Talk:Tropic Seamount

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 12:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, this looks like a wonderful article. Kindly feel free to revert any changes/mistakes I make as I review this article!

---

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

---

• Cape Verde, Mauritania, Atlantic Ocean, Antarctica,Atlantic Ocean, and Northwestern Africa are well known geographic areas which should not be wikilinked according to WP:Overlinking

• Duplicate links should be removed: seamount, Canary Islands, mantle, limestone, carbonate, quartz, Lanzarote, and coral according to WP:Duplink

• Is there any reason why we are talking about the Limalok Seamount (which should be linked)?

• Could you explain a bit what Me. del Carmen Piernavieja y Oramas is for clarity?

@Adityavagarwal: Thanks. For your points, I don't think that a single mention of these geographical terms is a problem, but I've removed the Northwest Africa link. Deduplinking. Limalok was a simple copypaste error and the source is extremely vague about what "Me. del Carmen Piernavieja y Oramas" is supposed to be so I can't explain what it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Phosphate alteration of carbonates " could this be explained a bit in the article? For example, what sort of alteration is indicative of the activity?

The source does not specify that much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yet another very well written article by you. This meets all the standards of being rated as a Good Article. Keep up the wonderful work! Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Frontiers source

This looks like a substantive source but from a somewhat dodgy publication. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Moroccan claims

​I am not sure if I would use this source to support anything in the article as it doesn't show any maps and does not mention Tropic Seamount at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The information provided is false and biased. Jason Dasco (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence that either is the case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(Related)Western Sahara vs. Morocco

Regarding the IP edits I have reverted these few weeks: Sources use "Western Sahara" and since it's being used as a geographical concept using that makes more sense anyhow. Western Sahara does not suggest that there is a consensus on Wikipedia that WS should be considered part of Morocco anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Quoting my own edit summary on one of these reversions, on the advice of Tigraan

Does Morocco claim these are part of this EEZ?

This is in the article: as of 2017 Morocco also laid an EEZ claim over the area.

However, the second source does not mention Tropic Seamount at all and I am not sure if Various observers say that Morocco’s plans could be part of a wider strategy – one through which it claims sovereignty of the Tropic Seamount – a submerged volcano discovered in 2016, which is rich in rare minerals that help to drive the modern world economy. in the first is equivalent to Morocco claiming "yes, this is part of our EEZ". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

References

On Morocco vs Spain/Canary Islands

Can the IP editors who keep changing places from "Spain" or "Canary Islands" to "Morocco" discuss their changes here? Most sources do discuss the seamount in the context of the Canary Islands, not of Morocco - probably because they tend to discuss geology. And it would be nice if folks provide sources and use proper grammar; some edits look like sloppy cut-and-paste jobs. This seems to be a nationalistic editing pattern of some sort, but Wikipedia isn't really a place for arguing about this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I agree. It would be helpful if folks find a holistic reliable source weighing on the matter, to outline that, pending an agreement among both sides, all this ruckus about potential EEZ extensions presumably paves the way for a frozen conflict of competing claims (overimposed on the Western Sahara brouhaha between Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic) more than anything. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible the seamount could be in a disputed area? Volcanoguy 17:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It could be, but none of the sources I use mentions a geopolitical dispute and frankly the back-and-forth editing seems driven by driveby IPs, which makes me think it's not a genuine dispute yet but simply online nationalism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Asqueladd and Volcanoguy:Well, an IP editor presented this source. I am kind of iffy on using newspaper articles at all but if we are going to discuss the "dispute" that's a better source than the rest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)