Talk:Clipperton Island/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Praseodymium-141 (talk · contribs) 17:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) After skimming through the article, it seems like this is in a good condition. I'll try and review this as quick as possible.  141 Pr  {contribs} 17:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC) (Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Checked Earwig's copyvio detector. Doesn't seem to be plagiarism.  141 Pr  {contribs} 07:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * A few reverts but nothing like an edit war.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * A few reverts but nothing like an edit war.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

Sorry for the delay, I was just about to finish the previous GA nomination. I'll try to post some comments today.  141 Pr  {contribs} 07:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * No rush, it's all good, I'm just grateful that you're giving us feedback. Take your time it's all good.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 07:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Comments
To start:
 * - not sure, but I think sounds better.
 * Changed to "" "-owned" sounds off to my ear. &mdash; Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine.  141 Pr  {contribs} 11:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Explain and  in
 * The basic concept is that Clipperton is part of a bigger Pacific ecosystem, which can be seen in the related species that span the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Replaced with &mdash;Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * add a comma before although.
 * Done. &mdash;Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * - does the volcano have a name? Also explain remanence.
 * No name for the volcano. Coral islands typically begin as a fringing reef around a volcanic island. When the volcano goes extinct, it can subside (basically erode away) leaving just the growing reef, which can form an atoll. In this case, Clipperton Rock is a part of that original volcanic island rim that did not totally subside. I changed remenat to outcropping. Also, added link to coral island at start of the section. Is further explanation of the formation of coral islands needed here? &mdash;Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be great.  141 Pr  {contribs} 11:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Is the first part of Environment necessary? It is slightly weaselly, I'm not sure though.
 * Can you be more specific? The first section gives a quick overview of recent research expeditions to the island. I'm not sure I'm seeing what would be weaselly there. &mdash;Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've copy-edited the first section some. &mdash;Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * - previous? also should Trou be inside of the quotation marks?
 * "Previous" is a misinterpretation of mention of coral heads in the source. Will address. The French charts put only "Sans Frond" in quotes. Probably can drop them as being just a convention. &mdash;Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * - Is this necessary as a one sentence section? Should probably be merged into the lead, can see anywhere else it could be.
 * Moved into infobox with the details in an end note. &mdash;Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

More to come later, I'm really busy in real life right now.  141 Pr  {contribs} 16:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that's it for the prose comments. Just chcecking reliability of references. Are these reliable:
 * ref 3?
 * ref 25?
 * ref 96?
 * ref 119?
 * ref 217?

Fix permanent dead link on 166. That's all for now.  141 Pr  {contribs} 19:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at this later today but thank you for going over everything and for your notes. Really glad to see how well this article is shaping up!  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 21:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article does look good! I'll put this article on hold for now for 7 days, so that we can finish the above comments. If these issues are fixed I'll have another quick check of the article.  141 Pr  {contribs} 17:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the sources:
 * Ref 3: Primary, but acceptable use, it's the relevant French statute
 * Ref 25 (now 26): Primary, but acceptable use, interview with a sailor stationed there. Additional sources support the claims.
 * Ref 96 (now 97): Hasn't been discussed at WP:RS. The archive shows some user-generated content separated from the database information. This is the current page for the ship, which is all database and not user-generated, shows the ship is still in service (the relevant claim). Will update.
 * Ref 119 (removed): Generally unreliable source per WP:RSP. Removed and reworked paragraph.
 * Ref 217: Primary, but acceptable use to support statement that Cordell Expedition and TX5K DX-pedition were connected.
 * Ref 166: Current version located and URL updated.
 * &mdash;Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I can't see any more problems right now, so I will pass the article.  141 Pr  {contribs} 17:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)