table text size to 90% or 80%. (SEWilco 20:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

While it is a somewhat lengthy article, the section on "past changes in sea level" seems unfortunately short and could stand some expansion. I'd like to see coverage of prior geological epochs. I also see too many bulleted lists in the text: those should either be converted to tables or to prose. Also doesn't the article need to cover deluge events, such as the Black Sea deluge theory and possibly the Mediterranean. Otherwise it's looking good. Thanks. — RJH 22:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Events on geological time scales is a good idea. I'll see what can be done with the lists. The Mediterranean event should be in a recent geological period. (SEWilco 04:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Just a note, it has long been suggested that this should be broken up into two articles, one at sea level rise covering modern changes and probably the last interglacial transition, and one at sea level change (presently a redirect to "sea level rise") dealing with processes on geologic time scales. In talk, such a division has generally been seen as agood idea, though no one (myself included) has been eager to work on breaking it up. Dragons flight 05:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Were you aware the articles were merged a year ago? (diff) (SEWilco 06:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  - Yeah, but I wasn't watching either page at the time and I complained when I finally noticed (not the first complaint, I might add). Subsequent discussions favored breaking them up again. Dragons flight 07:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]