Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2013: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Init. page
 
added six
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{TOClimit|2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amir Hamzah/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adam Eckfeldt/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Little Nemo (1911 film)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pavo (constellation)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sense and Sensibility (film)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sea/archive1}}

Revision as of 09:37, 5 October 2013

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Amir Hamzah

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is ready for FA after a couple months work. Amir was easily the most prominent poet of his contemporaries and has served as an influence for generations of Indonesian poets. He's also a national hero, something which I don't see the number one most famous Indonesian poet, Chairil Anwar, ever achieving. I think you'll find his story a tragic one, and perhaps tissues will be needed. This article has had some input from Dr. Blofeld, as well as a peer review from Tim Riley and SchroCat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Usual polished work. I have no knowledge of the subject, but it reads well. I'm afraid I didn't cry. Inevitably, a few niggles before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (28 February 1911[a] – 20 March 1946)—the positioning of the note is unaesthetic and contra MoS. Much better outside the parentheses.
  • his studies to legal school—"to" seems odd. At? In?
  • own Islam and Malay culture, —Islamic.
  • near one of the ones in which Amir boarded. —yuk, one of those, I think.
  • several conditions... be a diligent student and abandon the independence movement—Are two conditions "several"?
  • 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) —The 10 km looks like a rough approximation, so 6 mi is probably more appropriate.
  • Check that each use of "however" is justified.
  • Jassin cited text is missing location (Jakarta).
  • Albany or Albany NY? Stick to one version, and, if you keep the state, write it in full.

Support – I reviewed this article for GA and again at Peer Review. By the time of the latter, where my comments (few and minor) were thoroughly dealt with, the article seemed to me to be of FA quality. Reading it once again now and checking it against the FAC criteria I am confirmed in my view that it is a deserving candidate for promotion. – Tim riley (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Squeamish Ossifrage - Just a few comments here, as this is in quite excellent shape already:

Extended content
  • In the Dini reference, should Pangerang be Pangeran? That's what WorldCat has, and what Google Translate thinks, but Indonesian is certainly not my language!
  • In the Foulcher reference, 1933-142 should be 1933-1942, I assume?
  • There's also a Persian dastan (although, come to think of it, that may be the origin material for Hikayat Amir Hamzah). And a few sources seem to discuss Hamza ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib in a non-fictionalized capacity under that name. But, in any case, not going to quibble. Hatlink target selection is hardly a topic for FAC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the Hikayat was taken from Persian literature (brought by Arab Muslim traders, then promulgated as Islam spread through Sumatra). Hamza ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib may have been a real person (Islam teaches him as such), but he's also been heavily fictionalised. It's not too rare for fictional depictions of major historical figures to show up in classic Malay literature... Hikayat Iskandar Zulkarnain (about Alexander the Great) is one that's interested me simply because it depicts Alexander as a Muslim active several hundred years before Muhammad (another import from Persia too). But yes, classic Malay literature is not the subject at hand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's survey of Indonesian literature is unquestionably comprehensive, although I've run across a few additional Western sources that might have something to add:
    • Sutherland, Heather (1968). "Pudjangga Baru: Aspects of Indonesian Intellectual Life in the 1930s". Indonesia (6): 106–127. JSTOR 3350714. I don't actually have access to this one from my present location, but it is the most potentially pertinent scholarly journal article I could scare up.
    • Siapno, Jaqueline Aquino (2002). Gender, Islam, Nationalism and the State in Aceh: The Paradox of Power, Co-optation and Resistance. New York: Routledge. pp. 72–73. ISBN 978-0700715138. Not a whole lot here, but a couple of pages that discuss Amir Hamzah's subversive language regarding women and the ruling order that might have a home in the discussion of the themes of his work.
    • Amir Hamzah's life and work were evidently among the sources adapted into the 1992 play Biografi Yanti Setelah 12 Menit: Bodden, Michael H. (2010). Resistance on the National Stage: Theater and Politics in Late New Order Indonesia. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. ISBN 978-0896802759. Not sure if it's sufficiently notable or relevant, but sort of tripped over it while trying to see if there had been a film adaptation of his life (I would have thought so, but it seems not). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, no biopic yet (or even a documentary, that I'm aware of...). Afrizal Malna is notable (and has an article, to my surprise) and the play has been discussed in several sources, so I think it might be worth a mention. However, I should note that he doesn't seem to have been a character in the play, but rather his poems were source material. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reference quibbles are just that, and I'm happy to support the article as it stands; my efforts to locate additional sources to contribute are by no means an implication that the article is insufficiently comprehensive as it stands. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - mostly all OK (PD-Indonesia, PD-India). Sources and authors provided. 1 question and 1 somewhat bigger issue:

  • File:Amir_Hamzah_portrait_edit.jpg ==> How was "c. 1935" established for this photo? Would be good to add that info to the image summary aswell, it only has "undated, < 1946" at the moment.
  • File:Ilik_Sundari_by_Amir_Hamzah.jpg ==> This image is beautiful and adds great encyclopedic value to the article, but i am afraid, it fails WP:NFCC #8. It provides important visual context, but does not strictly add to the reader's understanding of Amir Hamzah (and is not about the article topic, so the identification argument wouldn't work either). It would be "fair use" anywhere else, but Wikipedia fair-use is a lot more restrictive. Suggestions: Maybe the book source has some info about the photo's origin? If it was previously published somewhere else, fair-use might be unnecessary. Or if you want, i can nominate the image at WP:Non-free content review and ask for more input. GermanJoe (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm prepared to defend the Sundari image's fair use in this article. First, about the image. It appears that Dini, when writing her book, interviewed Amir's daughter. Amir kept a scrapbook / photo album (as mentioned in our article) with his pictures in Java – including photographs of Ilik. These appear to have been first published in Dini's book, as before then they would have been in the album (she does not quote her source though). When Jassin was writing (the closest to the 1970 cutoff date for Indonesian photographs to be PD in the US), Amir's family and friends had not admitted that Ilik was Amir's Javanese lover, and thus a photograph of her would almost certainly not have been published.
    • Now, regarding the use of the image in this article: that she posed, willingly, for Amir, while he photographed her, is even more depictive of their relationship than the photographs I've seen of the two together (where they are always part of a crowd). The way she's looking at him, the way she's smiling, it's fairly clear that there's more than just friendship happening. There relationship (how close they were) is a key part of this article. At worst, Ilik could be move down to the inspirations section and we could remove Tagore.
    • Have clarified the other image on the description page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, I think its a very valuable photograph.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - i have nominated the image in question for a more in-depth review at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Ilik_Sundari_by_Amir_Hamzah.jpg based on WP:NFCC. Please offer your feedback about the image's fair-usage status there. GermanJoe (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments I don't have much to add, just a few minor issues and questions:

  • Capitalise "vice sultan".
  • Shouldn't fiqh and tawhid be italicised?
  • Given the fact that Hamzah was schooled in fiqh, was he a sharia judge? Or did he serve in the civil court? I mean, there isn't much written about his legal education, so I guess he was an Islamic jurist.
  • The Rechtschool was Dutch-run, so I highly doubt he would have gotten Sharia law from there. It would have been based in European legal tradition. I'm thinking, based on the sources (but not explicitly stated in them) that as a judge Amir would have emphasised traditional (adat) law, maintained by the nobility, which isn't quite the same (though naturally there are shariah influences). He would have likely used the Dutch-style law only in cases where the Indies government was interested. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is readily apparent to the reader. Given that Indonesia is a heavily Muslim society, that Hamzah was the son of a vice-sultan (who, as the leader of Muslims, is expected to know the sharia), and that Hamzah was schooled in fiqh (as I have said above), I think it would be reasonable to assume he was a sharia judge unless mentioned otherwise or unless the reader knew the exact legal system implemented in Indonesia under the Dutch (although, admittedly, had he been a sharia judge, Hamzah would have had a full beard haha). Please be clear about the nature of his court duties. Perhaps an explanatory note could be added? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, "not explicitly stated in [the sources]". A footnote to that effect would be OR and should not be included. Sources focus on Amir as a poet, mostly, and as such his courtly duties (for the nobility or in law) have been completely ignored in the literature. At worst I'll just remove the sentence to avoid leaving readers wondering. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Hamzah, as a Muslim, perform Hajj?
    • No mention of him going on the hajj, and Indonesians love honorifics so if no Indonesian sources style him as Hj. Amir Hamzah I think it's a safe bet he didn't. He was still quite young when he died, so he may not have had time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check (2) - all OK (2 new images), just one minor improvement needed:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Adam Eckfeldt

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because… I think it meets the criteria. Adam Eckfeldt was a significant figure in the early days of U.S. coinage. I've been working on the article on and off for a while, and it is a Four Award candidate. It's rather short, and I should note that I will be at the American Numismatic Association library on September 13 and 14 if there are any sourcing issues. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

  • In the lead, should "Chief Coiner of the United States Mint" be capitalized? I'm uncertain, and a quick browsing of references shows disagreement. I'm also not sure if the position is notable enough for a redlink; we have an article for Chief Engraver of the United States Mint but not one for the Coiner.
I do not think the Chief Coiner is worth an article. Possibly a list, since several of the incumbents have been notable. The work of the coiner is more mechanical than the artistic work done by the Engraver, which people are interested in because he is the guy who designs the coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the "Early career" section should be titled "Early life" instead, since the bulk of it is not career-based information?
  • In a departure from a usual complaint, there's quite a bit of underlinking. Most (though not all) series of US coinage have their own articles, which should probably be linked where appropriate. It's weird to me that the 1792 half disme has an article, and the Birch cent doesn't. Worth a redlink, perhaps? But the early large cents all have articles, so can be linked, perhaps like this: "When the Mint's initial cents were found to be excessively crude and attracted public ridicule, Eckfeldt was called upon to design replacements." And while there's not ever likely to be an article for the 1792 pattern disme, it's covered at Dime (United States coin)#"Disme" (1792), so that can be linked in the next paragraph.
  • I suspect this article is the correct one, but the claim here that Eckfeldt engraved the first half cent dies differs from the claim in Half cent (United States coin) that they were designed and engraved by Voigt.
According to Don Taxay's book The U.S. Mint and Coinage, at page 71, discussing the "first die made in it" story, saying it is very likely the 1792 disme (which was never struck in any number and is excessively rare) "its portrait is almost identical to that on the 1793 half cent, for which Eckfeldt is said to have claimed credit."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that's not the most definitive claim I've ever seen! Since you said you were going to be at the ANS library this weekend, I suspect that either Roger Cohen's American Half Cents, the "Little Half Sisters" or Walter Breen's Encyclopedia of United States Half Cents would have a more decisive answer. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ANA library rather, I fly to Colorado Springs tomorrow. Their catalog is online but I have no doubt they have them.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, while I was at the library this morning, it did not open nor will tomorrow due to the excessive rainfall they are having in the area, so that washes out my trip. Not a total loss, I'm in Wyoming and will get some images of Oregon Trail monuments for my article on same. This from Google books of Breen's big book (which I own, but it's home) seems to say that Eckfeldt engraved the die based on David Rittenhouse's sketches. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph about George Escol Sellers is interesting enough, but it's an awful lot of space dedicated to a one-off interaction with a redlinked person. Why is this important?
It's not terribly, I was thinking to expand the article a bit in the last few months, and I felt it was worth including as showing a bit of the man himself, not merely what he did.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it accurate to link "master coins" to proof coinage? I'm not certain what the sources say on the matter.
    • Actually, yes, I've got an explicit source for the claim that Eckfeldt's "master coins" are what are now called proofs (on page 21): Johnston, Elizabeth Bryant (1876). A Visit to the Cabinet of the United States Mint, at Philadelphia. Philadelphia: J. N. Lippincott. OCLC 648304048.
  • The prose in "Private and family life" could do with a copyedit, I think. That's doubly true since it swaps to calling him Eckhardt in the second paragraph.
  • In the "Chief coiner" section (should that be "Chief Coiner"? -- I am still unsure the correct capitalization here), the references to the first sentence are not in numerical order. This has been my Mandatory Really Picky FAC Comment for today. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where it is a title before a name, it gets the caps. Chief Coiner Adam Eckfeldt. but Adam Eckfeldt, the chief coiner. The capitalization in the heading is because a heading begins with a capital letter.
  • The Numismatist is ideally cited as a journal, with volume/issue/page numbers.
Get those for you on Friday. I'll be online direct from there both days, 10:30 to 5 MDT, minus setup time on either end of that!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I didn't. I will email the librarian on Tuesday and see if she can help out on volume/issue if I can't find it online.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no firm commitment to either outcome at this time, however. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the typo. I will work through the ones I did not answer, and will report back when I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the ones I've replied to, I've addressed these. It is good to have a review from someone who knows coins from sources other than my articles!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments by PSky
Agree with Nikki. Plus you have N.Y., Ga. and Col. State abbreviation style should be consistent.
Why does the Camparetti ref have and external jump off the page number? Nothing else does. I thought a FAC rule was no web/googlebook links for things that were in print form (books, journal articles, etc). I may be mistaken though.
Image Check The image in the infobox needs a category on commons. This is all I see wrong with the images. PumpkinSky talk 00:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with the comments of the above two reviewers. Thank you both for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. PumpkinSky talk 02:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do my eyes deceive me? A Wehwalt article under 10k? I haven't seen one of these in ages!
Likely my shortest ever FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's with the quotes around his common name (i.e. in the first sentence).
    • which some - who?
I have added "authorities". More detail available by consulting the source in the body of the article, or our article (shoddy though it is) on the 1792 half disme.
    • until his 1852 death. - don't see a point in repeating the YOD in such short succession
    • at $500 per year. - receiving a salary of
Done using slightly different phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the dies used proved too brittle, and cracked easily, Eckfeldt came up with the idea of spraying water on the face of the die so the steel would temper evenly. - Used for what? And was Eckfeldt supplying the dies?
The dies were engraved under the supervision of the Mint's chief engraver, Robert Scot. Undoubtedly Eckfeldt, who was a capable engraver, pitched in as necessary, and was involved in a lot of preparation. Scot and Eckfeldt would have had to work closely together in any case to get best results. The dies would be mounted in a screw press and used to strike coins using muscle power (usually human) until they installed steam machinery in the 1830s. Dies tend to crack over time, so you want the best steel you can get and use.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brasher Doubloon - why does the article have double capitals?
That is how the term has evolved. I admit that properly the d should be lower case.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hahn died in 1792?
The sources do not say. Ancestry.com says 1796 but I'm suspicious of it because it says he had only three children.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adam's daughter Susanna married William Ewing DuBois, first curator of the Mint's coin collection. - Might be worth mentioning her before going into the Jacobs.
    • owned rural property in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, which was owned - Owned - owned. Can we avoid this?
  • Very stunning. I will upload background-free versions of the medals.
I'd love to own one, but they are not often seen.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are okay - AGF on the old Numicist journal as Google doesn't allow me to look at it.
Thanks for the review and the comments, those are now all addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

I'm coming a little late to the party. Apologies if any of my issues have been raised and answered before. Mine are mainly small points, but they include some suggestions on the reorganisation of prose in some sections and on increasing the detail in others.

  • Clash of tenses in 2nd lead para: "built" and "engraved", then "is responsible" followed by "was appointed"
Since we still have the coins, the responsibility continues, but I've changed "is" to "was"
  • "Even after his 1839 retirement, Eckfeldt continued to perform his duties at the Mint until his death, which caused his replacement, Franklin Peale, to seek an assistant." A bit confused as to meaning. I take it to be that the role filled by Eckhardt after his retirement was such that, when he died, Peale, his successor as chief coiner, sought to replace him with an official assistant, but this is not completely clear. (Note: I raise this issue in my comments on the main text, so it is perhaps better dealt with there).
I've tweaked the language regardless.
  • "John Jacob Eckfeldt had made dies for Robert Morris's coinage..." I don't think "had" is required here. More important, I think you should identify Robert Morris, rather than making readers use the link. The article is short enough to benefit from this kind of detail.
  • "Early life" is pretty devoid of detail; do the sources provide nothing more?
That's the gist of it. this is typical of the stuff I'm working from. As you well know, I tend to write long and cut later. There just aren't a lot of sources, and what there is tends to repeat each other.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coin designer and Mint official: I found the opening to the section a little too abrupt: there is no context given to help the non-American reader understand that the era is that of the aftermath of the War of Independence, and the establishment of the US as an independent nation. I would have expected to see a sentence on this background, followed by something like: "The Mint was created by Congress with the Coinage Act of 1792...". Also, it is presumably of some significance that Eckfeldt was based in Philadelphia, then the home of Congress, and was thus, as it were, on the spot. This link should be made, rather than the bald announcement that in 1792 he was making machinery for the Mint.
  • No date information in the third paragraph of this section. Thus "the same year" is undefined.
  • In the fourth paragraph, Eckfeldt is first mentioned by a pronoun. The paragraph itself reads a bit haphazardly, and lacks narrative continuity. A more solid introduction (references omitted) might be:

Eckfeldt continued to work intermittently for the Philadelphia Mint; in 1793, he built a device for automatically feeding planchets into the die collar and ejecting the struck coins, and the mint's records reveal that he did piecework there in July 1795. By October 1795 he was on the mint's payroll, as a "Die Forger and Turner" at a salary of $500 per year. On January 1 1796...

  • "piecework" should be linked
  • The last sentence of this paragraph doesn't seem integrated with the rest; is there a date for this bit of Eckfeldt ingenuity?
I am searching for my copy of this article and will get back to you on this.
Found it (it is a page image and so unindexed on my laptop). Smith attributes this to the late Walter Breen, but it is not in Breen's large volume and he does not say which of Breen's many books and articles it might be in. Or if he just heard it from Breen directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chief coiner" section: "On the death of the first chief coiner..." In the previous paragraph you have capitalised "Assistant Coiner". Perhaps be consistent. I would also specify: "...of the mint's Chief Coiner"
Instead I have made assistant coiner lower case.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "specialists have discovered that he inadvertently used specific dies which were never used together to strike coins for commerce, thereby creating unique varieties". I am sure this makes good sense to numismatists. For the uninitiated it is difficult to get one's head around; maybe it's the order of the wording, but I am struggling. Is the sense that "when striking coins for commercial use he inadvertently used dies for the obverse and reverse that were not otherwise used together, thereby creating unique varieties of coin"?
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also shift the sentence beginning "Among the pieces acquired..." to immediately after "These pieces became the Mint's Cabinet, or coin collection", as it seems to logically follow there.
  • "...again became involved in the real estate transactions..." I don't recall redaing about a previous involvement with real estate.
  • (above two comments) Also, the wording "For $1,000, he purchased one of the lots he had rented in 1805" rather implies we know about this land, when this is actually the first mention.
It is referring to the "In 1805, at Boudinot's request, Eckfeldt eliminated a security problem for the Mint by renting two houses adjacent to its operations, allowing it to shut an internal alley to public access."
  • It should be possible to avoid the wording "cloud on its title", which requires a link to understand it, by simply saying an "irregularity", which is immediately understandable. However, I am unsure of the relevance of this, particularly in a section with the title "Chief coiner".
Given the short length of the article I am reluctant to strike it. I will change the "cloud on title".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph the information needs to be presented slightly differently. We don't read until the final sentence that the reason why Eckfeldt continued as de facto chief coiner was because his nominal successor busied himself in other enterprises. It would be better to begin with a statement of Exkhardt's retirement; then state who his successor was and what he did, thus providing the reason for Eckhardt continuing with his duties and also explaining why, on Eckhardt's death, Peale needed an assistant.
I have a found a source with a bit more on the relationship with Peale and will add stuff shortly. Peale was quite a character and I have an article on him cooking in a sandbox.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Private and family life": "Jacob Reese Eckfeldt, another of Adam's sons" - you've just mentioned a daughter, not a son.
  • "Jacob's son Jacob Branch Eckfeldt exceeded both in time of service..." To whom does "both" refer?
  • As there are two images of the retirement medal, perhaps the text should include some context, e.g. who authorised it, who designed it etc?
Well, it was Moritz Fuerst. I will see if I have anything further on the rest of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your most thorough review. I have found an additional source and have added more material and I hope cleared up those issues you have rightly pointed out. If I have not replied, I have agreed and hopefully dealt with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Always willing to be of assistance when wanted. I'll read the article again, later tonight (got the TFA blues today) or if not, tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Very positive responses to my points raised above. Much text added (including, I was glad to see, a mention of the old family firm). The article looks comprehensive now, given the limited extent of reliable sources. I look forward to reading more about the evidently villaneous Peale, when the time comes. Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to do a shout out. Thank you for the review and support. We shall see on Peale.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Quadell

This article is strong. The lead correctly sums up all sections of the article, the the MOS is generally followed throughout. The images are all legitimately free, with all necessary information provided. They are used appropriately and have good captions. Despite being short, the article seems as comprehensive and the sources allow. I don't see any balance issues.

I made a dozen or so minor edits for wording and grammar, and one for overlinking. If you disagree with any of these, feel free to revert and discuss. In addition, I have some wording issues:

  • I'm not sure what "put aside" means in the second paragraph of "Chief coiner". A rewording might help to clarify. Perhaps this? "Eckfeldt set aside 'master coins'—[...]—into a private collection." Same with the lead. "Put aside" is just not a familiar phrase for me.
I've changed to "set aside" but they were not a private collection, they remained government property. Eckfeldt just contributed the value of these coins to the Mint so the books would balance. It's very clear he was a wealthy man.
I suppose it's clear enough now. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The clause "He also restruck coins from the early days of the Philadelphia facility of which it did not have specimens" feels awkward to me. A rewording is needed here.
BB also raised that concern and I think I was working on it as you reviewed, as you edited only a minute or so after I did.
It's quite clear now. Well said. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The single-sentence paragraph is "Chief coiner" feels out of place. First, it could use to be broken up. But second, it isn't clear what it has to do with Eckfeldt. You don't say if Eckfeldt knew of these ideas, or if they were ever implemented, or what. The third problem is that the source doesn't mention Peale or his visit. It could be that the sentence should just be omitted. If not, it might be better clarified and included in the previous paragraph's information.
I have added a source (I actually had looked to check on the pages, but forgot to add it). I will look at the others.
Could you look at it again? I was adding matter right after as you were editing from the Ferguson pamphlet and it may well have been addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now it feels relevant, and seems to be in logical sequence. Great. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph of "Chief coiner", two sentences in a row say that Eckfeldt "continued to [work/perform] ... without [pay/compensation]". Once is enough.
I think that's gone.
Great. But I'm pretty sure you men Eckfeldt, not Peale, in "Nevertheless, Peale continued to perform the functions..." (I changed this; If I'm misinterpreting, please revert me.) – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of "Chief coiner" is confusing to me. What time is "the time"?
That may already have been massaged out.
Does "the freed-up time" mean time when Peale was officially Chief Coiner, but Eckfeldt was doing the work? If so, consider changing the order of the final two sentences in that paragraph. (I think it would make the sense clearer.) – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "No children were born by his brief first marriage" feels like it could be worded better. Born from? Born of? Produced by? I'm not sure the best way to phrase this.
Born of, I suppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording "exceeded both forebears in time of service" is very old-fashioned and a bit difficult for moderns to parse.
I'm open to suggested changes there. "Ancestors" is just as bad. I can't say "predecessors" as they did not all hold the same office.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would simply say "Jacob's son Jacob Branch Eckfeldt worked at the Mint longer than anyone else in the family—64 years, from 1865 to 1929." Or "...worked at the Mint for an even longer period of time: 64 years, from 1865 to 1929." But I can see why that might not be everyone's preference. I don't think any of these wordings is bad, or an impediment to featured status; just pick what you think best gets the point across to a 21st-century reader. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While 64 years is longer than any other Eckfeldt almost certainly, there were other Eckfeldts who worked for the Mint (Theodore, for example). The source only goes so far in saying that, and I would not care to go beyond the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a couple sourcing questions.

  • Is it worth mentioning that he was the first president (not just a president) of the Good Will Fire Company?
Added.
  • Is there a reason Scharf and Wescott's book isn't in the bibliography?
  • Similarly, the magazine articles in The Numismatist are in the bibliography, but the magazine articles in The Franklin Journal and American Mechanics' Magazine are not.
Migrated to biblio.
Great. That also makes the page number for "Franklin Institute" clearer. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your responses. – Quadell (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten to everything. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I hope you'll consider the wording choices suggestions above, but regardless, this article definitely passes all requirements for featured status. – Quadell (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I will look at your suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Little Nemo (1911 film)

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another of Winsor McCay's wonderful short films of a century ago—actually, the first. While it lacks anything resembling a story, it more than makes up for it with McCay's magically instant mastery of a medium in which he had no choice but be self-taught—there simply weren't any worthy examples to learn from. I'm hoping to have all the McCay animation articles pass FA by next 8 February, which is the 100th anniversay of his best-known film, Gertie the Dinosaur. If the public has any sense at all, they'll overwhelm the Commons servers that day devouring these little treasures. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pitch in with some copy-editing, and grammar fixes. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know what needs to be fixed; and what are the problems. I'll get started; once I know what to do. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This rather misunderstands the functions of the FAC reviewer. Articles come to FAC to be assessed as to whether they meet the FA criteria for promotion. The job of the reviewer is tell the nominator what needs doing, not the other way round. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not a reviewer here. I'm just volunteering to help with the article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ruby2010

Media check - all OK (PD-1923). Sources and authors provided.

Comments by FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, pretty close then. One last thing, which you could also use to make your other articles with videos look nicer. You can add a parameter (|thumbtime=00:00|) that lets you choose which frame to show as a thumbnail. In this way, you can pick a representative/interesting frame that can also act as a nice image for the article, instead of just an automatically chosen random frame like now. FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did that with ssome of the other McCay articles, but I liked the image that popped up for this one, so I left it (since it has McCay in it, it means I don't need to put his phot anywhere else in the article). Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I was also thinking of the Blackton cartoon, which has a kind of uninteresting frame. FunkMonk (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I've put in a thumbtime for that one now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A last thing to consider is that you can always find Library of Congress images in insanely huge res, like the one of Blackton here, you've used such in many of your articles just in low res. You could consider updating them all at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm ... the LoC does have a copy of the Blackton photo, but the download links are greyed out ... I'll spend some time looking for better copies of some of the other images, though. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right, first time I've seen that I think. Not sure why. And by the way, nice you're working on all these articles. I'm an animator by profession myself, so it is quite valuable. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

Little Nemo debuted in movie theatres - as this is an American film, it should use the American spelling (theaters)
Done (two instances I could find). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these images create too much whitespace. The black-and-white ones could certainly be reduced.
Hmmm...okay, I've reduced the one in the "Style" section of McCay sketching, though I'm not thrilled—McCay was known for the detail in his artwork, and I like to show it. Also, I've dropped the Blackton photo (at least temporarily) as it doesn't fit well with the the rearrangement of the sections. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Hauted Hotel - Really now
...oops...Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't subsection Little Nemo be elsewhere not part of the synopsis? I'd split the first paragraph with background and the last with Legacy
Done. Accidentally left the subsection behind when I moved the "Background" section up. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First bit of "synopsis" feels like it's blurring fact with fiction
Would "Following proclamations of McCay as" be better? Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
familiar - familiar to whom?
==> "McCay's drawings are in the heavily-outlined Art Nouveau style familiar to the readers of his comics." Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Academic Mark Winokur noted racial hierarchies in the Little Nemo strip and film. The Anglo-Saxon Nemo is depicted as "most human", while flip is drawn as a minstrel caricature, and the mute Impie is most grotesquely caricatured. - Race of characters not clear in prose
Added (and corrected "flip" ==> "Flip"). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By late 1910, McCay had made 4000 drawings on rice paper for the animated portion of the film. - why?
"By late 1910, McCay had made the 4000 rice-paper drawings for the animated portion of the film."
Isn't production usually supposed to go before themes/style?
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The animated portion took up about four minutes of the film's total length. - total length of how many minutes?
The video file is 11:33, but that's not stated in my sources, and I'm not positive that was the original total length—for example, the entire live-action intro to How a Mosquito Operates was lost, and Nathan and Crafton discovered this year that there is at least a few seconds missing from all extant prints of Gertie (a final scen in which Gertie gives a bow). I think it's best to leave it unstated. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
such as The Moving Picture World and The Morning Telegraph. - what do they say?
Added. Sorry this ook so long. Every time the book was within arm's length, I was too busy to grab it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Giannalberto Bendazzi called Little Nemo "truly a 'first movie'" - what does he consider the earlier works?
Sorry, I've only got snippet view of this book. The book's a history of animation, so I imagine Bendazzi has a lot to say, but it doesn't seem like it's being said in the context of a comparison with Nemo. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather confusing for readers then, as we're not able to understand why he ignores films which are clearly animated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm ... I'd thought the quotes around "first film" made it clear. My understanding was he was trying to express that the film has a "film film" feel in the sense of a lack of "maturity"—it's all playing around and special effects, showing off what could be done rather than trying to express something.
      How about: "Animation historian Giannalberto Bendazzi saw the plotnless Nemo as an example of a "first film" in the sense that the transforming series of images serves as little more than a demonstration of the medium's capabilities." Or should I just drop the phrase "first film" entirely? Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Now reads "Animation historian Giannalberto Bendazzi saw the transforming series of images in the plotless Nemo serving as little more than a demonstration of the animation medium's capabilities. Bendazzi wrote that McCay overcame this overt experimentalism in How a Mosquito Operates."
The group laughs and implies he is drunk or crazy. - "implies" is used oddly here, I'd maybe find another verb like intimates, indicates or declares.....
Changed to "gestures that". Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you have "rice paper" and "rice-paper" - also should be linked in the body of the text.
Linked. In the first case, it's "drawings on rice paper", in the second it's "rice-paper drawings". In the second case "rice-paper" is a compund noun adjunct, which I believe requires hyphenation. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ahh, my bad. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Pavo (constellation)

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another week another constellation. This one seemed to gel together okay (some of these are very tricky!). Anyway, not too big and I think I am getting the hang of these. So have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 99of9

  • "The constellation Pavo as it can be seen by the naked eye." If only God joined the dots and put a nice little label on it... I'd have a hope of recognizing the constellations! --99of9 (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've already reviewed this article and I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that. copyedits ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GermanJoe

I did some minor CEs, a few additional suggestions to improve the article structure (done):

  • lead " ... in 1597 (or 1598)" (both in lead and main text) => the alternative date would look better in an explanatory footnote (it's not that vital for the constellation). Details, why the year is unclear, are missing (and could be added to the footnote).
This was added before I beagn editing the article. this book I read a few months ago sits on 1598, as does the web source. Many sources have 1600 but that might of been a globe, not the first globe. Major headache. All ones which say 1597 seem to be tertiary sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first lead para is mostly a copy/paste from the first history para. Try to rephrase the lead a bit more or add a few other notable details.
tried a bit of each - how's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • history "The name of the brightest star Alpha Pavonis—Peacock—was assigned by Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office in the late 1930s; the RAF insisted that all bright stars must have names, the star hitherto having lacked a proper name.[4]" => all other single objects have their history, when available, in "notable features", for consistency i'd move Alpha's background info there aswell. So "history" would be only the history of the overall constellation.
Yeah, I was originally going to put it in the notable features section, then felt it might flow well with discussion on peacock name, but it can go back, so have moved it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • features "... Comet Levy,[45] P/1991 L3" => the Comet Levy article doesn't have this number, could you clarify? Why is the ref not at the end? Link "Comet Levy"´?
ref at end now. I think there are two Comet Levys (see David H. Levy - the wiki-page is on the one discovered in 2006, while it is the 1991 that is linked to the shower. I know little about comets and can see the other pages need sorting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Southern Birds" => is that an "official" name for this group of constellations in formal works or more of a nickname? The usage could be clarified a bit.
Good point. Not sure. I've always heard and called them that, but how official is it? I have no idea, hey are not contiguous so it is not a particularly definable area or anything. Will have more of a look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an official designation, but more colloquial - but sees a fair amount of use. I guess it would be better in lower case and in quotations (?) See [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9] for example. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have added quote marks to indicate, that it's not a formal designation. GermanJoe (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was warming to that idea Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A nice and comprehensive article, maybe a bit more polishing, but seems very close to FA. GermanJoe (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - made a few more copyedits (merged Alpha information and tweaked peacocks and meteor showers, diff: [10]). Nice work on yet another constellation (only 70-80 left for FA :) ). GermanJoe (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods, but licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

period removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim just a few niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The brightest member, Alpha Pavonis, is named Peacock—Well, it's actually named Alpha Pavonis—Also known as? Alternative name? RAF name (if it's only used in the UK)? Needs clarifying somehow.
AKA'ed Cas Liber (talk · contribs)`
  • catalog... honor... likely having—I didn't think you could see Pavo from LA (:
aussified - added "most" to "likely having" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the constellation was meant to refer to the Green Peacock—So why is the link in the first line of the lead to Indian (Blue) Peacock?
aussified - this is tricky as the latin term as such referred to the blue...unless I reword teh lead to link it to the bird but not literally. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hera (Juno) lusted after by Zeus (Jupiter). —Links for the god and goddess please. Why do we need the Roman equivalents when the story is from Greek mythology?
having Junonia Avis - to show why I guess...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pavo is the radiant of an annual meteor shower: the Delta Pavonids. Appearing from 21 March to 8 April and generally peaking around 5 and 6 April, they...—Why a colon rather than a comma? Should it be it rather than they (shower is singular)?
I hate these bits - like grammatical hopscotch - something just too weird about "pavonids is" - so tinkered with it a bit..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Halley-type Comet Levy (P/1991 L3). —link for Halley's comet at least
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ridpath—just to check that self-published is acceptable for an RS source.
he is notable and much-published author. It is an online verson of a book anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, supporting now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment This article seems interesting. Unfortunately, I can barely understand half of what is written. Without a Simple English equivalent (somewhat understandably), there's no hope of making sense of the subject for me. While I do not doubt this article will achieve FA status, I hope somebody down the track (it probably won't happen) will be able to write articles about constellations in such a way that an average Joe like me could understand :) --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your honesty Sp33dyphil - we (well, I do anyway) strive to make all our work as accessible as possible, but maintaining accuracy does trump that. However if there is anything at all I can possibly simplify then I will try and do that if accuracy is maintained. If you want to try and highlight anything specific, I will try and do what I can to simplify it - agree that this can be much more difficult in some articles than others.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (including source review)

  • "35-cm diameter" conversion? (twice)
imperial units added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd mention that Uranometria is a star atlas in the lead
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Tucana, are known as the "Southern Birds"." no comma
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "appears as a 1.91 magnitude blue-white star" seems to me that there should be a hyphen here for the adjectival use of 1.1 magnitude; same for "third brightest globular cluster" and later "second brightest star in the constellation", "is a 3.95 magnitude white main sequence star", "third brightest globular cluster", "14th magnitude galaxy"
added hyphens Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link star system, spiral galaxy
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what was the year of the first Dutch trading expedition?
I now have a bluelink to First Dutch Expedition to Indonesia - bit worried that it might be overinclusive to have the dates of that...do you think bluelink sufficient? Else I can fetch source for dates Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link celestial atlas, classical mythology, Hera, Zeus, Hermes
italicised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are called the "Southern Birds"." add "collectively"?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Junonia Avis should be italicized
italicised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "… have his way with her" idiomatic
coupled Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made the peacock's tail ornaments with all of his eyes in his honour" unclear … the feather ornaments were made of eyes? The ornaments were made of eyes that were only in his honour?
changed verb to clarify Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whose eyes ("his" – Argus?) were used?

clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although he depicted Pavo on his chart, Bayer did not assign its stars Bayer designations." any interesting (or mundane) reason for this?
Bayer normally assigned his stars designations - it is unusual for him to depict a constellation and not assign stars, and would have been because it was too far south for him to know the constellation's star accurately I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "American astronomer Benjamin Gould designated a star Xi Pavonis" year?
1879 - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly useful links: Royal Air Force, Mercury, red dwarf, brown dwarf, supergiant, accretion disc, silicon dioxide, arcminute, Comet Grigg-Mellish, Comet Levy; Sun should be linked earlier
all bar comets done - not sure on notability of comets and there are two comet levys Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other nearby stars in Pavo are much fainter: SCR 1845-6357 is a binary system" according to the info box, this star is not in Pavo
you've lost me - which infobox? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm just misinterpreting the infobox; it says SCR 1845-6357 is the "closest star", which I interpret as meaning the closest star not actually within the constellation, but the article text says "nearby stars in Pavo". Sasata (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
aaah, no, infobox means in constellation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 1.94 apparent magnitude in the info box for Pavo is not mentioned in the article text
Good catch - the 1.94 comes from a 1978 ref - SIMBAD represents current consensus on that - changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that is only 19.9 light years distant" why "only", seems like quite aways to me
Not according to this list - it's pretty close really, so I think "only" is warranted... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3.4 and 4.4, this variation" semi-colon works better here (otherwise is comma splice)
semi'ed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "years away from Earth, that resembles the Milky Way" no comma
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A supernova was discovered in the galaxy in 2005." does it have a name (or is it IC 4662 discussed in the following sentence?)
no it'll be some obscure letter code prefixed by SN2005...will fetch and add. added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • didn't the Chinese or Mesopotamians write about this constellation?
It is too far south for most and much of it is pretty faint - can't find anything from China apart from a modern translation since its naming as Pavo. Have looked in vain for any Sth African or Australian folklore Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Ridpaths web refs should perhaps indicate the work ("Ian Ridpath's Star Tales")
added but left out his name to reduce repetition Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • book titles not consistently title case; journal article title format case inconsistent as well
title cased now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • are author initials spaced (e.g. "Dupret, M. A.") or not (e.g. "Berens, E.M.)?
should be unspaced - tweaked spaced ones Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • page range format "635–642" vs. "231–32" (check throughout, other instances of inconsistent format as well)
should be last two digits only - tweaked offenders Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • niobium not capitalized; ref#24 is actually a footnote and should be converted to one; publisher location for Gray et al. (2009)?
location added- converted to footnote, niobium lowercased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • no issue# or page range for Santos et al. (2010)?
Some astronomy articles have a strange format - pages added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • pub location for Mobberly (1999), Jenniskens (2006), and Levy (2008)
locations added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what does "ESA" stand for in the Hubble website ref?
European Space Agency - unabbreviated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • several times throughout the article it says a star has a magnitude of x; I'm unsure (in those instances where it is not stated explicitly) whether this refers to apparent magnitude, or apparent visual magnitude
these are the same thing - and both are often abbreviated to just "magnitude" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was confused by the fact that both apparent visual magnitude and apparent magnitude are linked in the text (in Notables features), but now I see one redirects to the other. Might want to fix that ... Sasata (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fixed redirect Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • refs #23 and #24 appear to be exactly the same, although they lead to different pages
cut and paste error - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • should the SN of sn2005at be capitalized?
whoops, caps it is - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • is it worthwhile to mention any of the following (all from here):
  • the constellation occupies 0.916% of the night sky
yes/added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • alpha Pavonis and its partner are in the Pleiades Group
this is tricky. I have not seen this mentioned elsewhere, and bagnall gets things wrong on occasion. Kaler doesn't mention it which is unusual...will omit and leave it as an item more specific for the Alpha Pavonis page to be verified at some point in the future. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • that the reason the HMNAO gave the constellation a name was for publication in The Air Almanac, which contained 57 bright stars that pilots could help to navigate with; there's also a bit more about the etymology of Pavonis not included in the article
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • that delta Pavonis is the most likely to have an Earth-type plant in the habitable zone
sorta outdated as nothing has turned up yet really....alot of the interest was before the discovery of large numbers of exoplanets. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • anything useful in this?
interesting...I am inclined to think "no" as I what they were doing was surveying a deep space field and trying to correlate the X ray and radio sources - could have been done anywhere in the sky really as you'd find similar things everywhere (i.e. the item of interest/study was correlation, not the fact that it was in Pavo) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • something wonky with ref #34; still have spaced initials in #13, #34, #37; publisher location for ref#4; publisher "self-published" (refs 1,2,3) or "self" (#46)?
got 'em all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Sense and Sensibility (film)

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 02:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your eyes do not deceive you: yet another Jane Austen production, this time conceived by an American, written by its main star (an English woman), and directed by a native of Taiwan. This one, generally considered to be one of the top three best Austen adaptations of all time, has been a labor of love for over two years now. Currently a GA, I finally believe that it has reached the level of an FA. It has been helped along by a copy-edit and peer review, and I've also learned lessons from my last successful FA, Pride & Prejudice. Hopefully this one's not too far away – thank you all in advance for your comments! Ruby 2010/2013 02:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lobo

I noticed that this was clearly a very well-prepared candidate but has failed to get any comments, so here is a review. =) It's a great film, and this is a really great article. I'm finding it a pleasure to read through: the prose is lively and engaging, everything flows very well, it is thoroughly researched, and amazingly comprehensive (while not feeling bloated). To be honest I could probably support in its current state, but I've managed to come up with a pretty long list of comments anyway (maybe they could be moved to the talk page?). They are suggestions for improvement, but if you disagree with any of them just let me know. I also made a few copy-edits as I read through: feel free to revert any you aren't keen on.

Lead
  • I've read it and it seems excellent, but I'll come back up give comments when I've read the whole article to check it gives appropriate coverage.
  • Update: Yep, excellent. My only comment is that there's not much mention of the "Themes and analysis" stuff (which I found pretty interesting). It could fit in quite easily with the start of para 3, ie "Thompson's screenplay made changes to the novel in an effort to make it more relatable to modern audiences..." and slip in a bit more there, along with the wealth stuff (you could probably phrase it better than that though, I just wrote it quickly without much thought). I won't insist on this though, the lead is a great introduction to the film and summary of the article.
Plot
  • Perfectly summarises the film.
Conception and adaptation
  • I don't think the brief plot summary is needed here (we've just had the plot, after all)
  • The quote from Doran on why she loves the book might be nice in a quotebox?
  • I see your point, but I'd like to avoid burdening the article with too many alternative images/quotebox, if possible (a quotebox there would mess with the alignment of Thompson's image below). Ruby 2010/2013 05:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The producer spent ten years looking for a suitable screenwriter" - This is confusing, because we've just been told that Doran suggested the film in 1989 (which doesn't give her ten years before the film comes out). I presume that she was already a producer and already making plans for the film before her appointment at Mirage, but it needs clarifying.
  • Yes, she had wanted to make the film long before her hire at Mirage. I tweaked the sentence to say Prior to her hire at Mirage, the producer had spent years looking for a suitable screenwriter... -- I took out the "ten" because I'm not sure of the exact timeline and don't want to get it wrong. Let me know if it still needs work. Ruby 2010/2013 23:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A week after Thompson and Doran wrapped production on Mirage's 1991 film Dead Again" - Would be nice to state outright that they were already working together, ie, "Thompson and Doran were already working together on Mirage's 1991 film Dead Again; a week after its completion, the producer selected Thompson..."
  • "her draft received some critical feedback for the way it presented Willoughby and Edward." - From who?
  • I predicted this would be an issue! It is from her production diaries; if I recall she was rather vague about who gave the feedback. I will see if I can get my hands on the book again and check what she said. Ruby 2010/2013 23:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Doran later recalled that people noted it didn't really "start until Willoughby arrives," with Edward side-lined as "backstory"." Slightly clumsy phrasing, and I'm not keen on putting such simple comments in quotations. Suggest paraphrasing ("backstory" can surely stay without quotes). Also, get rid of that contraction!
  • "Thompson believed that Austen was just as comprehensible in a different century, "You don't think people are still concerned with marriage, money, romance, finding a partner? Jane Austen is a genius who appeals to any generation." - Her quote could be cut; I think the first part of the sentence is sufficient.
  • "viewing her as too risky" - Is this because they didn't think she'd be a good enough writer? Just "too risky" is a bit vague.
  • "Lee was one of the few who "knew where the jokes were".." Again, suggest paraphrasing (how about "..who recognised Austen's humour")
  • "she felt that Lee's involvement prevented the film from becoming "just some little English movie" that appealed only to "audiences in Devon" instead of to "the whole world."" - More over-quoting. The last parts could easilly be paraphrased.
  • "as he was unsure "where [his] position lay."" - Paraphrase.
  • "spent the next two months "revis[ing] the script constantly"" - Paraphrase.
  • Is there any way the section heading could also indicate at the hiring of Lee (since there's a fair bit of info on that here, which doesn't really come under either "conception" or "adaptation".) Or it could even have its own subsection?
Casting
  • It should be mentioned why Thompson was now a "big-deal movie star", (ie. because of the Oscar win and nominations).
  • "Thompson noted of Laurie's casting..." Worth mentioning that they had been friends for years?
  • " Thompson later noted that despite being a nineteen-year-old "with the prospect of such a huge role" before her" - Paraphrase.
  • Suggest splitting to a new paragraph when it starts talking about Winslet.
Constume design
  • Who is Linda Troost?
  • Personally I'm not sure what "fashion plates" are? If it's an obvious term and I'm just being a dunce then leave it, but it may be worth using a different term (or is there a suitable article we could link to?)
  • That was the term the source used and I've found an article about them, which is now wikilinked to in the S&S article. Good suggestion, as I'm sure many readers would also be unfamiliar with them (I know I was). Ruby 2010/2013
  • It might just be me, but I found the stuff about Brandon's wedding costume a bit unnecessary.
Filming
  • The caption of the Lee photo should probably be tweaked, since "Western film" could also refer to the genre! "..first film made outside of Asia", or something, would be better.
  • "After Willoughby publicly rejects Marianne, he returns to a more lavishly furnished room, a symbol of the wealth she has lost access to." - Not really sure of the relevance of this comment?
Locations
  • "where Winslet and Jones shot the first scene of the production together reading about Barton Cottage" - Bit clumsy; suggest something like (if I'm understanding it correctly) "..shot the first scene of the production: when their characters read about Barton Cottage."
  • "Thompson also experienced intense back pain on the final days of filming and was treated with acupuncture and Indocid." - Probably not notable enough to mention.

I'm gonna take a break there - I'll try and finish up later today. --Lobo (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough comments! I read them briefly earlier today during some downtime and largely agree with them. Funnily enough, I was going to review your Julianne Moore article but ran out of time before I went on holiday for the weekend. I will respond to your comments and review your FAC, hopefully tomorrow. Ruby 2010/2013 03:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I really wanted to finish this today but I'm afraid I won't be able to. Sorry to leave it hanging, I'll try and make sure it's done tomorrow. Changes so far look good! --Lobo (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I believe I have now replied to all of your suggestions. I have followed most of them, but there are a few I need to double check on (I don't have immediate access to Thompson's production diaries). Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay picking up where I left off...

Music
  • "..has been described as a "restricted compass ... of emotion" .." - Attribute the quote.
  • The comments from Lee on the songs - I'm guessing they are covered by the following reference, but I'd recommend duplicated the ref right after the quote, just so it's absolutely clear where it comes from.
Editing
  • "as the male characters spend much of the novel off-stage." - Off-stage is a bit of a strange way of putting it.
  • The first paragraph seems to be more about Thomson's adaptation process? This "problem" could perhaps be solved by renaming the section "Omissions and editing"?
Themes and analysis
  • The quote box should tell us who Devoney Looser is (ie, what her credentials are).
  • I have added that she's an Austen scholar (See here for her credentials)
  • "especially when contrasted with Laurie's Palmer." - It took me a minute to work out what "Laurie's Palmer" meant, which is why I've removed "Laurie".
  • "The character of Brandon also sustains alterations; Thompson's screenplay has his storyline directly mirroring Willoughby's..." - I'm guessing this was to help us understand why Marianne is able to fall in love with him? If so, that's worth mentioning outright.
  • Oops, missed this one. I've added something to this effect, which is sourced from Stovel (2011); it now says "The character of Brandon also sustains alterations; to gradually show viewers why Brandon is worthy of Marianne's love, Thompson's screenplay has his storyline directly mirroring Willoughby's..." Ruby 2010/2013 05:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marketing and release
  • "To gain the greatest benefit of the publicity surrounding Academy Award nominees, the film's release was timed to coincide with "Oscar season." Sense and Sensibility's release saw several brief increases both when the nominees were announced and during the time of the ceremony in late March.[122]" - Hmm this is all a bit problematic to me. Firstly, it should say "potential nominees", because the nominees aren't announced until late January. Secondly, it currently sounds like they released the film in Oscar season to benefit from the publicity afforded to other nominees (or potential nominees), whereas I'm sure they released it at that time to try and get some nominations themselves! And then they did get nominated, so its a bit strange not to mention that when talking about the increase in distribution. I do think you probably meant to communicate this already but it's not all that clear: basically, you want to say that they released the film in Oscar season to increase their chance at getting nominations (and because a lot of attention is paid to films in this time), and because they knew that if the film was still in cinemas when it was nominated (and when the ceremony took place), that would get them more viewers. It might also be worth mentioning that this is pretty standard procedure for Oscar-hunting films (just simply, ie, "In line with the typical marketing procedure for a film seeing award nominations...")
  • Hmmm... I see your point about the "potential" nominees and mentioning its nominations, and have edited the article accordingly. Concerning the timing of the release, they saw the film as a potential Oscar contender and planned its release accordingly. (pages 155 & 157 from Higson (2011) explain). Having inputted the first two changes, hopefully the article does a better job conveying this. :) Ruby 2010/2013 03:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • "..and it has landed on more than one hundred top-ten lists." This implies "top ten of all time" lists, whereas I'm sure the source is saying top-ten of the year (the whole paragraph is very much talking about 1995). I've tweaked it to say this.
  • Rotten Tomatoes didn't give it a "review score" of 98%, it's just saying that's how many reviews were positive. I've also clarified that.
Legacy
  • All good.

Phew, done! Despite this huge list of comments I am honestly very impressed with the article. Congrats Ruby, you should feel very pleased with yourself. :) --Lobo (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This deserves to be a featured article. One of my comments (under themes) has been missed (accidentally, I'm sure) and you may not have seen that I updated my "Lead" comments, but I'm still happy to support at this point. I do think it would be nice to add a little bit of the "analysis" content to the lead, since I found it interesting, but it's up to you. Also, it occurred to me that there isn't a "Home media" section. But I notice that there is one in your Pride & Prejudice FA, which makes me think there's probably reason this article doesn't have one? I won't make a hoo-haa about it since it's not essential information (as far as I'm concerned), but I just thought I'd mention it anyway. --Lobo (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for giving such a thorough review and for your support! I actually dislike home media sections and try to avoid writing them if possible, as I don't think they add much to a film article. If you like though, I can write up a quick paragraph (mainly that the VHS was released in 1996 and the DVD came out in 1999, with special features). Otherwise I think all of your other comments have been addressed. Ruby 2010/2013 05:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Hmmm... I'm not really sure (probably Columbia Pictures). If it's too much of an issue I can remove it (perhaps in favor of a screenshot depicting more of the characters, as I did in the Pride & Prejudice article?) Ruby 2010/2013 05:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

This looks a well-constructed and nicely presented article, much in the style of the same nominator's featured Pride & Prejudice (2005 film). Unfortunately, I have some online access issues over the next few days, which means my review comments may be slow in coming. May I request that the delegates don't close this until I've had the chance to complete a review? Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Later: OK, I still have to look at the later sections, from "Music" onwards, but most of my comments are here. I have made minor changes to the text as I went along, rather than make this list longer. My original impression that this is a good-quality film article has been generally confirmed, and with only a small amount of work it will be ready for promotion. Here are my individual points to date:

  • General prose issue: over-use of "due to". I have fixed most of these.
  • "Lee approached filming from different perspectives than his cast and crew, resulting in culture shock before the actors grew to trust Lee's instincts." Isn't "culture shock" rather overstating the case? The cast and crew obviously had to adjust to Lee's approach, and some may have experienced difficulties with this, but "culture shock" is a pretty severe way of putting this. The cod psychology in the linked article is not helpful, either. All in all, I am not convinced that this issue of adjustment is important enough to be mentioned in the lead. I see in the main text this has been described as "slight cultural shock", which is more acceptable, and reinforces my point that this was not a big deal.
  • "Slight culture shock" is how Thompson described it in her production diaries and it seems important enough to leave in the article. I agree that it probably isn't needed for the lead, however. I've removed it. Ruby 2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instead of another..." is explained later, but is slightly distracting here.
  • "Thompson spent five years writing and revising the screenplay..." – four years mentioned in the lead.
  • "Some of the criticism, Doran later recalled, held that it did not really beginning until Willoughby's arrival". Something wrong here, probably "beginning → begin", but even that does not clarify what "it" is.
  • In what sense was Amanda Root "the fifth actor"? You have just named five in the previous sentence.
  • Have changed to "sixth"; Thompson mentioned that Lee hired five of the actors in her production diaries (without mentioning Root), and I learned in a later source that this grouping included her. My error for forgetting to adjust the number. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wise and Thompson met on the set and later married." Unnecessary trivia, unrelated to the subject, unencyclopedic – OK for a movie magazine article.
  • "Brandon's "flattering" costumes help appeal him to the audience". In the lead I changed this use of the "appeal" verb; you cannot "appeal" someone to an audience. You could say: "help his appeal to the audience".
  • I think WP practice is that dollars are assumed to be US unless otherwise stated.
  • What is a "cross-over" hit?
  • Higson (2011) writes that "...what the American companies were increasingly interested in was those films that managed to cross over from the specialised or art-house market into the multiplexes." (Essentially, a film that appeals to multiple types of audiences; he gives Harry Potter as another example). I've hopefully clarified this a bit more in the article. Ruby 2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency is needed in how numbers greater than 10 are represented. In the "Locations" section, for example, we have "fifty=eight", "sixty-five" and "50". There are similar inconsistencies elsewhere.
  • General point: Quote boxes can have more presentational impact with a lightly-coloured background (I'll do this for you if you like)

I'll be back soon with the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reviewing, Brian! Your comments were truly helpful; hopefully I've gotten them all. Ruby 2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My further comments

Music
  • "Stifled" is not a musical term. I imagine that it is Doyle's own description of what he wrote, but it is unclear what he meant. Since a fuller description of the music follows, I would drop this term.
  • "Doyle has noted that the score..." People "note" things about other peoples' work, not about their own. Also, you have "They also noted" later in the paragraph. Perhaps "Doyle explains that..."
Omissions and editing
  • Maybe the section title should be inverted? "Editing and omissions" seems more logical, but it's a matter for you
Themes and analysis
  • The formulation "has been noted" invariably raises the question "by whom?"
  • "Audience members are meant to view self-restrained Elinor as the person in need of reform, rather than her impassioned sister." Whose opinion is being given here?
  • "Tracing its origin to the BBC's unsuccessful 1986 Austen adaptation Northanger Abbey..." The "it" in this sentence is presumably "fusion adaptation", but the sentence goes on to talk about the characteristics of Lee's production, which rather confuses the issue. To clarify the position I would rearrange the sentence: "Linda Troost discussed the "fusion adaptation" – a mixture of Hollywood style with the British heritage film genre, designed to appeal to a wide range of viewers – which originated with the BBC's unsuccessful 1986 Austen adaptation Northanger Abbey. Troost noted that..." etc
Marketing and release
  • "it opened in eleventh place" – eleventh place in what rankings?
  • The Pride and Prejudice to which you refer was a TV series. not a film. It was broadcast by the BBC in September/October 1995; it was not "released" as the text suggests. The wording should reflect this.
  • "Because the entire production cycle had consistently emphasised it as being "bigger" than a normal British period drama literary film, distributors avoided labelling it as 'just another English period film.'" Is it conceivable that distributors would, in any conceivable circumstances, have labelling their film in such dismissive terms? I suggest you look at this sentence again.
  • I'd prefer to see the Daily Mail described as a "populist newspaper" rather than a "media outlet".
  • "...a sum that was considered a commercial success". The sum reflected the success – it was not itself the success. Also, I don't like the "that was considered" formulation; why not "a sum that reflected the film's commercial success"?
Reception
  • "Walter conveys sour bitchiness..." As you haven't mentioned Harriet Walter since the "Casting" section long ago, I'd quite forgotten who "Walter" was. Suggest add a parenthetical [Harriet] into the quote.
Awards and nominations
  • The colon after "twelve nominations at the 49th British Academy Film Awards" is misplaced, since you then list only three of thse nominations. Replace colon with a comma followed by "including"
Legacy and influence
  • "Sense and Sensibility was the first English-language period adaptation of an Austen novel to appear in cinemas in over fifty years." Perhaps state what the previous one was?
  • "Between 1995 and 1996, six Austen adaptations were ultimately released onto film or television". There is no time "between" 1995 and 1996, and the word "ultimately" is superfluous. Thus: "In 1995 and 1996, six Austen adaptations were released onto film or television". However, I have some difficulty in identifying them all. There was an Emma film with Gwynneth Paltrow in 1996, and a TV Emma that same year. That makes five – unless you are counting Clueless, which is stretching it a bit!
  • Further to that, you later say: "As the mid-1990s included four Austen adaptations..."
  • I don't think it's correct to say that "Davies also cast actors closer to the ages in the source material", or indeed to refer to "Davies' production". He was the screenwriter, not the producer or director.
  • True, but Davies has the most name recognition (and consequently was featured in more news articles about the production than the director (John Alexander) or the producer (Anne Pivcevic). I've removed the second and third mentions of Davies, however, and tried to make it a bit less about him. Ruby 2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that is about it. I will end with one gripe about the "Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility" navbox at the foot of the article. What information does this give, relevant to the film, that is not included in the article? It gives the names of certain spin-off films and novels, but these are nothing whatever to do with this film. So what is the justification for keeping the box?

Sorry to end on a grumpy note. The article is in pretty good shape, and I am confident it will soon be promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think you were acting grumpy at all, merely very perceptive! :) About the navbox, I think it is useful for containing quick and easy links, especially for those unable or unwilling to read the full article. Of course, I'm not that attached to it and would be willing to remove it if you're set against it. Otherwise, I believe I have now addressed all of your concerns. Thanks very much (again) for reviewing! Ruby 2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove the navbox it is 99 percent certain that someone will re-add it. I have removed one item from the template ("chaperone") – though some idiot will probably add that back, too. The box is a ragbag of links to do with the novel, some to do with the film. I can't see how it improves anyone's knowlege of the film, but it is hidden, so we may as well leave it. Good work in responding positively to all these points. Well worth an FA.
As I prophesied, someone has indeed added the chaperone back. Not worth bothering about, though. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suppose some are attached to it. My (minor) objection to its addition would only be because the chaperone article is in such bad shape. Perhaps I'll make it a future project of mine... Ruby 2010/2013 05:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A fine article offering an excellent account of this important film. All review issues patiently and conscientiously resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that someone will eventually re-add the navbox, though it is better than it used to be (all of the novels and adaptations used to be on one central template, which was rather large and unwieldy).
Thanks very much for the support! The article is definitely better off due to your comments. Ruby 2010/2013 17:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support Almost every part of this article is excellent, except for the "Themes and analysis" section. The article is well-written and well-organized and every other section is thorough and well-researched. I greatly enjoyed reading the article and learned much about the film. However, the "Themes and analysis" section needs some expansion. I would suggest subheaders such as "Money" or "Gender", for example. There is quite a bit of information earlier in the article about how Thompson tried to write about family dynamics and economics that should be in the "Themes" section. Also, much of the themes section is written from the perspective of what is or is not taken from the novel. The last paragraph of the section, which gets into the meat of the themes of the actual film, needs to be dramatically expanded. Many of those sentences would be hard for the average reader to understand and using a few more sources to flesh out these ideas would make this a far better article. I see no reason why, after this section has been revised, I would not support this article. Wadewitz (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in. I knew going in that there was a lot of literature analyzing this film, and I had to be selective about what I chose to include. I understand your concern however, and will get to bolstering up the section tomorrow. Ruby 2010/2013 23:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still adding in small tweaks, but how does it look now? I've moved some of the content from the "conception and adaptation" section, and have bolstered/added in some other views on the film's theme of class. The gender section is a bit smaller, but I'm wary of bloating it further, as the analysis section is already rather large. Thoughts? Ruby 2010/2013 05:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is much better. I think one way to improve it would be to remove the names of the books where the material was published as readers don't really care about that info. You might also think about renaming the section because it isn't all "Scholarly analysis" and also you could draw on some reviews to discuss the satire in the film, which would allow you to expand the gender section and address the style and tone of the film, two topics not really covered in much depth in the article. Wadewitz (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for reviewing and supporting. I've edited the section header and removed the names of the scholarly works, per your recommendations. I've also added a bit more on gender to the section, though oddly I've had difficulty finding much on Thompson's translation of Austen's sense of irony or the film's style. One would think this would be a prominent topic for scholars/writers. I'll try looking in a few more available sources. Ruby 2010/2013 05:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell

This is not a full review, but I will say that the lead appears fully correct, the images are used correctly, the article seems very thorough, and every important statement is sourced.

Source review
  • Some of the books in the Bibliography have page numbers specified, while others do not. (In any case, the exact pages for each reference are given in the references section.) Is there a reason some have pages and others don't?
  • I believe I've fixed up the bibliography for consistency. The edited books (with multiple authors) have the pages of their specific chapter; the books without page numbers simply means the author wrote everything in said book. Hopefully this is made a bit more clear in the article. Ruby 2010/2013 02:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay! That makes perfect sense. The bibliography is now consistent in this (but see one late addition, below). – Quadell (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the links to online versions of book text are appropriate and helpful. But both times that Pucci and Thompsons "Jane Austen and Co" is referenced (once for a chapter by Dobie and once for a chapter by Thompson), the link given is to the same less-than-helpful snippet view. Shouldn't the link, if given, be specific for the reference? The same is true for both listings for chapters of Arp et. al's "The Philosophy of Ang Lee."
  • I've done a complete overhaul of the URLs; they now either link to the cited chapter in an edited book or link to the main description page within Google Books. None of them lead to snippet reviews on my computer, so perhaps that is just yours? Ruby 2010/2013 02:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful. It's exactly correct now. – Quadell (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotchecks I checked references 1, 13, 29, 87, 101, 129, 136, and 153. In every case, the statement was fully supported by the source, and in no case was there any hint of plagiarism. However reference 152 (Michael Dwyer in the Irish Times) is a dead link.
Yeah, I see it now too. It must have been "dead" for only a brief time yesterday. – Quadell (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late addition: It looks to me like the page numbers are wrong for Pidduck's chapter of The Postcolonial Jane Austen. I'm seeing the chapter from page 123 to somewhere around 147.

Other than that, everything looks good. – Quadell (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All source issues have been fixed. – Quadell (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. After carefully reviewing the entire article, I've decided to formally review it. I find it to be thorough, complete, and well-organized. The prose is very good, and the MOS is followed throughout. I see no reason it shouldn't be featured. – Quadell (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Sea

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap, Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flushed with victory in the "Core Competition", we are nominating this for featured article. Khazar did a thorough GA review during the course of which he made various suggestions for improving the article, most of which we have followed up. It is a long article, but then we have tried to make it as comprehensive as possible while at the same time providing links to other articles that cover in greater detail the topics we have included. We hope you enjoy reading it as much as we have enjoyed writing it! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly there can be nobody better than Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth, winners of the Core Competition, to write about the sea. Anyway,

  • I'm not a fan of the section-name Overview; isn't the lead itself supposed to be the overview?
The section could be given a different heading. It contains matter that is fundamental to the article and unsuitable for inclusion in the lead which is meant to be a summary of the contents of the body of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(chiming in) - the content in the section currently labelled overview would be better described by the word definition (ie. it is discussing what it is/defined) - in which case the better would be to slot para 1 below paras 2 and 3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Should add I hate the term overview for precisely the problem noted above - i.e. the lead is the overview....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have adopted Casliber's suggestion and renamed and rearranged the section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, shouldn't the legal stuff in that section be its own 2-3 paragraph subsection under Humans?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find "sea level rise" in the See also: shouldn't the effects of global warming etc be discussed in this article itself (maybe next to Marine pollution?); I think it's important enough to mention in the lead.
I'm working on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a short section on changes in sea level. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The culture section has a strong Western bias (notwithstanding the occasional Japanese reference): instead of writing about individual works in different media, maybe you should do it culture-wise? "In the West, it was thought of this way; in Japan like this; in Africa like this etc...". It'd also serve to rein-in a somewhat unfocussed section (listing out so many Conrad books, for eg).

Having said that, it's great to have such vast and basic subjects at FAC. I wish you all the best.—indopug (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult, because we have access to Western sources rather than world sources. We could reduce the section and pare out some of the material which would improve the balance a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment. No, no, for FAC, we need the fully global perspective. Indopug's idea is worth considering. Paring down 'western' stuff not the answer. It may take some work to make the cultural persepctive global, not West+Japan. I would particularly expect sources/research available for Middle-east, South and South-east Asia and Pacific (I don't know about the Americas or Africa). Regarding article as a whole: awesome effort. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add something about the Sea Gypsies of South Asia. PumpkinSky talk 13:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could remove the "In culture" section completely as being unnecessary in an article on a geographical subject. Alternatively, I could rewrite the section in the style of this part of the article Land (including Sea Gypsies and Polynesians etc). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that "in culture" is exactly the best way to express it, but the cultural significance of the sea of course must be covered. Bearing in mind that land is only start class, the general approach there seems feasible and preferable to the current one in sea. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely do not remove it. My suggestion is to change the title to "Cultural significance" and add the sea gypsies, polynesians, and whatever else you can find (except Western and Japanese as you already have those). PumpkinSky talk 16:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another good one: Polynesian navigation PumpkinSky talk 17:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm working on it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. We are working on your suggestions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now completely rewritten the Culture section and hope it meets with your approval. The Polynesians are already mentioned in the Navigation section earlier in the article. The Sea Gypsies seems not to have been a single ethnic group but a term applied to various maritime groups in southeastern Asia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two things...the exploitation section is only two sentences and has no refs. Is this getting expanded? yes, sea gypsies is more than one group, but I don't see how people living on the sea doesn't apply to a "humans and the sea" section. PumpkinSky talk 23:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now written a short section on the Sea Gypsies. With regard to the two sentences under "Exploitation", they were just by way of introduction to the several sections that followed (Trade, Food production, Leisure etc.) - all ways in which the sea is used. I have abolished this introduction entirely. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. I fixed a date format and did two wiki links. PumpkinSky talk 14:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really cheering to see an article like this as a FAC - great work! Minor comments follow:

  • Some bits need alternative metric/imperial stats added, e.g. "154 million tonnes", "300 metres offshore" etc.
Done, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my screen, the number of images looks excessive - there's a fair bit of overlap, with text being pushed around etc. "In art" and "Extractive industries" in particular seem to have a lot of pictures.
Some removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sixty percent", but later "87 percent" - worth being consistent in numbers/text
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scientific oceanography " - it's defined in the lead, but worth defining in the main text when its first introduced.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be good to get at least a passing reference to ocean modelling, Geophysical fluid dynamics etc. in connection to the sea - a big field of study, and key to how we understand many of the phenomena mentioned in the article. "Ocean Circulation and Climate: Observing and Modelling the Global Ocean" might be a starting point for some of the literature.
  • Unhelpfully, I can't give you a cite, but I'm pretty sure that the ability of the sea to absorb carbon dioxide forms an important buffer to global warming (if it didn't absorb CO2, the atmospheric % would be higher than it otherwise is). Don't know if anyone else can help you with a cite! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I have dealt with the easy ones and will work on the others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added modelling links as suggested, with a brief discussion and references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PSky

I always enjoy seeing work from Cwmhiraeth because it's always top-notch. Chap, I'm not familiar with your work but this article certainly gives a good impression. Excellent submission, guys!
    • Image check
File:Marine debris on Hawaiian coast.jpg needs a year
File:Buzo.jpg, English translation please. And that description needs a language parameter, it looks like Spanish to me.
File:Deutsche Fischfang Union Schiff Kiel 01.jpg same deal as Buzo, but it's German.
File:Euboea island.jpg same deal, I think that's Spanish again.
File:Thermohaline Circulation 2.png needs date and pls fix the numbered url
File:Propagation du tsunami en profondeur variable.gif English please, it's French
File:Putgarten, Kap Arkona (2011-05-21) 3.JPG English pls, it's German.
I've done these with the exception of "Deutsche Fischfang Union Schiff Kiel", the description of which I can't understand. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • that tanker ship is clearly not loaded with oil! (just a comment, nothing to fix)
    • Other comments "Recreational diving is limited to depths of 100 feet (30 m), beyond which nitrogen narcosis may occur." I was an advanced scuba instructor. This is not totally true. Recreational divers are supposed to stay above that depth (but of course people, including me, break the rule all the time, haha), but narcosis can and does occur above that depth. It is true that the deeper you go, the more likely it is to occur. That statement needs tweaked. If you need it, I can help with the images that have German descriptions. PumpkinSky talk 11:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have rephrased that bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did that one German one. I'm just waiting on the outcome of the culture section now. PumpkinSky talk 13:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your encouragement and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Hamiltonstone

My comments are currently confined to the "in culture" section, about which I would first say: absolutely marvellous re-write of the 'in culture' section, Cwmhiraeth - a quantum leap forward and very well done. I have a few concerns with it at present:

  • I think the gigantic leap from ancient Greek to modern European literature, via only a single reference to Basho, is too much of a stretch. Can we find nothing written of notable relevance in that that yawning chasm of over one and a half millenia?
I have plugged the gap a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I lost that one :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the following sentence is weak, describing something as notable and being somehow about the sea, without really telling us anything about what it says about the sea: "A well-known American maritime work is Herman Melville's 1851 novel Moby-Dick, describing the adventures of the sailor Ishmael, the whaleship Pequod, its Captain Ahab, and the white sperm whale, Moby Dick" I would be inclined to omit it, unless we can find a good line from a Melville scholar about the work's significance.
Rephrased and comment added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not be confining the treatment of music to the classical in the final section, but to music generally. To elaborate: what about some reference to folk and traditional music portraying the sea's power and the perils of ocean travel, such as in the child ballad The Mermaid? Or the development by sailors of a distinctive genre, the sea shanty, the lyrics of which would often relate to life on the ocean?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to find a really powerful ending, to ensure that the article is rounded out as brilliant prose. My first impulse was to find a brooding and profound reflection in a work reviewing Peter Grimes or the Interludes, which are a very appropriate work with which to conclude the WP article, because they present the sea in a range of moods. However, neither of my books on Britten (Carpenter biography; Whittall's The Music of Britten and Tippett) quite had the right thing. Maybe someone else can come up with something? Sorry not to be of more use on that front... hamiltonstone (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a "really powerful" ending written in "brilliant prose" is not essential for a Featured Article. Snowman (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Snowman. The FA criteria do not say anything about a "powerful ending" or direct one toward how to present content--it just asks that the article is well-written and comprehensive, which this one is. If you want powerful endings...what do you want to cry, to feel elevated...seriously, look into screenwriting or fiction. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, briliant prose is what is required: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", and a professionally written article about a major subject like this would not just end at whatever the last point happens to be, without attempting to give the reader a sense of conclusion. The makings of it are perfect: the final subsection gives an excellent opportunity to do this, it is just a matter of finding the right material. If I can uncover anything, I will give it a go, but in my view it definitely needs the appropriately crafted conclusion. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC process suffers from exactly this kind of attitude--reviewers adding their subjective longings to the an already clear criteria. If you could point to one place (other than your own personal sense or opinion) that says "must have a really powerful ending", I'd agree with you...but because you can't, I don't. Ridiculous. Give it a go for all its worth, but in the end, don't attempt to apply a rule that doesn't exist just because you "feel" it should.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't get your point. That it should include "engaging, even brilliant" prose, except at the end? Your argument appears to be that because the guidelines do not say "must have a really powerful ending", therefore it is invalid to suggest that in an article of this nature, a powerful ending is what one would expect "engaging, even brilliant prise of a professional standard" to look like. That seems a peculiarly narrow view of the FAC guidelines, and their intention. I'm happy with the suggestion I made to improve the article, and still believe the suggestion is consistent with the FAC guidelines. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an attempt at shaping a conclusion to the section. Will see if others are comfortable with it. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the recently added quote from Carson's 1951 book is out-of-date and unsuitable for the end of the article. The quote might have been fine in its time. I presume that the book is copyrighted and that a quote from it should not be used in the article. Snowman (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its date is not particularly relevant - it is in the 'culture' section, not the science. Inclusion reflects the preeminent status of Carson's work and the influence of her ideas. Copyright is not relevant to quoting in this way. It is not a problem. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm disappointed to see what has happened to the "In culture" section, which had previously been very successfully rewritten, i thought. There is now an undue weight problem in the article, in which each of the sections "power generation" and "extractive industries" is longer than the entire section on culture. The level of detail in power generation, in contrast to the almost meaningless superficial consideration of culture, is completely untenable. I'm happy to have a go at editing down the energy section if noms want, but the culture section needs to be at least partly resurrected, regardless of the issue about overall article length (which personally i hadn't seen as much of an issue given the topic). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Culture section was hived off in an effort to reduce the total length of the article which was perceived as being too large. We will expand it a bit to address your concerns without bringing it back to anything like its previous length. If you would like to pare down the "power generation" and "extractive industries" sections a bit to help restore balance, that would be most helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The culture section is only a click away. The topic has its own page now. Editors might like to work on the new article at "Sea in culture" without worrying about how it fits into a longer article. I think that the split is for the good of the Wikipaedia. See WP:TOOBIG for objective information about article size. WP:Splitting is sometimes necessary. Snowman (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I think that it would be wise to discuss removal of referenced facts or text from any sections prior to any cutting, because such modifications may be controversial. Snowman (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lower down this review page, I started a discussion, which you may not have noticed, about the Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Do you think that it should be included in the new summary of the sea in culture? It is the most famous work about the sea that I know; however, my background is science and not English literature. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no citation at the end of the sentence "Over most of geologic time, the sea level has been higher than it is today. Only at the Permian-Triassic boundary, around 250 million years ago, was the long-term sea level lower than it is now." I have read the abstract of the cite for the following sentence (an article from Science - i do not have full text access), and it refers only to the Cretaceous period, so it looks like we dont' have a reference for the claims in that first sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the second sentence, and added a citation for the first one. Sea level has been higher than it is now for part of the Tertiary, part of the Jurassic and a part of the Permian.Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Quadell

I really like this article, and I'd love for a general topic like this to be featured. But there is a difficult conceptual problem that I'm not sure how to fix. A word like "sea" can mean different things. This article generally uses the definition as given in the lede, that "The sea is the connected body of salt water that covers over 70 percent of the Earth's surface." I'll call that the holistic definition of the word Sea. It is also common for a "sea" to mean a specific body of water, and I'll call this the reductionist definition of Sea. The "Definition" section of this article admirably describes the reductionist definition as well, but the rest of the article assumes the holistic definition when discussing all other aspects of the topic.

The trouble is, nearly every other article on Wikipedia makes the opposite assumption. Sea (disambiguation) refers to Sea by calling it "a large body of water", referring to only the reductionist definition. The Ocean article claims "The word 'sea' is often used interchangeably with 'ocean' but, strictly speaking, a sea is a body of saline water (possibly a division of the World Ocean) partly or fully enclosed by land." (It references Princeton's WordNet Search for support when claiming this.) The World Ocean article seems to describe the same subject that this Sea article covers, but it links to sea only when mentioning a particular sea. Both Template:Regions of the world and Template:List of seas link to the Sea article under the assumption that it will cover the reductionist definition. A brief perusal through Special:WhatLinksHere/Sea leads me to believe that 90% of the time a reader gets to the Sea article through a wikilink, she will expect to see an article primarily about the various individual seas, and not about the world ocean. This is a problem.

But I am not suggesting that this article be rewritten to refer to individual seas! We have List of seas for that. I also think that "the sea" may well be the most common way of referring to the World Ocean in English, with "the ocean" being the other major contender. So we have an organization problem that encompasses multiple articles. How should this be organized? What should be the main article that has information about the totality of connected saltwater on Earth? If Sea is that article, then should Ocean simply be a redirect to Sea? If not, what separate information should the Ocean article cover? Should World Ocean just be a redirect here? There doesn't seem to be a consensus about any of this, since these articles all duplicate much of the same information and claim different things when they link to each other. And without some consensus regarding these issues, I can't be confident that the organization suggested here is correct and deserves to be featured.

I'm sure that Sea is by far the best article among the three. I'd love to find some resolution to this, and I'm open to suggestions from anyone. – Quadell (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I agree that the matter you mention is a problem and it has been discussed elsewhere since we started expanding this article, without resolution. I believe the problem boils down to the difference between American and British English. In the United Kingdom we talk of "going to the sea", "swimming in the sea" or "crossing the sea" and would only use the term "crossing the ocean" for a trans-Atlantic or similar journey. The difference is nicely illustrated by the captions to an image in the Ocean article which reads "Waves on an ocean coast" and one in the Sea article which reads "Coastal sea waves in the Gulf of Santa Catalina". The present article "Ocean" is mostly about the 5 oceans of the world and about extra-terrestrial oceans and there is in fact little overlap with our article Sea. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this reading. 'The sea' is essentially equivalent not to 'Ocean' but to the far more specialized term 'World ocean'. We Brits use 'ocean' only with a name, e.g. The Atlantic (ocean). The opposite overlap, with List of seas, is as Cwmhiraeth says already handled. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if the article at Georgia were about the country, with a small section mentioning the U.S. state... but 90% of links to Georgia were clearly referencing the state. That would be a problem. If Georgia were an FAC, that would at the very least indicate future stability concerns, along with other concerns. Or imagine an FAC of football, where the article was about association football, but where 90% of links clearly indicated the reader would expect an article on American gridiron (and those articles typically linked to a separate, competing soccer article about association football). I think that would be a legitimate concern in a FAC. In the cases of Georgia and football, a solution has been ironed out through consensus and disambiguation, and Wikipedia articles are usually predictable in how they link to those articles. That hasn't happened here, and I'm unwilling to support this FAC until the issue is resolved. I'm truly sorry; the article is very good, and I'd like to see it featured. I just can't ignore 90% of inbound wikilinks. – Quadell (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this case is analogous to either of those. "The Sea: is more of a collective term and so integrally related to any smaller subsets thereof. I think the interrelation is such that the topic crossover can be discussed as a whole. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am not currently opposing (nor supporting) this FAC. I do believe the questions regarding subject and scope are important and should be dealt with... but I honestly don't whether they are problems with this article or with other related articles, so I can't tell if it's a legitimate reason to oppose. Whether this makes it to FA status or not, I hope we achieve some sort of consistency between what "sea" means in articles that link here, and what "sea" means in this article. – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about we move Sea to The sea, redirect World Ocean to The sea, and make the article Sea either about the small body of water or a disambiguation page? Using "the" in a title is common: See The Crown, The Holocaust, etc. - Ypnypn (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with that course of action. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Hmm... it sounds like a good idea to me. Would anyone object to such a change? – Quadell (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that solution sounds promising. I favour Sea not being just a disambig, but being about the small body of water - certainly that is what i was expecting to read about, when i saw this at FAC and clicked through. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe sea can redirect to List of seas. LittleJerry (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like Ypnypn's and LittleJerry's suggestions. I'd also suggest that Ocean#Earth's global ocean should also be merged into the current article/The sea, which has basically already been done with the exception of two sections, Ocean#Divisions and Ocean#Zones and depths. I think an overview on the sea should definitely cover those two topics. One last minor note: the lead should mention that the phrases "the sea" and "the ocean" are synonymous in the context of this article.
It's fantastic to see an article of such importance here—carry on! Cobblet (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have altered the lead as you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, if you check out the article talk page, you'll notice I brought up this definitional issue involving "sea", "the sea", "ocean", and "world ocean"... And was ignored. Can't help but grumble a tad to see the suggestion accepted with open arms when by someone else. *sigh* At least the problem is finally being given the attention it deserves --Coin945 (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I quote: "Thanks for the good wishes, but I really don't think that'd be a good idea. Generally the article ("The" or "A") is only used in titles of books and films (like "The Cruel Sea"), and never in articles on normal topics. So I expect if we tried it, it would get reverted. Your view of "Sea" does seem very close to what I'd think of as "List of seas", however, and I'd be happy to support you if you'd like to go in that direction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 6:19 pm, 24 April 2013, Wednesday (4 months, 11 days ago) (UTC+8)"--Coin945 (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal So that this FAC can move on, I would like to propose that the article be renamed "The sea" and that the page "Sea" become a disambiguation page. I would then propose that any further discussions on the name of the article and the merging of other articles into it could take place on the talk page of the article.
Adopting this proposal would enable this FAC discussion to focus on the merits and faults of the article rather than its name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Chiswick in that we don't normally put articles in front of article names unless it's a title. Is there such an instance, such as "The air"? To me this whole discussion over "Sea" vs "The sea" is extremely UNDUE and it has stymied the FAC. I think the article should remain named [{Sea]] with hatnotes to other artice(s) as needed. On another note, no one ever responded to my past post of 22 Aug. PumpkinSky talk 10:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your view. I have responded to the previous post now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the heading "Sea" is fine for the Wiki article. OED has "sea", but does not have "the sea" as a page heading for definitions, but it lists examples of the use of "the sea". Curiously, The sea did not exist on the Wiki, so I have just created a redirect from "The sea" to "Sea". Note that The Sea (different capitalisation) is a dab. I have amended the signpost headers. Snowman (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the "Sea" article has 2000 hits per day. It is obvious that "Sea" should be a primary topic. No changes in the name of this article are needed. Snowman (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Snowman. I did not want to adopt the proposal I made and agree with what you say. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have rather belatedly done this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to comment on possible problems for disambiguation or navigation that might result from changing the current redirects. Currently, World ocean and (I gather, thanks to Snowman) The sea redirect to Sea. As far as I can see, changing which of those three names actually holds the content would have little effect on navigation. By the way, a quick scan of a small, arbitrary set of pages linking to Sea suggests that most of the those links do intend to refer to this super-body of water. As was suggested above, The Sea is the name of several works of art, and The Sea (with capital S) disambiguates them. My personal opinion is that 'Sea' is an appropriate title, and that 'Sea', 'The sea', and 'World ocean' should each point to the same content via redirects. Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done *Be consistent in how you format web citations - for example, is the website name italicized or not?

  • Compare FNs 2 and 3 and 24 - why the different approach?
  • What makes about.com a high-quality reliable source?
  • Book citations almost always need page numbers and publishers
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Why do some books cited multiple times use short citations while others don't?
  • Compare FNs 19 and 58
  • FN60: formatting
  • FN89: missing italics
  • Be consistent in how you treat sources with no named author
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books; if you do, you'll need to be more specific than "United States"
  • What makes this a high-quality RS?

Stopping and oppose for now - sorry guys, but there's a significant amount of cleaning up needed wrt citations/sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikkimaria. I will work to resolve the points you raise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with Nikkimaria that a fair number of the citations were not up to scratch. I have now finished going through all of them and hope that the anomalies are gone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of changes that've been done, restarting this...

  • Publications like National Geographic and Nature should be italicized
  • Compare FNs 18 and 31
  • Foreign-language sources (ex FN41) should be identified as such
  • Use a consistent date format - compare for example FNs 42 and 43
  • Compare FNs 54 and 69 and 94
  • FN74: pages?
  • FN90: should specify DC
  • FN95: italicization is backwards
  • What makes Military.com a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN124: ISBN?
  • FN145: don't italicize quotations
  • FN147: page(s)?
  • FN170: any reason to not just cite the Bible directly?
  • FN172: formatting
  • FN173: what kind of source is this?
  • I'm a bit concerned about your use of primary sources in some cases. For example, you cite "A well-known American maritime work is Herman Melville's 1851 novel Moby-Dick" to Moby-Dick - that citation confirms that a work by that title from that year exists, but not that it's a "well-known American maritime work". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nikkimaria. I will work through these starting at the end in case the reference numbers alter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chiswick Chap and I have now dealt with all these points, including replacing the references that you questioned with better sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Snowmanradio

added, ref Stow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But "water from volcanoes" does not explain why there is so much water on the Earth. I am puzzled by your recent addition about volcanoes. Possible omission; modern ideas that vast amounts of water on Earth came to the Earth on colliding comets; see Comets Created Earth's Oceans, Study Concludes. I asked for "water from Comets" in this articles Good Article review, and I assumed that the main editors of this article had read it. There are probably better sources for the article. This is well known in the UK, because it has been in a BBC TV documentary. Snowman (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added comet source, ref Nature. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Possible mission; something about how long ago comet bombardment happened. Snowman (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The age of the water is clearly ancient but in dispute, see Water on Earth and Moon May Have Same Source. Either when earth was 100m years old, or later. Perhaps matter for another article than this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added Earth alone with surface water in solar system, other planets may have water, refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
label added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am interested to see dream symbolism is included. However; "collective unconscious" appears in the introduction and nowhere else in the article. Please provide text in the main text and verification in a source. Snowman (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Dreams by Jung page 122 does say that the sea is a symbol of the collective unconscious. Possible omission; the sea can also be a symbol of the (personal) unconscious; see Dreams by Jung, pages 192, 230, and 276, which refer to the sea as the (personal) unconscious. My version of the book is published by Ark paperbacks and so the page numbers may not be the same as the book cited in the article. Snowman (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added personal unconscious, using Ark edition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about using the the permille (‰) symbol? Snowman (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, why not - done. (introduced it on first usage). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Snowmanradio. I will work on these points. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added warming effect, ref Nature, thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmhiraeth has added a new section on this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission; some of the constituents of sea water are included in the text. I wonder if a table of constituents (possibly with ranges of concentrations) would enable inclusion of more constituents. The "Seawater" section is long and there is plenty of room for a table. Snowman (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that more constituents would be added to the table? The article says "... bromides and other salts." Snowman (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok, added some more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem: "This renewable energy, derived ultimately from the flow of energy from the sun." Tidal energy arises mainly from the relative motion of the Earth and Moon and (article says tidal energy is from the energy of the Sun). Is tidal energy renewable? Tidal energy is from the motion of the Earth and Sun and tidal energy has contributed to the slowing of the Earth's rotation and this energy is not renewed. Tidal energy can be called "green" energy. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed sun clause, said 'green'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the energy could be called sustainable energy, but probably not renewable energy. Fine as it is now using 'green'. Snowman (talk)
  • Problem: "The sea offers a very large supply of kinetic energy which is carried by ocean waves, tides, salinity differences, and ocean temperature differences.". Seawater is higher on one side of a tidal barrier and this difference is exploited to force seawater through turbines to produce energy. I think that this exploits potential energy and not kinetic energy. In any event the flow of seawater on both sides of a complete sea barrier would be halted and so the kinetic energy of the flow of moving water on either side of the barrier is essentially zero. In another type of energy production, I think that kinetic energy can be extracted from turbines fixed to the seabed in fast flowing tidal seawater without using a sea barrier. Also, salinity differences and temperature differences are not conventionally classed at kinetic energy, as far as I am aware. Temperature relates to speed of atoms or molecules and associated energy is usually called heat energy. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Removed 'kinetic'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Edited sentence.
  • Problem; "This means that its gravitational pull at the Earth's surface is more than twice as great as that of the Sun."
F= Gx(M1xEarth's_mass/rxr), enter numbers in separate equations for Moon and Sun and divide F for moon and F fur Sun to get;
(Mass of Moon/250,000x250,000) / (Mass of Sun/93,000,000x93,000,000) leads to
(1/62,500,000,000) / (27,000,000/8,649,000,000,000,000) leads to
(1/62,500) / (27/8,649) leads to
8,649/(62,500x27) leads to 0.005125 or about 1/200. Are my calculations correct?
This means that the Moon's gravitational pull on the Earth's surface is about 1/200 as strong as the Sun's gravitational pull on the Earth's surface. I think that the effect on gravity of the Moon and the Sun on tides is more to do with gravitational gradients, the differences in the pull of gravity on each side of the Earth by the Moon or the Sun (please do not quote this without a RS). A small object would rotate around the Sun in orbit in a state of "weightlessness", this might help thinking of a large object in orbit around the Sun and tides. Snowman (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have removed what looks like nonsense about gravity from the article. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just found something at Tidal Forces and their Effects in the Solar System. As can be expected, it confirms that gravitational force is proportional to the inverse square. It uses a the term "tidal force" which is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance between the relevant solar system objects. The article should have been referring to "tidal force" (inverse cube) and not "gravitational pull" (inverse square) when saying that the influence of the Moon on tides is about 2.2 times that of the Sun. I am wondering how much detail should be included in the article. It seems that there some misconceptions about tides are easy to find, so I might be minded to include more appropriate detail, since tides are fundamental to the sea. The inverse cube relationship for tidal force could be something interesting to include. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a brief explanation of the tidal force with footnote and Admiralty Manual reference. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I think that is enough and will be something interesting for readers to think about. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The difference in height between the high tide and low tide is known as the tidal range." Possible omission: "tidal amplitude" as an alternative name for tidal range. I am not sure if it is included in the source provided. Snowman (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a footnote with reference. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We considered this, and did not include it as the sea, like the atmosphere, mountains, soil, and rivers, plays a part in the water cycle but does not 'own' it. Atmosphere for instance does not mention it either. Perhaps it's just outside this article's scope. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that water cycle is well within the scope of this article on sea. I had a quick look at what links here for the "Water cycle" article and found that a lot of articles included it. River includes the water cycle referring to it a hydrological cycle, a redirect to "water cycle". Sea level also includes it wikilinking one of the redirects to water cycle. Snowman (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a section on the sea's part in the water/hydrological cycle. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a section on this (at end of In culture). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article too long? See WP:TOOBIG, which says "> 60 kB - Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". The "Culture section" is a target to be split off leaving a very short culture section here. Current article size as shown by "Page size" facility;
File size: 465 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 120 kB
References (including all HTML code): 15 kB
Wiki text: 137 kB
Prose size (text only): 72 kB (12127 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 1103 B. Snowman (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see what others think about the size of the article. There are other featured articles that are just as big, and every time you write "Possible omission", it gets larger ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page as it is is well rounded and a great read. I am having a great deal of trouble thinking what we'd cut if we had to cut anything. If we really really had to trim the article, the only section that I feel is a little specific is the Passenger transport section's focus on transatlantic liners, but removing or trimming that would make it very stubby, and it does help portray well how people have travelled on the sea. I think I am happy with content as is. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask if User Casliber's opinion was sought, because it was felt that he may calculate its length in a completely different way and has been tolerant of a long articles before; see User Cwmhiraeth's comment. I am sure that User Casliber gave his honest opinion and I think that he has advanced the discussion. Nevertheless, May I ask if a user's established opinion was canvassed and and ask if canvassing has introduced a bias to the discussion here. Snowman (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed ask Casliber for his opinion because I respect his judgement and great FA experience and knew he would give an unbiased view. In the same way, I asked Nikkimaria if she could do a source review because I knew she was a hard taskmaster and would do a thorough job. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be better to follow the guideline on size since this article would be easy to subdivide two articles. The guideline provides explanations, which I do not need to reiterate here. A more drastic solution could be to split off most of "Humans and the sea" leaving a summary of it in the article. This would divide the article roughly in half. A lot of the sections have an a main article somewhere else on the Wiki and perhaps this huge section could follow this pattern. Snowman (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having created this article and tried to make it as balanced as possible, I am not keen to lop off any of its limbs. However, if there was a consensus opinion that the article was too long and part needed to go, I would be prepared to explore how that could best be done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Article size is a guideline and it indicates a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow. Wikipedia:Splitting is a information page. Both are based on a communal consensus. Actually, the split article ("Humans and the sea") could be quite good. The current article will take an average person one hour to read and this is longer than concentration span (according to Wikipedia:Article size). The "Humans and the sea" section looks like a mixture of all sorts of things added in that have a connection with the sea. To use anthropological terms, I do not see it as "cutting of a limb", I see it as getting rid of fat tissue. Snowman (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the alcohol laws article is 58 kB (9613 words) of readable prose size (this excludes mark-up code, which is not seen on the rendered page). After splitting the culture section, "Sea" is currently 63 kB (10635 words). I am happy to go with the flow using the current article organization (with the reduced culture section) to see what happens. Snowman (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article size of "Sea" is now 68 kB (11417 words) of readable prose size. There is plenty of space on the Wiki and I think that this article can easily be split. Please do not let the long article size jeopardise writing styles. Snowman (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: as suggested at WP:PROSPLIT, I have started a discussion on Talk:Sea about the possibility of splitting the article. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heading "Food production" does not seem right for a section that includes hunting wild animals (ie fishing and whaling). I have been trying to think of a better title or to divide the section into two sections each with suitable headings. Snowman (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed 'Production'. Perhaps that's better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we can try 'Plants', though in modern terms it doesn't really cover the microscopic organisms that photosynthesize. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what it means now, so I have put "Photosynthetic organisms". Snowman (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adabow below has a similar issue with 'Plants'. I suggest we go for 'Producers' (plants, algae etc) and 'Consumers' (animals, detritivores etc). It's accurate and not overly technical. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not resolved. I see what you mean, but I have never heard of those words used before like that. I think that "produces" and "consumers" is jargon also. I think that these headings should be more easy to understand. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. We could say 'Autotrophs' and 'Heterotrophs' but I suspect that they would not suit; we could say 'Animals and other consumers', 'Plants and other producers', a bit klunky and doesn't avoid the terms; we can use 'Plants' and 'Animals', accepting they're not perfect for the sake of simplicity. There aren't any totally everyday terms that perfectly correspond with producer and consumer. Which would you prefer? WP articles commonly use technical terms, with wikilinks to explain them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Plants, algae and many bacteria"? "Animals, fungi and many bacteria"? Snowman (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we need something snappier, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the section headings to "Algae and plants" and "Animals and other marine life" which is simple English and I think covers the contents of the section adequately. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without implying corroboration, that looks more suitable to me.. Snowman (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Geography section added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that something has been added, but it is not what I meant. Some of what has been added probably belongs in the history section. Perhaps, I should re-phrase the problem more clearly. The article does not have the "anatomy" of the oceans, the names of the oceans, where the oceans are, where the deep places and shallow places are, and perhaps where the frozen places are, and so on. Labelled map (or maps) of the world might help to show the location of the various oceans and the where deep trenches are and so on. The location of some of the bigger seas could also be added, but I would at least expect the article to have a labelled map of the oceans and their key features. As far as I am aware "Geography" is an earth science, which is one of the physical sciences, so I have re-organised the headings. Snowman (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you are suggesting is adequately covered in the article Ocean but we could look for a suitable map to include here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A big proportion of what is in this article is covered in other Wiki articles. The main questions are; Is it in the scope of this article on sea?, How much detail is needed here?, How is information organised across the relevant articles on the Wikipedia?. Snowman (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basically a top-level, key subject article like this is an overview of many other articles, and tries to present a readable introduction to the subject from which the reader will move on to more detailed pages. This means there are bound to be overlaps and in fact there should be. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added sentence, wl, ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The addition is; "A regular pattern of waves, swell, once created, can travel right across an ocean." I do not understand this. What is a swell? A regular pattern of waves could be almost anything. Snowman (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merged mentions of swell, added quote to ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added 'and exploration'; it seems to form a coherent history section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added information on navigation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is mentioned briefly near the end of the "Animals and other marine life" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is not much about the history of Deep-sea exploration there. Snowman (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Inuit's hunting is now mentioned (next item). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added sentence on indigenous hunting of seals and whales by Inuit, ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are now only 2, NOAA and Oceans (Open Directory Project), which seems reasonable if you're happy with those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are they consistent with WP:EL? Do they provide a unique resource? Snowman (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are major, unique resources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Used 2 in article, deleted the other 2 as basically irrelevant, so removed the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Where do does the Wikibook and the portal go now? Snowman (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are beside the Notes which seems reasonable, unless there's a better home for them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any guidelines on this? Snowman (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They normally go in the See also, which we now don't have, so we just have to do our best here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is appropriate to put it on its a new "See also" section, possibly with Wikibooks? Snowman (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer. I'm sure someone will tweak it if there's a preferred style in this situation but there's no fixed standard to follow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current structure using Wikilinks instead of the signpost boxes in a "See also section" may be tidier. It will be interesting to see if it improved. Snowman (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was mystified about the 10,000 Greeks image, so I did a bit of searching. Can the caption be improved? After a bit of searching I found this here; "A famous part of the Anabasis is Xenophon's description of the Greeks, shouting "Thalassa, thalassa" (the sea, the sea) at the top of a great dune, when they saw the sea." I presume the famous quote is "Thalassa, thalassa". Is the quote I found relevant to the image? Snowman (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, more or less. A fuller quote is in the Xenophon ref in the article; have copied the ref to the caption for convenience. The usual spelling of sea in the quote has -tt- as opposed to the more modern -ss-. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am still puzzled why the image is in black and white. I would have expected a painting to be in colour. Is a colour version of the image availabe? Snowman (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a colour version (nor has Google); the painting was litho printed in monochrome in a book, Hutchinson's History of the Nations, and that's where Life got it from. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that details of the painting are catalogued somewhere. It seems to me that the caption should explain that this is a black and white version of a colour painting, if this is what has happened. Also, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(captions) says that the date should be included for captions of paintings. Snowman (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have added the date and "monochrome printed version" to the caption. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear why the Greeks were pleased to see the sea, if that is what there words mean. They would not want to drink it. The caption seems to be inadequate to me. I have had to search to find out why the image has been added to the this page. The Wiki article, Anabasis (Xenophon), says that when the army saw the sea they knew where they were. According the the Wiki, for them the sea was a significant "landmark" helping them to determine their bearings. Is historic literature about an army being pleased to see the sea, because it indicated their location was in "home" territory within the scope of this article? Snowman (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The Xenophon one is done, will look through the others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you adding in-line refs? They are often in the article. My suggested problem was that more easy-to-find Wikilinks need adding in captions. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I copied refs to the captions that possibly needed them. Hope that's ok now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omission: Many nuclear power stations are on the coast to make use of water as a coolant (heat dump). This would be another addition for the use of the sea in the "Humans and the sea" section. Snowman (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balance problem; about the nuclear deterrent of nuclear armed submarines. "... their possible replacement and future roles are being questioned." This is a political issue and some people answer these questions by been certain that a nuclear deterrent is needed and they explain more about nuclear proliferation and the possibility of being attacked. The article should be more balanced and present both side of the discussion. Some people would say that the dangers of the cold war have subsided. Some people would say that the dangers arising from nuclear proliferation have increased. Snowman (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
removed political clause, the article isn't the place for that discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the political issue has been removed, the remaining information on nuclear submarines looks odd at the end of a paragraph on WWII. Dates of the age of nuclear submarines would help the reader. Snowman (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Oceanography article does not go into details of the direction of future research and I don't think we should speculate either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to what might be found in reliable sources about future research directions. Current research and exploration is omitted. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that a user has also commented on this omission on the talk page. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added by Chiswick Chap. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to History section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is the same for all waves but is more easily demonstrated with ripples. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without implying corroboration, I would guess that you are correct. Snowman (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omission: The pollution section of the article does not report on what is legal or illegal to dump at sea; see Marine_debris#Laws_and_treaties. 17:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify. I found this quote "Marine geography draws on the traditional and well-established skills of the geographer to observe, map, survey, analyse and interpret a wide range of physical and human variables but focuses on the natural and social science of the sea and coastline." That's what we have tried to do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I will think about the heading structure. Snowman (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have put explanations of marine disciplines relevant to physical science in one paragraph. Perhaps, explanations of more disciplines can be added. Snowman (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Hawaii is not so far from the Great Pacific garbage patch. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe or maybe not, I am not sure. The puzzle about the picture remains, because none of this is explained in the article nor the caption. The amount of rubbish looks exceptionally large. In Commons:Category:Beaches_of_Hawaii most of the beaches have little or no rubbish, and only a small minority of the photographs there show a lot of rubbish. The article may have a balance problem in showing a photograph featuring a lot rubbish, without indicating why there is so much rubbish there or anything about the beaches that do not have much rubbish on them. Snowman (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the image to restore balance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is beyond the scope of this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should have put that it is an omission the fact that drinking seawater will not rehydrate (common knowledge). The reasons for this can be explained on a liked page. I think that this is basic essential information and I think that it should be included, partly because the topic of desalination to make drinking water is included. It could be included briefly. Snowman (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence in Seawater. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just found the addition in the section of the water cycle. Snowman (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is outside the scope of the article. It is not specifically about the sea but about any large volume of cold water including lakes, rivers and aquifers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It is energy efficient and its use may extend. I would guess that it is more important than the Rankine cycle heat engine, which is included in the article. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In progress... Added Panama Canal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia contradiction about radioactive pollution in Japan. In this article: "The amount of caesium-137 discharged in this event was relatively small ...". In Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster; "This emission of radioactivity into the sea represents the most important individual emissions of artificial radioactivity into the sea ever observed". Snowman (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misleading: "Cold water is denser than warm water and tends to sink." It is generally true, but not near freezing point. If this was true, then water would freeze from the bottom and not the surface. When water cools from about 4C to zero it expands, thus cold water remains at the surface and the surface freezes and insulates. Snowman (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The short paragraph is about Offshore wind power and therefore I think it is relevant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Snowman (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lighthouse added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section organisation problem. The last paragraph of the "Leisure" section includes US Navy divers going down to over 600 m and special manned submarines going down to 6000 m, which is professional diving and exploration. Readers might want to find some information quickly and this will be more difficult by looking for information under the wrong heading. Snowman (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would cause lack of balance as the article does not include information on other marine occupations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think not, now that the Culture section has been hived off. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that The Rime of the Ancient Mariner has a wiki page on The Rime of the Ancient Mariner in popular culture. I think that this work is important. Snowman
Good point! I will work on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, that looks like a good new section. It is what I was expecting when I mentioned a missing geography section above. I think that Spit (landform) and groyne (groin in the United States) should be included. At this juncture, I do not want to increase the load-time of the article by adding more images, but I think that an image of a groyne showing different levels of sand on either side of it would illustrative of a groyne limiting drift parallel to the beach. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will include this in the coastal erosion paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sea grapes are a kind of algae and algaculture is already included in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re thermal difference energy; "The projected cost per kilowatt has prevented the use of this technology for commercial energy production". It looks like there is quite a lot of research is being done on this, so it might not be as hopeless at the article indicates. There is something on JetWit.com, but I am not sure if it is RS. Snowman (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May need refining. Snowman (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is beyond the scope of this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a section on "Humans and the sea", so how can a section on humans who work at sea be outside the scope of the article? Snowman (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the subsections in "Humans and the sea" are about the different ways in which the sea is used for industrial purposes, trade, transport, leisure etc. It is obvious that these need employees, and that there must be services to support them. To write about these occupations in detail is beyond the scope of this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, there is a lot about diving for leisure (including a photograph) and not much about professional divers. Snowman (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given this and the talk page request, we are considering the best way to handle this topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability problem. " a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae Stow, Dorrik (2004). Encyclopedia of the Oceans. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860687-7." You can not expect readers to read a whole book to verify a fact. Stow's book "Enclopaedia of the Oceans is 256 pages. You can only quote a maximum of a small page ranges only from a book. It is in the Wiki guidelines for verifiability. Same for "a b Kindersley, Dorling (2011). Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Ocean. Dorling Kindersley." and "Cotterell, Arthur (ed.) (2000). World Mythology. Parragon. ISBN 978-0-7525-3037-6.". Snowman (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what is happening here. In response to another reviewer's detailed request we've used RP numbering for the repeated references, so the item appears just once but with different page numbers in the text.Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I have not seen it used before. There is more about it on Template:Rp, which says "This template is only intended for sources that are used many, many times in the same article ..." Update: I have changed the format too {{rp|pages=233–7}} to get "p" or "pp" rendered, and and it is clearer that the numbers mean the pages of the books. Snowman (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about "the connected body of salty water that covers over 70 percent of the Earth's surface." I don't think that water that may at one time have been present on Mars is within its scope. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A possible "sea" on Mars in the distant past may help to put things in context with considerations on why the Earth has kept its water so far. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that the reason why Mars is thought to have mostly dried up is that its gravity is not strong enough to prevent fast moving atoms and molecules in the atmosphere (including water vapour) from leaving the planet; however, the stronger Earth's gravity prevents H2O molecules (water vapour) from leaving the Earth (at the current prevailing temperatures). This is basic stuff. Please do not quote this without reference to a RS. Snowman (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these "occupations" is restricted to the sea. I have added a bit about boat people. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reports on radio and television news about large ports being used for smuggling. Perhaps, some additions on regulation and policing of trade by sea would help the article. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See previous reply. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section heading name and content: "The law of the sea". Does it need to be in the pleural? Perhaps, the section could be renamed to something like "International treaties and conventions" be more descriptive. I think a little more could be added about the main work of the International Maritime Organization (part of the UN) to cover a possible omission. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed heading to "Maritime law". Added information on IMO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. But can you suggest a more suitable location? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could go in a new sub-section of "Humans and the sea" called "Time keeping at sea". The recommendations of the 1917 Anglo-French Conference on Time-keeping at Sea could be included with information about international time zones (15° wide pole-to-pole gores) and standard time in territorial waters. Snowman (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want new sub-sections? I think we should concentrate on the basics of the subject and not clutter the article up with peripheral detail. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that the construct of the telling the time as sea was highly relevant to "Humans and the sea". Is telling the time at sea peripheral detail. I could go under a separate heading or perhaps under the heading of "International conventions and treaties" (currently called "Maritime law"). Snowman (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. The included link to time zone provides further detail as of the conference, etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added with reluctance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the FA on viruses; Virus#Role_in_aquatic_ecosystems; which says abut bacteriophages; "... essential to the regulation of saltwater and freshwater ecosystems." and "... are the most important mechanism of recycling carbon in the marine environment." The "Sea" article still has omissions about the importance of these viruses in the sea. Snowman (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regression; someone has removed ocean thermal energy conversion and everything about it from the article recently. This topic been in the article for a long time and I think before the FAC started and no one here has asked for it to be removed. I think that it was a mistake to remove this topic, which is being researched and may have potential for large-scale power generation. Snowman (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed it and stand by the suggestion. This is a top level article and you have already raised the issue of it being too big. The culture section has been savagely pruned, and the history of the sea over geological time is concisely mentioned, to put it mildly. I would opppose including a minor technology like this, interesting though it is. Length of time it has been in the article doesn't seem relevant. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With some reviewers seeking for a better balance between sections and others concentrating on possible omissions it is difficult to please everybody. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is one use of the sea that is now excluded from the article and I think the article is worse for it. Air cooling systems using the sea as a heat sink do exist and are successful. The article includes wind energy, because some wind turbines are placed out at sea, but the energy does not even come from the movement of the sea, so I think that balance has been lost. Snowman (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Cwmhiraeth. I was the one who removed it. Again, a minor technology. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS Although this doesn't really address your objection i would be happy to see the wind turbines deleted altogether - as you say, they do not relate to the sea, that just happens to be where they're plonked.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, content on wind-turbines can be minimised; perhaps, with only that they are built out at sea and NIMBY. Snowman (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Would "Marine biology" or "Biological science" be a better heading than "Life in the sea"? Viruses are on the edge of life, so using "Life in the sea" makes the assumption that viruses are a form of life, without discussion about what properties of life viruses have or do not have. Snowman (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the present name is better because the section is not about the study of marine life but is about the variety and range of lifeforms present in the sea. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Snowman (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have rephrased this section and have added an explanatory diagram. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the Mid-ocean ridge and Oceanic trench articles. How many of these ridges and trenches do you want to name? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there are some huge trenches that should be mentioned. There is one that runs almost the entire length of Chile and there are other huge ones as well. Snowman (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the ridges might also need specific geographical reference. They are gigantic - bigger than the Himalayas. Also, details about these important discoveries. Snowman (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-think; the ridges are wikilinked, which is probably adequate. Snowman (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regression: An image has been added back. Its new position is on the left at the top of the history section; however, there is also an image on the right of the page there and so some text is squashed between two images. This might not look good on small screens. Snowman (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed as not needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regression; I think that the recently added Carson's quote at the end of the culture section (and the end of the article) may be rather too idiosyncratic and also I think that it appears to contradict some of the technical parts of the article. "... from which life first arose ..." is controversial as there are a number of viable theories of the origin of life. "But the sea, though changed in a sinister way, ...", I have no idea what this is referring as the sea remains generally beneficial to life. "... the threat is rather to life itself", I would guess that it is highly unlikely that anything that could happen to the sea would kill all life on Earth within about the next half-billion years or a very very long time. It was published in 1951 and it may have seemed more appropriate in its time. It seems to me that it is obvious that this quote should have no part in this technical Wiki article. (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hamiltonstone made the point earlier in the review that the article needs a good ending to round it off, and I think that the quote is appropriate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good ending may help, but I think that the old quote is an awful ending. I would be grateful if you would justify the old quote with reference to the problems that I have listed above. Snowman (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to have a discussion about how to end the article, but i would reject the premise that this is a "technical" article. It is a top level article about a thing that is at the centre of both geology, biology, human history and contemporary human life. Its centrality to these things is what makes it top-level in priority, long, and broad in scope. As to the quote, Carson's work is probably one of the most important twentieth century texts involving the sea and unlike some other things mentioned in the article, the sea is not only the setting for its events but the subject of the work. Happy to debate whether the quote is the right one or in the right place, but i thought as something that brought together the history of the sea with its present-day relationship with humankind, it was an appropriate place to conclude. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please advance the discussion with reference to the problems that I have listed above. Please refer to the Wiki article Origin of life where a number of ideas on the start of life on the Earth are presented, when justifying the part of the recently added quote that says that life first arose from the sea. Please note that some core topics are listed at Wikipedia:Version_0.7/Core_supplement and "sea" is listed under the major heading "Technical topics", then subheading "Earth", then subheading "Water". Snowman (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is from a 1951 book is a copyright violation and should be removed immediately. Snowman (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment earlier - this is the section on the sea 'in culture', not the science of the origins of life. It is there because of Carson's very significant cultural influence through her writings, that might be described as 'popular science'. The quote is intended to reflect one of the major ideas then (and now) about human relationships with the sea. Copyvio is not an issue with quoting text extracts - it is not like image copyright. You will find similar quoting of text throughout Wiki articles, and you can see policy at WP:QUOTE and Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Text certainly can be copyrighted in a very similar way to images. I think that fair use justification is borderline here, so I have just removed the quote. I think is is best that this core article with over 2000 hits per day did not have possible distribution problems associated with carrying a copyrighted quote. What is the justification for fair use here? See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and Wikipedia:Non-free content. Snowman (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
THe list of core topics has no relevance to the content of the article. The list is merely a convenient organising of subject matter, where each subject appears under only one heading. It does not consititute guidance as to how any article should be written. I think if you had read either of the policies or guidelines (the one i cited or the one your yourself cited), you would see that the quote is completely within policy. For example, the WP guideline you cited states "For instance, we can quote a sentence or two from a movie review in an article on the movie" - which is exactly what we have done - quoted a sentence or two about the sea, in an article about the sea. Your removal of the quote appears to me tendentious, as it does not arise from the policy you quoted, and you have not presented a reubuttal of my explanation of why it is appropriate. As I read the discussion, one of the noms and I both think it is a good inclusion, you do not, no-one else has expressed a view, its inclusion is not in violation of any policy, yet you deleted it. Can i invite you to self-revert while we wait for others to possibly express a view? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My removal of the 1951 quote was done primarily as an urgent matter in case the copyrighted quote does not have fair use and this obviously is the safest course of action for the Wiki. Of course, with the possibility that it may not have a fair use in the article, I am not minded to return it to the article. I suspect that one of the nominators did not realise that the 1951 quote was copyrighted, and I removed the quote as a matter of urgency with its copyrighted status at the front of my mind. A think that a review for a film is not the same as a review for a core topic. I do not see any fair use justification for the quote in this article, since it is not necessary for the article, whereas a review of a film has an obvious relevance. Even if the quote could be used as fair use in the article, then I think that the quote is controversial and unsuitable, because it appears to say that life arose from the sea, which is only one of several hypotheses now; see Abiogenesis. I recall that a BBC television documentary broadcast within the last year did not have the sea as the most likely origin of life. The quote was not accompanied with its date in the prose of article and so it could be read out of context. I think that adding a copyrighted quote to an article would be expected to be discussed prior to its addition and not afterwards. Snowman (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this represents a potentially serious and undesirable precedent to set regarding text copyright violation. I have raised it on the article talk page, and will flag it as a copyright discussion at the FAC talk page. To be clear, I am happy to have a discussion about how to frame the quote, the science, whether it is the best quote to use etc, but the copyright argument I hope will be rejected. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are obviously always concerned by copyright issues, and Snowmanradio is to be commended for their concern. A reasonable quote, a paragraph or so is fair use. No one buys a book to read a paragraph, accordingly it does not impact Carson's heir's interests. Wikipedia tries to be like the "real world", and in the real world, a quote of a paragraph is fine. Look at any scholarly paper, or a solid history book.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am reassured that the quote can be used as fair use, so I have returned it to the article. The discussion can focus on the suitability of the old quote in the Wiki article (see the discussion on the article's Talk:Sea page). I think that the old quote from 1951 not put in appropriate context in the article, and so I think that that article's FA status is jeopardised. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that a pre-amble on the controversy of the origin of life on Earth has been added to explain part of the presumptive quote, which seems to bring it into line with the wiki guidelines on introducing a point of view as being truth by the back door in quotes. The rest of the quote may provoke thought. The consensus seems to be that the quote can remain in the article. Snowman (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. I have rewritten this bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and provides support for the carbon cycle.[66](pp204–229)". The page range is too big to enable easy verification from a book. I think that the carbon cycle should be explained more coherently, possibly with a whole paragraph or sub-section. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section on the carbon cycle. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... but the page range 204-229 is retained and this is too big to enable easy verification from a book. See WP:V. Snowman (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability is an important principal on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balance and accuracy problem; "Life probably originated in the sea, ...". There are lots of hypotheses about the origin of life now, so this is not balanced. It would probably be better "Life may have originated in the sea, ..." or balance the article with some of the other hypotheses. See Abiogenesis. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balance problem. "Scientists differ as to precisely where in the sea life arose". Another viable idea is that life may have arrived on Earth on from space, which is featured in the recently promoted GA on Comets. There are a number of other non-marine hypotheses on the origin of life as well. Snowman (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Altered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduction: Does the introduction include a small part for the important topics in the article? New sections have been added to the article, so I have started bringing new important information about the sea to the introduction. I have been looking at the introduction for some time today, and so I may not find the right words for adding the ocean basins and current research, so I would be grateful if someone else would think about the introduction. Snowman (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think something about coasts including coastal erosion, the ocean basin including techtocic plates, and sea level including historic changes need to be added to the introduction. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Control of the sea is important to the security of a maritime nation ...". This may be too vague. I would have guessed that control of the sea is important to defend against a land invasion from the sea by enemies and this may need to be added before continuing with port blockades. Snowman (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an introductory statement for the section on Naval Warfare and I do not believe it is too vague. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The introductory statement can remain, but I think the historic importance of using the sea to defend against a land invasion from the sea should follow and not something about port blockades. I would guess that air power is more important now. Snowman (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It actually says "... by ice in glaciers, surface deposits and sea ice" so I think it is clear that we are talking about sheets of ice, lying snow etc. here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everyone knows what snow is, so why call it surface deposits. I think that the readability is unnecessarily complex. Snowman (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lying snow may consolidate into ice and so "surface deposits" is a more accurate term. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The movement of water in the form of currents, tides and waves affects the coastline and modifies the climate of coastal regions.[6]". I am not sure why only coastal regions are affected. Is this a mistake? Snowman (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a statement of fact. It does not state that nothing else is affected. It just states that the coastline is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this statement is not adequate. It might be correct, but it leaves the reader wondering about non-coastal regions. The climate of whole of Ireland is affected by the Gulf stream and not just the coastal regions, so I would regard the article and not telling the complete truth. Also, the Wiki article on the Gulf Stream says "Although there has been recent debate, there is consensus that the climate of Western Europe and Northern Europe is warmer than it would otherwise be due to the North Atlantic drift, one of the branches from the tail of the Gulf Stream.". It is like saying the male Sun Parakeet is yellow and omitting to say that the female is also yellow. The full effects of how the currents in the sea affect the climate should be in the article and not just about the selected area of coastal zones. Snowman (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The water in the sea was thought to come from the Earth's volcanoes, starting 4 billion years ago, released by degassing from molten rock." I think that is needs to be said clearly if this is now thought to be wrong. Snowman (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the answer to this. Chiswick Chap is away. Why don't you do some research into the subject? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, User Chiswick Chap would be the best person to think about this. When is he back? Snowman (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... caused by a geological event such as an underwater earthquake or landslide, a meteorite impact, ...". A meteorite impact is an astronomical event and not a geological event. Snowman (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... 0.65 percent is in the form of vapour or liquid fresh water in lakes, rivers, the ground and air.". The "or" here puzzles me. I would not say; "I have 10 ounces of porcelain in the form of a cup or a plate". I would use "and" instead of "or" here and say; "I have 10 ounces of porcelain in the forms of a cup and a plate". Snowman (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think either is OK, actually. The trouble was that you made it say "... 0.65 percent is in the forms of vapour, liquid fresh water in lakes, rivers, the ground and air", which would mean ... in the form of the ground and in the form of air. I've replaced the "or" with "and" and got rid of the verbose "in the form(s) of". --Stfg (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think that your recent amendment to replace the "or" and use "and" makes the text easier to follow. The "and" indicating a summation. Snowman (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regression; "The oceans are home to a diverse collection of life forms that use it as a three-dimensional habitat." Some animals a mobile on the sea bed (two dimensional) and some creatures are relatively stationary and cling to a rock. Snowman (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think not. They are referring to different aspects. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The account of tsunamis in the "Sea" article is not the same as in Wiki "Tsunami" article. This article says that a tusnami is like a wind wave, but the tsunami article says that they are not like wind waves, but are more like fast tides. I think this needs double checking with reference to more than one source. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not say "a tusnami is like a wind wave" but that, as it approaches shore, its behaviour resembles a wind-generated wave. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • About tsunami; "Powerful events can temporarily lift the surface of the water, usually by a few feet." When a meteorite impacts in an ocean and causes a tsunami, then I presume that the initial movement of seawater will be downwards. Snowman (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • About tsunami; I am puzzled by two apparently contradictory statements in the same paragraph; "... a tsunami, radiating outwards at a speed proportional to the square of the sea depth." and "The speed at which these travel varies with the square root of the water depth ...". I presume that these can not be both correct, because speed proportional to the square of the sea depth would be different to speed varying with the square root of the water depth. Snowman (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem: "A trough precedes the wave and is the first thing to reach the coast, ...". This is not always the case, but when it happens it can be an useful warning sign. I think that omitting that the wave can precede the trough is a serous omission. See Tsunami Facts and Information on the Australian gov website, which says: "Depending on whether the first part of the tsunami to reach the shore is a crest or a trough, it may appear as a rapidly rising or falling tide." Snowman (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • bout tsunamis; "Powerful events can temporarily lift the surface of the water, usually by a few feet." I think that seawater can also drop. User Pbsouthwood also mentions this below. Snowman (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The US Government Survey to which this is cited is not available at the moment because of the US budget crisis. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that User Pbsouthwood has fixed it. Snowman (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds odd; "Often several tsunami are caused by a single geological event and arrive at intervals of between eight minutes and two hours." It sounds odd that a wave two hours late can be caused be a single geological event. How long does a "single geological event" last? Does a "single geological event" include the aftershocks? Snowman (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A single event possibly causing several tsunamis. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does that happen? Snowman (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission and balance problem; the "Animals and other marine life" section includes the marine reptiles "sea snakes" and "sea turtles", but "marine lizards" and "marine crocodiles" do not get a mention. Snowman (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The animals mentioned are only examples and do not provide a comprehensive list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but the sequence of vertebrates seems a little disorganised. "Cetaceans" sounds like jargon to me. 14:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Can you suggest a better single word covering whales, dolphins and porpoises? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Cetacean" is not jargon. You can find it in any little general-use pocket dictionary. --Stfg (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not in the 2002 edition (reprinted 2003) of the Chambers Mini Dictionary ISBN 0550 100121, which boasts 35,000 references and 45,000 definitions. I have just checked, on page 81 it goes; "... cervix, cessation, cesspool, CET, cf, CFC, chacun a son gout, chador ...". If the nominators really would like suggestions on alternatives, then I would be happy to help, but may I suggest that the nominator has a try at it first. More than one word may be needed, but I think several words would be better than one word that is not in a biggish mini dictionary. "Cetacean" sounds like jargon to me. Snowman (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why I should be pushed aside from contributing here. It's in the Little Oxford Dictionary today, and has been since at least 1941. The word is used in news reports such as this and many others (try Google). In fact, a Google UK search for the word just on the BBC web site (not a specialist scientific site) yields 2,450 hits. We have an article on the subject, and more than mainspace 200 articles linking just to the redirect page for this word. Introducing rather common scientific words like this one way that Wikipedia can help readers to learn things like how to understand those very news reports. Why should we dumb it down the extent of avoiding words as common as this? --Stfg (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Main articles: Marine animal and Seabird"; Marine animal redirects to "Marine biology". This "Marine biology" page is also signposted under the section above. There may be a better Wiki page to signpost that focuses on marine animals. Snowman (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find a better page so I removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was not added by me and I have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem; "This is half the 24 hours and 50 minute period that it takes for the Earth to make a complete revolution and return the Moon to its previous position relative to an observer." 24 hrs and 50 minutes is longer than the Earth takes make a complete rotation. The "Earth's rotation" Wiki page says; "The Earth rotates once in about 24 hours with respect to the sun and once every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds with respect to the stars." Snowman (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is in your lack of understanding. Let us suppose that both the moon and star A are due south from an observer at midnight. The following night star A is due south at about 4 minutes before midnight while the moon is due south at 50 minutes after midnight. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the nominator. Yesterday Snowmanradio made some edits to the Tsunami section which left it with grammatical-type errors, poor quality prose, a capital "A" in the middle of a sentence and three bare urls as references. I have not been checking other edits you have been making, Snowman, but request you not to edit the article again while it is at FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not put the bare urls there, User Pbsouthwood did, when he kindly improved the readability of the section, which is carefully explained in the edit summary of his edit of 4 Oct 2013. I did accidentally leave a capital "A", when I was editing to improve the flow, and I apologise for that. I think that the words of the section were a combination of my edits, User Pbsouthwood's edits and previous editor's work. I am puzzled by your complaint and I see no reason that I should refrain from editing the article. Snowman (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The last four edits were yours. You did not adequately check what you did and you left the section in a deplorable state. You have since done two edits and produced the following "These events can temporarily displace a vast amount of water and temporarily lift or lower the surface of the seawater usually by a few feet in the affected area. The potential energy of the displaced seawater ..." You have used each of the words "temporarily", "seawater" and "displace" twice in this sentence and a half, and I have had to rewrite them. Please leave the article alone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) My apologies if my edits caused any confusion, I thought the edit summaries would explain adequately. I edited directly to save myself some time and effort. I did not expect it to be controversial. I left the raw urls as I thought it better to leave it to the nominators to select which of the references they prefer. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets look at the edits to the tsunami section. I think that User Pbsouthwood made a good job of re-writing the science explaining his edits with full edit summaries. Then I changed relativity little in four edits. Then User Cwmhiraeth made two edits and then added tsunami warning systems. Most of my sentence reorganisation to the first paragraph has been kept, I did not change the middle paragraph, and my amendment to the third paragraph had been kept. I am puzzled why User Cwmhiraeth is directing complaints at me. I see no reason why I should refrain from editing the article. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have gone way outside your role as a reviewer and in this instance left the Tsunami section in a deplorable state having failed to read it through carefully after your edits. I was really angry when I saw it. During your review you have made a number of useful suggestions for which I thank you. Now I suggest you stop your review and let the delegates make the decision as to whether the article reaches the required standard. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional impression. I think that the nominators may have given reviewers a lot to do here. I note that the article had 40 edits between achieving GA status on 9 July 2013 and FA nomination on 16 August 2013; see diff. I think that including some topics may have unwittingly given some included topics undue prominence over related or similar topics; for example, the full section on sea gypsies may not be in balance with other cultures with lifestyles based on the sea. I do not see why the topic of the 10,000 Greeks is within the scope of this page. Topic selection may need refining by including relevant topics that are not covered and removing excess detail about included topics. The page is now 79 kB (13236 words) of readable prose size, and WP:TOOBIG suggests that more than 60 kB is too long. The discussion on page size may not have advanced far, partly because the page was significantly shorter than this at the time earlier reviewers completed their reviews and partly because one tolerant opinion on large article sizes appears to have been actively canvassed on 12 Sept 2012; see User Cwmhiraeth's comment. It seems to me that the basic natural science, history, culture, and possibly human activities sections fall naturally into different areas of interest, that would enable splitting off parts. I do not see a compelling reason to keep this article as long as it is. I think that this article should be made shorter, for the explanations given in WP:TOOBIG. Snowman (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We are actively looking at the best way to do this now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have split the 'Culture' section into a sub-article, leaving a single summary paragraph behind. This has reduced the article by nearly 20 kB so we are already close to the 60 kB guideline. (And the Greeks have vanished ;-} with it, too.) I agree that the sea gypsies paragraph is a bit detailed - have trimmed them, renamed to Indigenous sea peoples, and added Arctic tribes also. Is there anything else specifically that you feel should be slimmed down or hived off, given that the length is very nearly right? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be confusing the page size that includes all the wiki code and references with the readable prose size (rendered words in prose). Do you have access to the "page size" Wiki facility? The readable prose size has been reduced to 72 kB (12143 words) by splitting culture. You could consider the article as several blocks that each cover an area of interest, when looking for for more blocks that could be removed. Does the history section block cover a specialised interest? Presumably most the the history is currently reiterated on various Wiki articles. Snowman (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, more to be done. No, neither of us is a historian; just tried to cover the essentials. Will do to History what I did to culture - either later tonight or very early tomorrow morning, then we'll see where we are. Other items are in work between the two of us. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all the changes so far: Wiki text = 138 kB, prose size (text only) = 71 kB (12000 words). The Wiki text size with mark-up code (ie 138 kB) is what you see alongside the edit history and this is not the same as prose size. Snowman (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a mistake to ruin the article by removing more chunks. Big subjects need big articles to be comprehensive. There are plenty of featured articles that are over 100kb, here are some examples and there are plenty more - BAE Systems, Alfred Russel Wallace, Zinc, Psilocybin, Grand Teton National Park, Tang Dynasty, Greater Manchester, Alzheimer's disease, Hungarian Revolution of 1956, Empire of Brazil, Alcohol laws of New Jersey, Mars, Speed of light, Star, Sun, Venus, Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, The Beatles and Henry I of England. The Middle Ages with 159kb became a FA in May this year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have got the facts wrong. The page sizes that you have provided are not the readable prose sizes, because you have have included all the mark-up code, tables, and so on. You should be considering the readable prose size only. For example the prose size of the "Alzheimer's disease" article is 47 kB (7191 words) "readable prose size", and "Alfred Russel Wallace" 52 kB (8518 words) "readable prose size", and "Middle Ages" has 87 kB (14386 words) "readable prose size". Saying that there are bigger FAs is not highly meaningful, because the page size guideline is only a guideline. My point about the "sea" article, is that it is a long article that can be divided into blocks of interest that can reasonably be split off for the benefit of information organization and access of the Wikipedia. Snowman (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Snowman (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It looks like enough trimming and splitting has bought the article to a more reasonable size (currently 63 kB, 10567 words of readable prose size). At this juncture, it seems to me that further shortening may not be fruitful, especially if the nominators wish to keep the remaining article together. Incidentally, I have removed two not particularly helpful images to reduce page load time, but that does not affect prose size. Snowman (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not totally convinced that retaining half of the article as "Humans and the sea" will be beneficial, but I am prepared to go with the flow and see what happens. Meanwhile I fear that apparent lack of room for expansion may jeopardise writing style. The scope of "sea" is huge and this seems to be a relatively "young" article. Snowman (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. These are key issues and we're considering them now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion about this article length on the articles talk page, Talk:Sea. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There has been some big apparently unilateral reductions in the size of the basic science sections by User Chiswick Chap on 16 and 17 Sept 2013. I would have thought that this would need prior discussion and consensus especially during a FAC. It looks like regressions have occurred with new omissions being created. How are reviewers supposed to follow the progress of an article when this happens? Snowman (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are considering restoring these pieces of removed information in view of the fact that the size of the article seems no longer to be an issue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look at the modifications done by the unexplained removal of referenced text. I note that often the edit summary "crisper" was used, which for me disguised the edits somewhat. Please use descriptive edit summaries. I have fixed some of the regressions. To clarify, I am currently "going with the flow" without spitting off "Man and the sea" to see what happens. I think that there is no need for unexplained chopping down of sections, because the Wiki has plenty of space and this article could easily be split into two halves (anthropomorphically, twins); the science of the "sea" and "Man and the sea". Perhaps, the split articles might become FAs more easily than one combined FA. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any problems with load time?. I have finding that saving changes to the "Sea" article can take several seconds and longer than it takes to load the article to read it. It this a local problem? or are other editors and readers having similar difficulties loading and saving the "Sea" article? Snowman (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find this article no slower to load while editing than other articles of a similar size. I find that saving time is longer than loading time for other articles as well. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I've been having problems with save-time for all long articles and talk pages, mostly in the last few days. I don't think it's a particular problem with this article. – Quadell (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So have I. But this article gives me no problem, even on my 7-year-old system. Less than 2 seconds to load and render on Chrome, about 10 seconds even on clunky old IE8. --Stfg (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Article size; See WP:PROSPLIT, which says "If unsure [about spliting], or with high profile or sensitive articles, start a "Split" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject.". Following this guideline, I have started a discussion at Talk:Sea and I hope to see opinions and a consensus gather one way or the other over the course of a week or two. Snowman (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression 2. I think that the general architecture, organization, and content of this long article may soon reach a plateau of development and perhaps a more stable state. I would think that several (about 7) new sections and other new lines have not had sufficient time for enough reviewers to consider, so I think that general work on copy editing, especially of the new sections, can continue. The introduction is in the middle of a re-write to reflect the expanded article. This may be a good time to consider re-starting this FAC on the grounds that the article has changed a lot during this FAC, so that reviewers can comment on this more stable form of the article. Snowman (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You gotta be joking! This review has been going on for seven weeks already and is longer than the article itself. Other editors have had ample time to view the changes made and alter their opinions on the article if they see fit. Let's not start the whole gruelling procedure over again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first three weeks of the FAC were relatively quite. Almost every part of the article that was about something technical has had to be rewritten, and the culture section has been split off and summarised for the article. The article is currently 72 kB (12086 words) of readable prose size and it has 223 references, so it is not surprising that the FAC is taking a several weeks. As far as I am aware, no spot checking of sources have been reported to this FAC so far. About seven recently added new sections have not been reviewed by very many people. A lot of the FAC so far has been about the omissions and organisation of the article, and I think that it is only now that the article has become stable enough for the second phase of the FAC, which I think will be like a more normal FAC involving discussion about words, sentences and MoS, rather than omissions of whole sections. I think that a lot can be said for restarting this FAC at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no desire to repeat this gruelling review process by restarting the FAC. I believe that the assertion that "Almost every part of the article that was about something technical has had to be rewritten" is untrue. I have invited the editors who have supported the article's candidacy earlier in the review process to take another look in case they wished to change that view. (PumpinSky seems to have departed WikiPedia and ColonelHenry's support was recent and post-dated most changes.) It seems to me that Snowman has gone beyond his proper role of article reviewer in his current suggestion that the review should be restarted. It's almost as if he thinks he is in charge! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my proper role as a reviewer, I have made a suggestion to the FAC delegates that they might consider restarting the article, because it has been unstable during this FAC owing to many new sections and paragraphs being added and the culture section being split off. I think that this is an entirely appropriate suggestion and I think that this might be reasonably considered in their summing up for this article and any article that had substantial changes during the FAC. If more reviewers read the new sections, then the FAC delegates can reasonably say that several new sections have been added during the FAC, which were seen by an adequate number of reviewers in the latter half of the FAC after new sections had been added, and hence that the FAC can be completed by this FAC. I would say that User ColonelHenry would have seen most of the new sections, if he re-read the article on the day he finalised his review; however, the carbon cycle section, the nitrogen cycle paragraph, and portions on diamond mining and bathymetry were all added afterwards. It is certain that the earlier reviewers have not commented on many of the new sections yet. At the present time, I doubt if all of the sections have been adequately reviewed here; however, the final decision is with the FAC delegates. Please note that the FAC delegates are the only people empowered to close FAC discussions and reviewers can only offer their observations and other comments, as far as I am aware. Actually, the few restarted FACs that I have seen have passed quite easily in their restarted form having attracted sufficient reviewers, and I expect they were easy for FAC delegates to close and conclude. However, I suspect that the window of opportunity to restart this FAC may have passed, because review on the current stable from of this article has continued here and it would be somewhat more difficult to make a clean start now. Please indicate which technical sections have not been modified during this FAC. I can say for certain the technical aspects of tides, waves, the ocean basin, and power were substantially rewritten, and the section on tsunamis currently has comments without replies from me above and from User User Pbsouthwood below. Snowman (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jimfbleak

Support Comments from Jim bravo for tackling this major topic. I'm not going to quibble aabout details of what you might have included/excluded, or what it's called, but a few points. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirm support I was asked to have another look in view of the changes instigated by Snowman. I think the article is stronger than ever, and I'm happy to state that I still support it for FA status. I certainly don't think it's appropriate to restart an article with four or five supports, where only one editor is suggesting that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading the article again. I was concerned that not many reviewers had commented on several new sections, so your up-to-date positive review of this hugely modified article is reassuring. It is also reassuring to have your opinion that the FAC can be safely finalised here. I am still finding problems, but not major issues like missing content or organisational problems. Snowman (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winds create currents through friction, setting up slow but stable circulations of water throughout the oceans. — You mention this and the thermohalic circulation, but isn't it the case that a body of water on a rotating planet with a temperature gradient would develop a circulation anyway? On your version, it implies that the thermohaline effect would be directly north-south, and that a gas (the air) is entirely responsible for moving immense quantities of water in the circulation pattern. The water is subject to the Coriolis effect as well.
added and wikilinked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is still no indication in lead that winds largely affect the oceans only near the surface, and do not drive the deep circulation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added 'surface' to the wind-driven currents. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tides, the twice-daily rise and fall of sea levels — "usually" as you make clear later
done Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • anaerobic bacteria producing hydrogen sulphide... Others cluster round deep sea vents where mineral-rich flows of water emerge from the seabed.— you don't link these items, even though this sulphur-based ecosystem is the only one that doesn't rely on energy from the sun
It was linked further down - have moved link to the earlier mention of vents. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see any clear indication that the sulphur-processing bacteria are the basis of the vent ecosystem, and I would have thought they were primary producers anyway, since they convert heat and inorganic chemicals into products that other life forms can access by consuming the bacteria and each other (like plants, but with heat instead of visible light) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added sentence on the vent community with primary producer bacteria, consumers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • precipitated out in the form of calcium carbonate as the sea becomes more acidic. —Misleading. If it was genuinely acidic, pH<7, all the CaCO3 would in fact dissolve. You mean more dissolved CO2, which does precipitate out the compound.
reworded - please check (feel free to edit). Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The next sentence This is likely to have profound effects on certain planktonic marine organisms because their ability to form shells will be reduced has now lost its subject. Need to say that rising CO2 levels may have this effect (and presumably raise the CCD?) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pH is expected to reach 7.7 by the year 2100, an increase of 320 percent in acidity in a century — technically correct but misleading, it's still alkaline, and the percentage represents a change from 7.9x10-9 to 2x10-8.
removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • there seems to be no indication that Nikkimaria's points have been addressed, and I can see at least one (short citations) that appears not to have been considered
Cwmhiraeth is working on them now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll wait for the responses to Nikkimaria as well as my own outstanding points before I give an overall opinion. I did an oceanography course once, this has jogged a few very rusty little grey cells. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, just waiting to see the referencing changes before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria's second pass seems to have been addressed, changed to support aboveJimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Adabow

  • "Earth is the only planet in the solar system with liquid surface water, but other earthlike planets may have oceans." - This could be slightly confusing to some readers will little astronomical knowledge. Perhaps capitalise Solar System and/or amend the second half of the sentence to 'but earthlike planets in other planetary systems may have oceans'. Also, should 'earthlike' not be capitalised, seeing as it is relating to the planet, rather than ground/soil. Consider linking to Earth analog here.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the salts are aqueous, how can you define which metal goes with each anion? Why can you say '3 grams (0.11 oz) of sulphates, carbonates, bromides and other salts' - this mass would change if all of these salts mentioned here are sodium salts, for example. Where is the citation for this info? ([14] does not cover it.)
Removed, cited Millero 2008 for reference composition of seawater. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The -ph spelling of sulfur derivatives is acceptable, but note that it is becoming less and less common, especially in chemistry circles.
Noted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no link between seawater acidification and the reduced ability to form shells (it's to do with partial pressure of CO2 and carbonate concentration and calcium carbonate solubility, is it not?)
I'm not sure about this. One of the sources states "As CO2 continues to dissolve in the ocean it increases ocean acidity, making it harder for some marine organisms to form shells. These ecological changes in turn reduce the capacity of the ocean to absorb CO2." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to write there is no mention of the link between seawater acidification and shell formation (in this article). There's discussion of seawater acidification, and then of calcium solubility, but no explicit link between the two. Readers who are interested in the consequences of ocean acidification must click through to another article to get any idea what those are and how they work. Adabow (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Added explicit link with NOAA ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Adabow (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the main article link for the waves section be wind wave, not wave?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all the major groups of animals" is vague; can the 'groups' be defined biologically?
We could almost use 'Kingdoms' but unfortunately there is no agreement on how many of those there are. Have edited to read 'A wide variety of...' which is certainly true. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The animals section includes a sentence about bacteria, fungi, microalgae and protozoa. Perhaps rename this section, maybe to heterotrophs?
See discussion of Plants section above. Have renamed the two to 'Producers' and 'Consumers': since 'Primary producers' was felt to be too technical, 'Heterotrophs' probably would have been also. However, the naming remains unresolved, please see above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ship names (except prefixes) should be italicised (MOS:ITALICS)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAO should probably per expanded per MOS:ABBR
Done, acronym has been expanded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent article, and a pleasure to read. Adabow (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. We will work our way through them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic piece of work, happy to support now. Adabow (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ColonelHenry

I admit that this is a tough article to review because of the breadth of coverage that the article's subject demands. But the Sea wouldn't deserve any less. The nominators have done an excellent job preparing the research and writing in advance of and during this FAC. I wish them the best of luck going forward, and look forward to supporting this article. I do have a few comments. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments with regard to the specific FA criteria:

Criteria 1

  • 1A - ALMOST PASS (24SEP13) - I believe this article is well-written, it's well planned in terms of sections and content. While I would have written things slightly differently (i.e. certain modes of utterances and idiomatic expressions I tend to eschew), I would regard this article to be of a professional standard. The word "brilliant" requires a subjective judgment that I tend to avoid in an FAC because it doesn't reveal anything actionable.
    • I tend to think the "In culture" section at the end of the article reads like a miscellaneous list and lacks a cogent prose structure. While I disagree with the editor above claiming that there needs to be a magically amazing or captivating ending, I think this section needs better prose and flow.
  • 1B - PASS - This article is comprehensive and thorough, balancing exquisite detail with WP:SUMMARY
  • 1C - ALMOST/FAIL PASS (24SEP13) - The research that goes into this type and scope of article must be impressive, and this article covers a wide variety of sources from high quality legal documents, historical works, scientific works, and literary and artistic works. HOWEVER: There are problems in consistency with several of the references, for instance fn.71 is listed as "Stow, pp. 160–163." linking to a source below, yet other footnotes are far more complete. These sources (Stow, Kindersley, and Cotterell) ought to be better incorporated into the format of the larger majority of references. In order for me to support, the references will have to be made consistent in one style.
  • May I say that the new longer version is easy to understand, but I think the original version is used a lot on the Wiki. Various headings can be used for the references sections; however, I have seen the books used as sources under the heading "Cited texts" more often rather than "Sources", so I have changed the heading to "Cited texts", which is probably more descriptive. Unfortunately, using the longer versions and more cite templates would have increased the article load time. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chiswick Chap:, while the full citation is nice, there are now several of them among the footnotes for the three sources name the relevant guideline is WP:CITE#Inline citations#Footnotes#Citing multiple pages of the same source which provides the preferable solutions to this problem, and the {{rp}} template which I suggested on my talk page seems to be the better of the options given the need for consistency of citations throughout the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1D - PASS - I don't see any POV issues that undermine neutrality.
  • 1E - PASS - I don't see any outstanding content disputes.

Criteria 2

  • 2A - PASS (24SEP13) STANDBY - I have to spend some time to consider the lede further.
  • 2B - PASS - The article's structure is rather logical. However, I think the last section "In culture" is rushed and has the feel of a bunch of unassociated miscellany just thrown into a spare desk drawer. Because of the breadth of this section, I concede it's difficult to summarize, but a better job has to be done here with reference to my comments above for Criterion 1A.
  • 2C - PASS (24SEP13) FAIL - Consistent citations...I issued a few comments above with regard to Criterion 1C concerning inconsistencies that ought to be remedied.

Criterion 3

  • 3 - STANDBY - I did not yet check the images for compliance. PASS (24SEP13) - Images are sufficiently and properly licensed appropriately for free/fair use per policy.

Criterion 4

  • 4 - PASS - I know there were comments above (I replied to them), stating that the article is too long. I don't think this article is too big, and well in proportion to other lengthy FA topics. This article is 133kB when I saw it, my FA for Alcohol laws of New Jersey was 153kB. I think the focus is keen and the article strikes a great balance between detail and summary style. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that a longish culture section has recently been split off with a summary being used for this article. Do you think that "Sea in culture" (10 kB or 1773 words) should be added back? That would make the "Sea" article over 70 kB (10635 words) of readable prose (note different measurements to what you have reported from the edit history list). The alcohol laws page is currently 58 kB (9613 words) and may not easily divided into separate interest blocks. Snowman (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that in improving the "In culture" section it should be expanded, just that the flow of the prose was lacking because of its rather miscellaneous/random nature. It feels like a grocery list, not a summary. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to place my STRONG SUPPORT on this article. Excellent job in research and preparation on a very difficult subject to approach.--ColonelHenry (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and your support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pbsouthwood

Lead and section: Sea water: generally good.

Section: Wind waves:

The waves form at right angles to the direction from which the wind blows. There is insufficient context for this to make sense. Clarification and citation needed.

Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The height of the wave increases as the energy in it is unable to move downwards and is forced upwards instead. Neither accurate nor good English.

Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small waves form in restricted areas of water with islands and other land masses, but large waves form in open stretches of sea where the wind blows steadily and strongly. It is more accurate and possibly clearer to say that the size of the wave depends on the fetch - the distance that the wind has blown over the water - and the strength and duration of the wind. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oscillating may be preferable to circling, as the vertical component of oscillation is constrained by proximity to the bottom. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Tsunami:

This temporarily lifts the surface of the water, usually by a few feet (one meter). One meter is not a suitable conversion for a few feet. Similarly for "a few hundred feet (one hundred meters)". Is it necessarily always lifted?

Removed conversions (which must have been added by someone else as they used American spelling). I think the surface is always lifted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its behaviour is similar to a wind-generated wave, but the scale is vastly different and involves not just the surface layers of the sea but the whole water column. All shallow water waves involve the whole water column. Wind waves involve the whole water column when they are affected by the bottom, as in refraction and breaking. Shallow water wave velocity is a function of depth, period is fixed.

I think this statement is correct because it is referring to the wave passing over the continental shelf and approaching the coast. Wind-formed waves only disturb the top few metres of the sea. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was referring to the mechanism of steepening and shortening, but I see that it could be referring to general propagation.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The water in front of the wave may be sucked back and added into the crest, Drained back into a leading trough might be a more accurate way of describing it, but check up on this, I am not an expert and am relying on long term memory.

The trough is an absence of water and is formed by the water drawing back into the wave. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But what causes the first trough in a wave train? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how it is formed but it certainly exists. I have rephrased this part of the section to clarify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find much in the way of references, but what I have found suggests that depending on the precise mechanism, the water level may be raised, lowered, or both at different places, by the causative event, so the tsunami may have a leading crest or a leading trough in a given direction depending on whether the surface was raised or lowered first on that side of the disturbance. As the disturbance displaces water throughout the depth of the water column, the wave must propagate as a shallow water wave, at least when it is in water shallower or equal to the depth where it was created (a shallow water wave is one which is affected by the bottom). Wind waves are generally caused in depths where the wave motion does not reach the bottom, and are therefore deep water waves until they reach shallow water where the motion does reach the bottom, when they transition to shallow water waves. The behaviour is affected by the scale depth more than the initial cause. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Tsunami Facts and Information on the Australian government website (I presume that this is a reliable source), which is consistent with some of your summary. Snowman (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks like a good summary. Simple, accurate and a reliable source. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
more later. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a tsunami moves into shallower water the wave is compressed and its speed decreases to below 80 miles per hour (130 km/h). Its wavelength diminishes to less than 12 miles (19 km), and its amplitude increases enormously.[33] Its behaviour then resembles a wind-generated wave, but the scale is vastly different and involves not just the surface layers of the sea but the whole water column. A trough precedes the wave and is the first thing to reach the coast, the sea draws back and leaves subtidal areas close to the shore exposed.

  • The velocity is proportional to square root of the depth, so the quoted 80 mph is connected with a specific depth. Similarly wave length is a function of velocity and therefore depth, and 12 miles would be related to a specific depth. It would probably be better to just say As a tsunami moves into shallower water the wave is compressed and its speed decreases, its wavelength diminishes and its amplitude increases enormously.
Those were figures given by the source but I have rephrased the sentence according to your suggestion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its behaviour resembles a wind-generated wave in shallow water at all times.
Altered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A trough may precede the wave, but as far as I can make out from available sources this is not always the case. Sometimes a crest leads, sometimes a trough, depending on whether the water was displaced upwards or downward first in the initial disturbance. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Altered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Currents:

A main deep ocean current flows through all the world's oceans and is known as the thermohaline circulation or global conveyor belt Check this, I think the thermohaline circulation includes surface currents. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are synonyms. See Thermohaline circulation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thermohaline circulation and global conveyer are synonyms, my point is that the Thermohaline circulation article and the illustrations of the TC suggest that warm surface currents such as the Gulf stream are part of it (TC). • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have altered the image caption. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section:Tides:

This is half the 24 hours and 50 minutes that the Moon takes to make a complete rotation of the Earth and return to the same position in the sky. Most people will think of a month as the time for the Moon to make a complete rotation of the Earth.

Good point. I have rephrased the sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note d: Unlike gravity, which decreases with the inverse square of the distance between the two bodies involved, the tide-raising force decreases with the inverse cube of the distance. appears to contradict the earlier statement Tides are the regular rise and fall in water level experienced by seas and oceans in response to the gravitational influences of the Moon and the Sun, and the effects of the Earth's rotation.

Removed note "d". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the statement The tidal flows of seawater are resisted by the water's inertia and can be altered by land masses. is sandwiched between parts of an explanation of the mechanism of tides. It should probably be moved to the next paragraph.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Ocean basins:

It floats on the liquid mantle below and is relatively thin, being broken into a number of tectonic plates. This suggests that there is some connection between the being thin and being broken up into tectonic plates, however there are also plate boundaries within continental masses, like the Great rift valley and the Himalayas.

What you say is true. Do you want me to change the wording? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "It floats on the liquid mantle below, is relatively thin, and is divided into a number of tectonic plates.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of these crustal movements, the oceans are gradually spreading with the continental land masses on either side becoming further apart, This suggests that either the planet is getting bigger, or the continents are getting smaller.

Probably the latter. The spreading is something like 1cm per year I believe, but over time this is significant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the continents are not changing much except where for example the Indian subcontinent is pushing into Asia, Generally subduction zones will be reducing oceanic tectonic plates at to compensate for ridge expansion, so some oceans (Atlantic) are growing, at the expense of others, The Pacific is most likely to be taking up much of the slack along the ring of fire. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten this bit. Is it clearer now? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You might consider changing Near some of the boundaries between the land and sea, the slightly denser oceanic plates slide beneath the lighter continental plates by subduction and more deep oceanic trenches are formed, to Near some of the boundaries between the land and sea, the slightly denser oceanic plates slide beneath the continental plates and more subduction trenches are formed, which is slightly less repetitive. It is not a big issue. I think the section is sufficiently improved. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
more later, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Coasts:

Under their influence, the sand and shingle on the beach is in continual grinding motion. Not really continual.

Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Sea level:

The variations in sea level over time are the result of changes in the oceanic crust, Perhaps the overall trend, but larger shorter term fluctuations due to changes in glaciation are mentioned in the next paragraph.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence indicates a rising trend, and as this is contrary to the very long term falling trend mentioned earlier in the same paragraph, a time scale should be mentioned.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Life in the sea:

Marine life is economically important to humans, especially the fish they catch and use for food, and provides support for the carbon cycle - needs clarification.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify major groups of animals by linking to whatever this is intended to mean (Phyla?)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Marine habitats:

The link for "open ocean: redirects to pelagic zone, which is not quite appropriate as a complement to coastal.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The parentheses around "horizontally" and "vertically" do not seem necessary.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Algae and plants:

Productivity is not necessarily higher in warmer waters; it is instead controlled mainly by upwelling of cold but mineral-rich waters and near rivers which bring nutrients leached from the soil. Unclear.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Animals and other marine life:

The pelagic zone between the surface of the water and the seabed contains myriad zooplankton drifting with the currents. Between the surface and seabed includes demersal zone.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all planktonic organisms are tiny.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive calcareous skeletons they extrude build up into coral reefs which engineer the seabed. "engineer" implies intelligent design, or at least intentional modification, perhaps not wholly appropriate in this context.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
more later • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Humans and the sea

Section: History:

First and second paragraphs - awkward prose - looks almost as if a bulleted list was reformatted to a string of sentences.

Before I rephrase it, are you happy with the content or do you think there is too much detail? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to the level of detail at present, but would probably not have any objection if a bit was trimmed or added either. The order could be adjusted a bit to be more strictly chronological, but I leave the logical arrangement to your discretion as long as it flows smoothly. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latitude (a concentric line on a globe parallel with the equator) Latitude may be depicted by a concentric circle parallel to the equator, but what it is, is the angle between the equatorial plane and the radius to that point.

Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section:Origins of oceanography and deep sea exploration:

Why Origins, or why is this section in history, while the following group are not? It would give more flexibility if the History header were to be eliminated, as many of the following sections have some history content.

Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The battery-operated Mir submersibles developed by NOAA... Mir was a USSR-Finnish project, DSV Alvin was the US equivalent.

Removed NOAA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sections: Maritime law, Travel:

No comment.

Section: Trade:

Three main types of cargo, if break bulk is still to be included. Containerized cargo ≠ break bulk.

Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commodities are bulky goods in the form of liquids, powder or particles such as oil, grain, coal, ore, scrap metal, sand and gravel Not how I would define commodities. Looks like this should be referring to bulk cargo.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Food:

No comment.

Section: Leisure:

Beneath the surface, spearfishing and freediving are necessarily restricted to surface waters. Not clear what this is supposed to mean, or why it refers specifically to spearfishing and freediving but not pearl diving or scuba. In any case, pearl diving is not a leisure activity.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human eyes are not adapted for use underwater, but vision can be improved by wearing a diving mask. The possibilities for exploration of the submarine environment are further extended by the use of fins and snorkels, and scuba equipment allows underwater breathing and hence a longer time can be spent beneath the surface. Diving suits can be worn, and buoyancy can be adjusted through the use of weights. The depths that can be reached by divers and the length of time they can stay underwater is limited by the increase of pressure they experience as they descend and the need to prevent decompression sickness as they return to the surface. Recreational divers are advised to restrict themselves to depths of under 100 feet (30 m) beyond which the danger of nitrogen narcosis increases. Deeper dives can be made with specialised equipment and training. Is this level of detail appropriate? Compare with rest of section.

Trimmed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new world record was set in 2006 when a US Navy diver descended to 2,000 feet (610 m) using an atmospheric diving suit. Not a leisure activity. Could go in section "Oceanography and deep exploration".

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
more later. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Power generation:

No comment.

Section: Extractive industries:

Is offshore diamond mining worth mentioning? It has been going on for a long time.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Naval warfare.

No comment.

Section: Marine pollution:

The marine environment has self-cleansing properties and naturally occurring bacteria will act over time to remove the oil from the sea Some indication of the time scale needed for perspective.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sections: Indigenous sea peoples, In culture:

No comment. Support inclusion of Rachel Carson quote as closing line.

Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Signing off for now, The article is improving consistently. I will keep it on my watchlist. If you would like me to go through it again at any stage leave a note on my talk page. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/October_2013&oldid=575840129"