Talk:Sea/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days.

Before we even begin, let me profoundly thank everyone who's working to improve this one. In a GA queue that's crowded with mostly trivial topics (and that includes most of my nominations), it's always a great surprise to see a core article show up. In readership terms, this article is being viewed an average of 2000 times a day, as much as forty or fifty typical GAs put together.

Since this is a topic of enormous scope, my plan is to attack this in three steps:

1. go through a standard checklist for prose/sources/format/etc.
2. compare the article to other reference works (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica) to see if we're missing any major aspect
3. hold the review open an additional week to solicit further suggestions from WikiProject Oceans and visitors to the page

If anybody happens to look in on this review in the meantime, your suggestions are very welcome. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking on this review. Expanding the article was a joint project between Chiswick Chap and myself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Collapsing long discussion for readability; these points have been addressed

Here's some comments on initial sections. I'm not very far in yet, but hope to do more before the end of the day. Please note that I've made a few tweaks as I went, too. Feel free to revert any with which you disagree. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Lead "as well as where many of the major groups evolved" -- "groups" seems a bit informal and vague here. Is there a better word? I cannot think of a better one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC) This isn't a GA criterion, but as an aside, the lead seems rather overlinked. I'd suggest delinking basic terms or common geographical terms like fish, Arctic, moon, sun, etc. Removed some links Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC) "The sea provides substantial supplies of food, mainly fish, but also of other animals including whales and of seaweeds to people around the world, both of wild-caught fish and from aquaculture." -- this sentence gets very tangled. Also, should it be moved to the fourth paragraph (human uses)? Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC) "since Homer's Odyssey," -- the language in the article's body is "at least since", which makes a little more sense to me; surely the sea showed up in human story-telling before that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Overview "The science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke once suggested that "Earth" should have been named "Ocean" as the sea is its dominant feature, both critically important to life on earth, and recently strongly affected by human activities such as overfishing and pollution." -- It's not an issue for GA, but I wonder if the half of this sentence after "feature" could simply be cut; most readers will see the logic, and these facts are already well-established by the lead. Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC) "Earth's water is found in the seas" -- why use "the seas" here instead of "the sea"? Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC) The paragraph on maritime law fits a bit awkwardly into this section--it's not clear to me how this fits into definitions of the sea, which this section otherwise focuses on. What would you think about moving it to be the second paragraph of the "Exploitation" section, which focuses on human uses of the sea? For the moment I have moved it lower in the combined section where I think it fits better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC) "Next to its use in "the sea" as designating the totality of interconnected bodies of water also known as the World Ocean, " -- I'd suggest cutting this phrase; the word "also" makes it clear that we're now looking at a new definition. Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I'd suggest cutting the subheader "Sea, ocean, lake" -- it sets off a one-paragraph section, which is discouraged by WP:LAYOUT, and the section could flow into this paragraph without disrupting the flow. Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC) This appears to have an original-research like tone: "A rather weak definition is that a sea is a sub-division of an ocean, which means that it must have oceanic basin crust on its floor. This definition for example accepts the Caspian, which was once part of an ancient ocean, as a sea.[9] The Introduction to Marine Biology defines a sea as a "land-locked" body of water, adding that the term "sea" is only one of convenience, but the book is written by marine biologists, not oceanographers". Does the source for the first definition describe it as a weak definition, or is that editorial interpretation? For the second, do the authors of that book point out that they are marine biologists rather than oceanograhpers in specific reference to this definition? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Removed original research Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Seawater "cold, dense under layer" -- should underlayer be one word, or hyphenated? Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Is Marinebio.net a reliable source? It doesn't look likely to be from its about page. I'd suggest finding a higher quality source for these figures in any case, one is surely available somewhere. Its a "distance learning course", equivalent to a textbook I would have thought. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Interesting question. It has some authority on the one hand, but on the other, it's not clear what editorial oversight there would be. I'm honestly not sure, so I'll just ask at WP:RS/N about it and get back to you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC) "Seawater has a freezing point of about −1.8 °C (28.8 °F). " -- it seems a bit odd to suddenly link C and F here; I'd suggest doing this consistently or not at all (preferably not at all) Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC) I'd suggest delinking more basic definitions like oxygen, fungi, viruses, etc. to reduce link density and better emphasize higher-value links. But this isn't a GA criterion, so feel free to ignore the suggestion. Done some Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC) "have raised this pH level to 8.1" -- perhaps I'm being silly, but wouldn't changing a pH from 8.2 to 8.1 be lowering instead of raising? Changed to lowered Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC) "as the sea becomes more acid" -- should this be "more acidic"? Changed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC) "This is likely to have profound effects ... will have significant consequences ... are likely to be severely affected". I think these projections belong in the article, but I'd suggest attributing them more clearly in-text. Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC) "with knock-on effects" -- as an American, this isn't an expression I'm familiar with, though I can of course guess at it. Is there a more basic expression that could be used here? Changed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC) "In reality, " -- I'm not sure I understand this phrase here; was the previous sentence a theoretical construct that's never been done in reality? Or is "in reality" being used here for something like "Under standard conditions"? Removed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC) "Red is selectively removed" -- the passive voice and the word "removed" here make this sound like a deliberate process; I wonder if this could be rephrased. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Rephrased Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the quick response to the above points. All looks good; my only remaining concern is the online course site, which I'll get a quick second opinion on. I hope to proceed through the rest of the article today. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Waves This section looks good. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Currents " or near a man-made structure such as a groin." -- It took me the better part of five minutes to figure out that we weren't talking about a human crotch here, which may mean that I'm embarrassingly underqualified to review this nomination. But I note that "groyne" is the more common spelling outside the US, at least according to Wikipedia; the article otherwise seems to use British English, such as "Harbour", so perhaps this could be changed as well. Either way I'd suggest it be linked, if I'm now properly understanding what's meant here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Tides not a GA issues, but probably no need to link moon and sun here Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) "the foreshore, which is known as the intertidal zone" -- how about "also known as" to make it clear that it's not just one part of the foreshore that's known this way? Also, both these links seem to go to the same place, so you probably only need one of them. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Life in the sea Since meadow doesn't appear to discuss the kind of "meadows" you're referring to here, I wonder if it's wise to link it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Further comments

Collapsing for readability; these points have been addressed

Humans and the sea Again, not a GA issue, but consider delinking low-value links such as war, antiquity, Africa, Asia, China, South America, etc. unlinked several " using the stars, the direction of swells and other simple signs to find their way" -- "simple" carries a wee touch of condescension. I wonder if it could just be cut. removed "In the Dark Ages" -- my limited understanding is that "the Middle Ages" is preferred as a more neutral term these days, but I could be wrong. done "In the mediaeval to modern period, Western European mariners made voyages of exploration in search of trade starting in the fifteenth century." -- beginning and ending this sentence with time indicators seems a bit redundant. Could it just read, "Starting in the fifteenth century, Western European mariners made voyages of exploration in search of trade"? done "The Italian Amerigo Vespucci reached South America" -- since you gave a year for every other voyage, you might add a year to this one for consistency done "the seas along the Arctic and Pacific coasts of Russia had been discovered" -- was there no one living along the northern or eastern coasts of Russia at this point? The "discovered" here confuses me a bit. 'sailed'. The section already says "far from discovering empty lands...". Are we confident that [1] has permission to host an article from Arctic Voice (i.e., is it their inhouse magazine or something)? The Ria Novosti attribution at the bottom worries me, too. Just want to make sure we're not linking to a copyvio here. removed URL The chronology of the section gets a little confused with the Russian sentence, which takes us up to 1700, then 1910; then we appear to snap back to the 16th century. For that matter, is the discovery of Severnaya Zemlya a significant enough event to merit mention here? Severnaya Zemlya is significant for the late date of discovery, as stated; the point is that the age of discovery, mainly in earlier centuries, ended there. Rearranged and edited to clarify. "Scientific oceanography can be considered to have" -- the "can be" here seems to hedge a bit. Is it possible to say who considers it to begin at this point? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC) removed Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Trade Is there a distinction between "commodities and merchandise" that requires using both words? (an honest, not sarcastic, question--tone's always tricky in these) They are different. Commodities are bulk cargoes such as iron ore of corn, merchandise is manufactured goods. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I have mild reservations about using the World Shipping Council as a source for statistics; they're more an advocacy group than a secondary source. None of the information here seems particularly controversial, so I don't see it as an issue for GA, but if you come across a better source while we're working on this, let's put that in instead. As a broad note, I don't think this is a concern for GA level, but in terms of article balance, I feel like the "human and the sea" gets a disproportionate share of space. Comparing the Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia articles (both of which have it under "ocean", btw), they weight the scientific aspects (tides, currents, marine life) much more heavily than the cultural and social (trade, power generation, etc.). "Animals" in particular seem to get a short shrift in the current draft compared to the later detail on wind farming, or how container ships work, for example. Again, I think all these aspects are covered well enough to meet the GA criteria, but I thought I'd put that out there if you were thinking of advancing to FA. OK. I'm always happy to expand on animals! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) On a related note, this isn't necessary for GA, but I'd suggest that the detail on container ship operations be trimmed down. Obviously the ships themselves are important and need to be mentioned, but the way the containers are stacked, loaded, unloaded, etc. seems excessive in an article of this scope. Not a GA note, though, so feel free to ignore. Noted Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) The Trade section might also take a more historical view of trade with some of the space currently devoted to present-day container ships. Briefly mentioning spice traders, the sugar trade, the Transatlantic slave trade, etc. wouldn't be completely out of place. Again, not necessary for GA, just a general suggestion for the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Noted Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Food production "direct caught fish" -- seems a little awkward, and Google suggests this article is the only place that uses the phrase. Is there another term that can be used here? [2] Reworded Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC) "The north west Pacific " -- I'm always terrible with the British way of doing this, but should this be "north-west" or "northwest"? I think "north west" is correct British English.See here for example. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC) "The north west Pacific is the most productive area while fish catches in most of the other ocean areas peaked several years ago" -- seems worth a citation. Also, "several years" is a short enough time that this could use a more fixed time reference per WP:REALTIME. I've rewritten parts of this paragraph Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC) " The number of vessels employed in sea fishing is over 3 million." -- as a statistic, needs citation Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Again, not necessary for GA, but ideally this "food production" section would capture historical aspects as well as present-day methods: the European cod and herring trades, the various cultures that practice/practiced whaling, etc. Noted Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC) "There are in contrast relatively few maritime flowering plants that are widely used for food" -- this could use citation, but it's probably not quite needed under the GA criteria. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Rephrased Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Leisure "Although not at home in the water in the same way as whales, seals or penguins, " -- is this necessary to point out? Normally I wouldn't flag it, but this is an article where every sentence needs to carry its weight. Removed. I have rewriting this bit, now two paragraphs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Okay, I'm going to put an arbitrary break here. Sorry I haven't gotten through as much as I hoped today; due to its density, this article's required more thought than a standard review. Though I continue to list quibbles, overall I'd say the quality so far is superb. This is clearly ripe for promotion. Anyway, I have a few other wikichores demanding my attention, but I hope to get through the rest tomorrow. This should give you plenty to chew on in the meantime. Thanks again, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Power generation "is (in 2011) a more mature technology " -- should probably be either "was in 2011 a more mature" or "is, as of 2011, a more mature" done, and rearranged section to flow better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Extractive industries "There is a trend towards conducting more of the production operations on the seabed" -- this trend could use some kind of time frame This section seems very long compared to its relative importance in the article; much of it deals with failed or theoretical mechanisms that can't be said to have much significance yet, and therefore don't do much to earn their space in an article of this scale. For example, I'd suggest the sentences "Gold is present in seawater in concentrations of 0.000011 ppm and uranium 0.0033 ppm. The German chemist Fritz Haber tried extracting the gold in the 1920s but completely failed. Periodically, attempts to recover uranium are made, especially at times of world energy shortage. The accepted method of pumping water through a membrane uses so much energy that it is not a practical strategy for uranium extraction. An alternative mechanism would be dropping a membrane into the sea in an area in which strong currents cause water to flow past the adsorbing surface. However, the total expenditure of energy relative to the amount of uranium that could be recovered by these means, makes extracting the element from the sea not a practical possibility." be shortened to: "Gold is present in seawater in concentrations of 0.000011 ppm and uranium 0.0033 ppm, but attempts to retrieve them have proved unsuccessful or impractical." Again, I don't think this is necessary for GA, so feel free to put this one off if you like. But I thought I'd put it out there. done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Naval warfare Not necessary for GA, but consider adding Battle of Tsushima to have a less Western-centered example. The Battle of Lepanto might be worth mentioning here, too. added Tsushima ", though Nelson himself was killed in the battle" -- seems a little trivial for an article of this magnitude, but not an important point for GA -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC) removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Marine pollution While it's hard to imagine anyone being in favor of marine pollution, "fortunately" should probably be removed per WP:WTW. Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC) " that feed on them" -- unclear here if "them" refers to algal blooms or cyanobacteria Clarified Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Seaweb and Namanet both appear to be advocacy groups; I'm not sure their statements about scientific research would qualify as RSs. Is it possible to find secondary sources on this subject? I have replaced the latter Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC) "PCBs and heavy metals have been implicated in the diseased state of the bottlenose dolphin populations inhabiting the east coast of Florida. This ill health may be caused by the suppression of their immune systems by these contaminants leaving them open to opportunistic infections" -- to focus on a specific problem for a specific organism in one area seems like an excessive level of detail for this article; seems better to cut this and stay on an overview level. Removed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC) "marine invertebrates which have no metabolic pathways to deal with them" -- should this be "marine invertebrates that have no metabolic pathways to deal with them" (i.e., certain marine invertebrates) or "marine invertebrates, which have no..." (i.e., all marine invertebrates)? Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Again, not necessary for GA, but this section as a whole seems a bit overdetailed; there seems to be more on this than on tides or currents, which seems disproportionate. Yes, we will have to consider the balance of the article between the different sections and probably need to do some trimming. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In culture

Collapsing for readability; these points have been addressed

I'd suggest cutting the Typhoon quotation; it doesn't have clear relevance beyond mentioning the word "sea", or at least not enough to earn its place rearranged. It accurately and sensitively describes an appearance of the sea. I hate to say it, but I think the new quotation compounds the problem rather than fixing it. First, a critical judgement should almost always be sourced in-text for reasons of NPOV, so I'd suggest rewriting this as something like "Royal Museums Greenwich described his works as..." More importantly, implying that a critical judgement of Conrad's work applies to a specific sentence, when the source doesn't mention the specific sentence, seems to me WP:SYNTH. Perhaps the colon could simply be changed to a period? Even better, what would you think about breaking this out of the text into a quote box, to sidestep the issue of properly weaving it into the prose? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Why not, good idea. "In modern European literature, the novelist Joseph Conrad stands out," -- as a judgement (admittedly a common one), this will need a page number from Najder as well as the citation. removed The literature section seems very Eurocentric, and though I personally like Wouk, he seems like a minorish figure to include here. (Maybe Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea instead? Seems like a much more celebrated book today, and more sea-focused.) Some possibilities for expansion might be the Ramayana, which involves the challenge of crossing the sea to Sri Lanka, oral traditions of various coastal cultures, and Mishima's The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea. These will be useful suggestions for further work. It's a little confusing to separate out "in poetry" from "in literature"--could these simply be combined? done " perhaps the best-known maritime work is Herman Melville's 1851 novel Moby-Dick" -- this seems borderline on needing a citation; I agree that it's common-sense but it also offers an opinion. Can one be found? reworded It's surprising how much discussion The Cruel Sea gets, too, for a movie that isn't widely remembered today. Seems like this could be cut, or this space spent enumerating more celebrated examples (maybe Mutiny on the Bounty (the good one), Captains Courageous, Das Boot, The Abyss, Jaws, Titanic). Relevant WikiProjects could suggest non-US/EU examples. The discussion indicates the film's significance. An article on Marine cinema would do well to expand upon these suggestions. The global issues will need further attention in this article in due course. The problem is that the discussion boils down to "this is an adaptation of a book Herman Wouk really likes"--the discussion of its source material, and Wouk's review of that source material, seems a level of detail that isn't needed for such a sweeping article. (Compare with the lack of discussion of The Perfect Storm's source book by Junger and its reviews, and the lack of mention of so many other major sea films.) As a compromise, perhaps it could be clarified that Wouk is reviewing the novel rather than the movie, and his comments could be moved to an explanatory footnote? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Slimmed down discussion and Wouk; the remaining comment explicitly says "write" (and is in lit. section, not cinema) so should be clear now. "In cinema, the sea has played roles from central protagonist to villain from the earliest days of cinema" -- what would be an example of the sea being a protagonist of a movie? This seems like it could use citation. This introductory clause is supported and referenced by the rest of the paragraph (and the rest of the sentence). Sorry, I perhaps wasn't clear enough in my question. The protagonist is usually defined as "the leading character, hero, or heroine of a drama or other literary work" or "the main character (the central or primary personal figure) of a literary, theatrical, cinematic, or musical narrative, who ends up in conflict because of the antagonist. The audience is intended to most identify with the protagonist". Here you seem to be using "protagonist" in a weaker sense of "something that appears in a movie". I think you could just as easily argue that the children in "La Mer" are the protagonists, or that the film has no protagonist at all, since it lacks a classic narrative structure of conflict/resolution with a protagonist and an antagonist. So I'd be more comfortable with your providing a secondary source here indicating that critics consider the sea of La Mer both the protagonist and villain in the film. (I'm having trouble opening the link to the film in three different browsers, for some reason, but the link is to the film itself, right, not a secondary source about it?) I'm also not sure what you mean by saying this is referenced by the rest of the paragraph--the other examples all seem to be from 1953 or later, which is a stretch to call "the earliest days of cinema". -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC) All that was intended was "the sea is mentioned in various ways as per the following", reworded to try to say that. La Mer is certainly an early film. Removed 'protagonist' etc. I wonder if "in theatre" should also be merged into "in literature"; both these examples are clearly literature. Perhaps theatre will be happier with cinema, let's try that for now. Good idea. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC) In "classical music", Elgar and Stanford need full names and wikilinks done " The English composer Frank Bridge, born in the coastal town of Brighton, wrote an orchestral suite called The Sea in 1911" -- given the scale of this article, is it worth including an example here that isn't significant enough to have its own article? removed This isn't an issue that needs to be solved to meet the GA criteria, but the cultural discussion seems to leave out most of the world. No mention is made of any American indigenous peoples, Africa, Polynesia, or Asia outside of Japan. I realize this is a very difficult problem to solve. If no source can be found giving a global overview, one possibility would be to simply ping WikiProjects for India, China, indigenous peoples, etc. and see if editors there can make suggestions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC) We have had it in mind. Suggestions will surely be forthcoming. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Overall

Overall, this appears almost ready for GA. I still need to do some things like check image licenses and some spotchecks for copyright issues, but we're closing in. Let me know your thoughts on the above. I'll also ping one or two relevant wikiprojects for input at this point. Thanks again for taking on this planet-sized task! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A few sourcing points

• Sorry to reopen a point I thought was closed, but I got a belated response at WP:RS/N seconding my concerns about MarineBio.net as a source. This should be replaced in the three instances where it's used.

Replaced Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Another source that may need to be replaced, while I'm looking at sources, is http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/shakespeare/tempest.htm; this seems to be self-published material, even if it's sourcing a basic point.

Replaced with Royal Shakespeare Company, looks like a reliable outfit! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've heard good things. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about http://marinebio.org/ as a source, either. They're an NGO without much of a reputation (only appearing in Google News twice, HighBeam not at all). One of the pages cited from them, [3], actually cites Wikipedia as one of its own sources. I think the material from them needs to be rewritten based on more reliable sources (or at least re-sourced from more reliable sources).

The author, Dr Paul Yancey is a biology professor who has written a book on deep sea biology. Nevertheless, I have replaced the information with similar from a new source (currently #85). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.carbontrust.com/ appears to be a company in the renewable energy business; a secondary source for this information should probably be used instead.

Replaced (currently #86) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/index.php/About-the-OEC/About-the-OEC.html appears to be an advocacy group; can this information be found in a secondary source? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Used the OES source to cover this too (currently #86) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

All right, I think this is close to ready to go, though as mentioned before, I'll hold this open for a bit for further outside comment. I'll fill out the checklist now to see if there's anything I've missed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, there's a few images that need tagged with their US status as well as EU or Japan tags, but that's all I see for now. One side note: an image of the water cycle has been added to the top of the article. Should the water cycle be discussed here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping someone else would deal with this because I hadn't a clue. I hope what I have done is OK. I have removed the water cycle image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. As for the water cycle image, it might be worth including something about this down the road. All that's left as far as I'm concerned is to give it another few days to see if others can point out a main aspect that we've missed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll consider the water cycle and the other points you have raised during the review (including its west-centricness and the balance between sections) after the review is finished. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you for your patience with this sprawling review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable at this point to assume no further comment is coming from WP Oceans. Closing as Pass. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The extreme image density is an issue, but that part of the MOS isn't a GA criterion.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The closest thing to a main aspect that seems to be missing is a more global view of humanity and the sea; the section as written might be better titled "Westerners and the sea". But there's just enough here (a few references to Japan and Polynesia) IMO to scrape by on this.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Some sections seem a bit overweighted, as noted above, but nothing is excessively detailed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Columbus Taking Possession.jpg, File:Rowe Tempest.JPG, File:Ehon Hyaku Monogatari Isonade.jpg and File:Mercator 1569 map small.jpg appear to need tagging with their US copyright status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Comments by Snowmanradio

• Possible omission: origin of the water. Water from comets? Snowman (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

We can think about adding this Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: how unusual is it for a planet to have a sea? Snowman (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I will look into adding this information Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Re File:Tide overview.svg. The illustration has an arrow indicating a high tide on the upper side of the Earth (near the moon). I think that there should also be a high tide arrow pointing at the bottom of the Earth (furthest from the moon). This will therefore make "two tides per day" easier to understand. Snowman (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the caption. Clearer? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• The caption is fine. My comment is about the svg illustration. On the illustration there is an arrow to the high tide near to the moon, but not to the high tide on the far side of the Earth.Snowman (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I altered the caption because that was something I was able to do. Adding an arrow is not so easy. Are you able to manipulate images? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not worked on svg images. Uses can get help to edit images. I would anticipate that adding another arrow to indicate the other high tide would be relatively easy for uses who can do that sort of thing. Snowman (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• What is the difference between this article and the article on Ocean? Snowman (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed in various places. In the UK (and in Australia according to Casliber), the word "sea" is used as a general term for the world's salt water. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of overlap between this article and the article on Ocean. Snowman (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there is surprisingly little overlap. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I meant when the articles are fully developed. I think that the topics have a lot of overlap. Snowman (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What next?

The following suggestions were made during the GA review. I have just copied them verbatim below. Do we want to follow them up? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• The World Shipping Council as a source for statistics
• ... in terms of article balance, I feel like the "human and the sea" gets a disproportionate share of space. Comparing the Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia articles (both of which have it under "ocean", btw), they weight the scientific aspects (tides, currents, marine life) much more heavily than the cultural and social (trade, power generation, etc.). "Animals" in particular seem to get a short shrift in the current draft compared to the later detail on wind farming, or how container ships work, for example. Again, I think all these aspects are covered well enough to meet the GA criteria, but I thought I'd put that out there if you were thinking of advancing to FA.

I've expanded the animals section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• the detail on container ship operations be trimmed down. Obviously the ships themselves are important and need to be mentioned, but the way the containers are stacked, loaded, unloaded, etc. seems excessive in an article of this scope.

slimmed down a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• The Trade section might also take a more historical view of trade with some of the space currently devoted to present-day container ships. Briefly mentioning spice traders, the sugar trade, the Transatlantic slave trade, etc. wouldn't be completely out of place.
• ... but ideally this "food production" section would capture historical aspects as well as present-day methods: the European cod and herring trades, the various cultures that practice/practiced whaling, etc.
• (Marine pollution) ... this section as a whole seems a bit overdetailed; there seems to be more on this than on tides or currents, which seems disproportionate.

Fewer images and slightly less text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• The literature section seems very Eurocentric, and though I personally like Wouk, he seems like a minorish figure to include here. (Maybe Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea instead? Seems like a much more celebrated book today, and more sea-focused.) Some possibilities for expansion might be the Ramayana, which involves the challenge of crossing the sea to Sri Lanka, oral traditions of various coastal cultures, and Mishima's The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea.
• ... the cultural discussion seems to leave out most of the world. No mention is made of any American indigenous peoples, Africa, Polynesia, or Asia outside of Japan. I realize this is a very difficult problem to solve. If no source can be found giving a global overview, one possibility would be to simply ping WikiProjects for India, China, indigenous peoples, etc. and see if editors there can make suggestions.
• The extreme image density is an issue, but that part of the MOS isn't a GA criterion.

A few sections did have up to 3 images - have slimmed 'em down.

• The closest thing to a main aspect that seems to be missing is a more global view of humanity and the sea; the section as written might be better titled "Westerners and the sea". But there's just enough here (a few references to Japan and Polynesia) IMO to scrape by on this.

This topic has been mentioned twice and intensively worked on, so help is clearly required.

• Should the water cycle be discussed here?

No, TWML. The cycle spans sea, atmosphere, mountains and rivers to name a few, so it's plainly out of scope as a topic, but deserves a link. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

These comments are not only verbatim, they have in many cases been partly addressed during the review, so they are now out of context and not necessarily appropriate any more. I think we should check them again, make a best-effort to address them where we think it appropriate, and move on. The comparisons with other Encyclopedias may be useful as sanity checks but they are different animals and not necessarily useful as guidance. Other opinions and peer review will be appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your proposals. I will slim down marine pollution and fatten up the fauna for a start. Other opinions may arrive after this posting. I'm not sure a peer review is necessary because the GA review seemed very thorough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It did indeed have a PR-ish quality to it. Still, anything to make the process smoother is a good thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)