Talk:Davidson Seamount

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Davidson Seamount has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 19, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
WikiProject Volcanoes (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Seamounts (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
This article is part of WikiProject Seamounts, a project to systematically present information on seamounts, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Can anyone decipher "has not been disturbed less"? Unfree (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. ResMar 00:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Vulnerable gardens[edit]

"The expedition documented many rare, previously undiscovered species that exist nowhere else, not even on nearby seamounts, including ancient coral gardens that are vunerable to human activity." What about ancient coral gardens that aren't vulnerable to human activity? Or should "that" be replaced by ", which" (non-restrictive)? The sentence reads as though "among" belongs before "ancient", but perhaps it means that coral gardens were "documented". But gardens are neither seamounts nor species, of course. It's hard to figure out how "including" is being used. Unfree (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Human interaction[edit]

"These large colonies are extremely fragile to human interaction." What do interactions among people have to do with the ocean? (And "fragile to" is new to me.) Unfree (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Any sort of human interaction. Dropping depth charges. Trawling. Not like I can define all of them. Also, what do you mean by "fragile to"? ResMar 00:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"availability of coral"[edit]

Does this refer to an attempt to harvest coral for commercial purposes? Unfree (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No. ResMar 00:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


The "factsheet" reference calls Davidson one of the largest seamounts in the world, but also says it's in the western Pacific! Considering how few seamounts have been studied, and how small it is, the claim is hard to believe. Unfree (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Small? Davidson Seamount is not small. It's one of the largest, but yes, that claim IS a bit perposterous. I know of one, Detroit Seamount, which is supposedly as big as the island of Hawaii itself. As for reliability, this source is of impecable qualtity because it's work done by the NOAA. As far as I can see it it's a silly mistake on the sheet...ResMar 00:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


"Megafauna" is apparently a slippery term. How many of these 168 species of huge animals grow to half a ton, or five tons? And why, if there is such an astonishing abundance of them on the seamount, is there so little discussion of them, and so much of corals? Unfree (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Megafauna" is in this case used to refer to the corals on the seamount. As far as I know everyone of these megafauna is some ancient coral or other. They grow quite large actually, to around 2.5 meters. That's why I focus on corals; and the only reason I use that yes, slippery term is because the ref uses it, and it's definetly reputable. ResMar 00:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Davidson Seamount/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll begin making some copyedits as I go - feel free to revert if I inadvertently change the meaning. I'll jot down some queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Age section very stubby - anything else you can add to it? i.e. is it the same age as the other seamounts in the group?
Sure, I'll do that tommorow (a bit late here now...) ResMar 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the two closest dated seamounts (Pioneer and Guide) are bit far off, and are dated around 11 and 16.6 million years, respectively. Considering the 9 to 15 range for Davidson it's not all that informative...I went and merged the two subsections. ResMar 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Ecology section, would be good to maybe list one or more of the most unusual endemic benthic species. Also, how does it compare with what is known of other seamounts?
See the quote, section deep-sea coral, it describes how Davidson is unique from the rest of the seamounts in the area. As for a list, um I'll look into it. ResMar 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Um well after probing around the web I could find a few more species besides those mentioned in the article, but for the most part I can't really find a good sample of species at the seamount that represent it accuratly...ResMar 19:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Davidson is interesting to volcanologists because of its unique geology, and biologists want to know about its ecology. - odd wording. I'd make it more about interesting/unusual biology rather than biologists wanting..x
Done. ResMar 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • In a press release dated November 20, 2008 - make an inline, not direct link.
Done. ResMar 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Otherwse looking pretty spiffy - nearly there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh my, almost forgot I had an active GAN before I lulled ok I guess I'll do it then...thanks for not closing it :) ResMar 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Pass or Fail: