|Marine debris was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
Great Pacific Garbage Patch
Why is there nothing on this page about the trash vortex, called the "Eastern Garbage Patch" or similar names? It is basically a floating island of flotsam. A Shangri-la of garbage, if you will. Here is a greenpeace article about it. No picture of the mass itself, though. Fuzzform 18:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I can't see why anyone would object, so I'll be bold and do it now - 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I also merged the ocean dumping stub along with F&J. How about we merge nurdle too? I'll leave this one up to the community, as the term may also have other uses. - 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Cancel that, the article could be expanded, as there is clearly an industrial use for them - 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A couple suggestions
- The following paragraphs are completely unreferenced: first under study (this also needs clarification), first under Legality of ocean dumping, last paragraph in article. Also, the "Source of debris" section is unreferenced.
- Also, you might want to expand the bulleted lists under "Legality of ocean dumping" into prose. delldot talk 01:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
This article has the makings of GA or FA on an interesting and overlooked subject, but it's not there yet. There are just too many problems to fix.
- Prose problems: It starts with the lede: "Marine debris, also known as marine litter, is human-created waste that has found itself floating in a lake, sea, ocean or waterway." Found itself? It's sentient? Later on, we read that "plastic comprises over 80% of all known debris ..." This is the wrong usage, and an all-too-common Wikipedia error. Near the end "Entire ships have been deliberately sunk in various attempts to do just that." Awkward, and too colloquial to be encyclopedic. And as a whole too many of the paragraphs within the article feel like they were just put together indiscriminately, as various editors added things and just left it at that. There's little narrative flow.
- Sourcing: "An example of this would be the 1987 Syringe Tide, whereby medical wastes washed ashore in New Jersey, after having blown from the Fresh Kills Landfill." " Clean-up teams around the world patrol beaches to clean up this environmental threat." Both completely uncited, absolutely unforgivable when we're referring to a specific event as in the former. " It has also been suggested that persistent organic pollutants may be collecting and magnifying on the surface of plastic debris, adsorbing permanently to its surface and making oceanic plastic debris far more deadly that it would be on land." By who? These have been tagged appropriately. Also, that bit about California's proposed legislation is sourced to an advoacy group's page. A little searching should find a more neutral source.
- Illustration: The pictures are mostly pertinent but there are some issues. I have lots of issues with the lead image. First, the picture has a huge cutline detailing everything found in that cleanup effort which goes on for several lines. Most of that information is rather trivial (and also see WP:NOT#STAT) and, if it belongs anywhere it belongs in the text. Cutlines should be short and sweet. If you go to three lines you need to have a good reason; there is no reason any cutline should be more than four lines long. Certainly it shouldn't nearly double the height of the image.
And secondly, the very next image would be a far better one to use, as it actually shows the sea and some debris that presumably washed up from it.
This leads to the one image that should go ... the no-dumping one from that lovely seacoast town of Colorado Springs, Colorado. This article is about marine debris. That means we're talking about debris in the oceans, not in streams over a thousand miles from the nearest seacoast.
- See Also: This section absolutely fails the Wikipedia standard. Some of the links are already in the article (ghost net, cruise ship pollution); others really aren't directly relevant (space debris, for one). I would bet that judicious editing of this article would result in this section being eliminated entirely.
I have problems with this article as even a B-class. It's a perfect example of why C-class was needed, and I will appopriately downgrade the assessment as well as adding another relevant project. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Relating to marine pollution
It seems to me that this article is closely related to marine pollution, and should be developed in tandem with that article. I have transferred some examples of marine toxins from Wild fisheries#Toxins, but "marine pollution" still needs work. I also wonder whether plastic waste is shaping up as the most serious marine pollutant of all, and whether it warrants an article of it's own? --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- I do agree that marine debris is definitely a form of marine pollution. However, I strongly oppose merging the articles, as the debris article a well-developed discussion (unlike pollution) of a well documented and clearly notable topic. There should be a section in marine pollution that briefly discusses debris, along with a link to this article, where it can be discussed in depth. Anxietycello (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Marine debris/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This is quite close to GA standard I think, but there a few issues that need to be addressed:
- What is the relevance of a sign warning not to pollute a stream in Colorado Springs to an article dealing with marine debris?
- "Currently, the California State Legislature is considering a host of bills ...". Currently as at when? 2008?
- "Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property can be of consequence within property law, admiralty law, and the law of the sea." I don't understand what "of consequence" means in this context.
- "... whereas some reckon it closer to the size of Africa." Who are these "some"?
- "Should any islands be unlucky enough to lie within a gyre ...". I think the "unlucky" bit should be dropped as expressing a pov.
- "... their coastlines will likely be ruined by the waste that inevitably washes ashore." Likely needs a citation.
- "Clean-up teams around the world patrol beaches to clean up this environmental threat." Not sure what environmental threat this is talking about, as the preceding sentences were talking specifically about islands within oceanic gyres.
- "More recently, reports have surfaced ...". Reports don't "surface". What are these reports? From whom?
- The Weisman book is cited three times, but no page numbers are given.
- "Law of Europe" and "Law of the United States" seems unnecessarily awkward names for sections. Why not "European law", and "United States law"?
- "Eighty percent of all known debris is plastic – a component that has been rapidly accumulating since the end of World War II. Plastics accumulate because they don't biodegrade as many other substances do; although they will photodegrade on exposure to sunlight, they do so only under dry conditions, as water inhibits this process." I have a number of problems with this paragraph. What does "known debris" mean? Is there some unknown debris? Accumulating where? And this seems tautological: "they do so only under dry conditions, as water inhibits this process". Water inhibits the process of being dry?
- The first paragraph of types of debris is unreferenced. Which isn't a problem in itself, but this statement does need to be sourced: "Six pack rings, in particular, are considered a poster child of the damage that garbage can do to the marine environment." Who says so?
- Ref #27 has gone dead.
- "Marine debris ... is human-created waste ... Some forms of marine debris, such as driftwood, occur naturally". How is this, from the lead, to be reconciled? Not really a great opener.
I'm putting this article on hold to allow time for these issues to be addressed. I will check back in no less than seven days.
- As these issues remain outstanding, this article has not been listed as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Recent edit by 18.104.22.168 is possibly vandalism, as it appears to reverse the meaning of the introductory paragraphs using hideous grammar. I haven't reversed it because I don't know the history on this, I could be mistaken. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)