Talk:Seamount

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing 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.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Volcanoes High‑importance

	Volcanoes portal 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.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Seamounts (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Seamounts, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SeamountsWikipedia:WikiProject SeamountsTemplate:WikiProject SeamountsSeamounts articles

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
August 15, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Acknoledgment of Copied Resources

This article is forked from Encycolpedia Brittania. ResMar 17:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-wording suggestion

Perhaps the following text could be worded better to indicate which examples are isolated and which are without clear volcanic origins? (Axial is isolated and definitely volcanic, but I don't think that is very clear from the current wording).

"Isolated seamounts and those without clear volcanic origins are less common; examples include Bollons Seamount, Eratosthenes Seamount, Axial Seamount and Gorringe Ridge."

--GeoWriter (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xover (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Generally well written and interesting treatment on an important topic.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
I'm a little concerned by the number of citations to the Encyclopedia of Earth, which, as an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia itself, is a ternary source and as such it would be preferable to find reliable secondary sources to replace it. Note that ternary sources are acceptable on Wikipedia for some uses, and that for broad summary or overviews it can be difficult to find secondary sources to cite the specific point.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Very nice article. Another good FA candidate I'd say. Kudos! I'll jump through the administrative hoops to get it passed as GA, but note that my Internet connection is acting up so there may be some delay. --Xover (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Encyclopedia of Earth: It's written by professionals (literally) and in association with CenSeam and a few other research-oriented organizations, so I think it's fine. ResMar 16:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-wording suggestion #2:

What is a "cliff-rock"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8D20:F7F0:45C:F189:A727:D9F2 (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

"Overall there is also a significant bias in distribution towards the southern hemisphere." I have 2 problems with that statement. First, how can a seamount be biased? I realize the statement was lifted word for word from its source, but that's no excuse for bad writing, and anthropomorphism has no place in encyclopedia articles about geology. Second, the accompanying map shows more seamounts in the Northern hemisphere. The sheer number of seamounts in the Emperor chain alone would appear to disprove the statement in the article. In addition, I second what GeoWriter wrote, and suggest the entire article be gone over with a sharp editorial eye, and rewritten. Tenorlove (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Tenorlove[reply]

Okay, I agree the "bias" phrasing is problematic here. It's not clear whether it accounts for the greater area of ocean in the southern hemisphere, for one thing. But I wouldn't put as much credence as you do on that map, which seems quite biased in itself - towards well studied seamounts, which tend to be those associated with richer countries. For instance, if I'm reading the map right, it shows over 10 of the 80+ seamounts in the Hawaiian-Emperor chain, but only 2 or 3 of the 70+ seamounts in the Louisville chain. It's so incomplete that I don't think it sheds much light on the "bias" statement, let alone disproves it. Of course, the article could benefit from careful revision. Feel free to improve it! --Avenue (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Seamount. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Seamount. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seamount. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413164705/http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/seamounts.asp to http://www.ices.dk/marineworld/seamounts.asp
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://cordellbank.noaa.gov/management/jmprpressrelease.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]