Talk:Green Jacket Shoal/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Taking a look now. will jot queries below. please revert me if I acccidentally change the meaning while copyediting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 *  According to The Providence Journal, from 1884-1919,.. - any reason why this is not " According to The Providence Journal, from 1884 to 1919,"?
 * None at all. ✅


 * In the Geography section, any information on the depth of the shoal and/or surrounding waters, the dimensions (length/width) would be good - this section is sparse.
 * Unfortunately, I can't find good area measurements aside from the acreage figure that's already in the article. I have the depth, but what are your thoughts on pulling that range from a nautical map (primary source) like this one? I found some other material that's about 120 years old from the Corps of Engineers when they did some dredging, but there's not enough coverage for a mention, really, and those figures are, perhaps unsurprisingly, different from what I'm seeing in more current nautical maps. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's a tough one, espeicially if you are dubious about the content. Maybe just leave it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have reason to doubt the depth data -- it's just that it would be citing the map itself. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 *  Robinson cites two reasons the site accumulated so many ships: "location and infrastructure" - try and rewrite without quotes (i.e. different words if possible instead of paraphrasing)
 * ✅ &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * has anything interesting been recovered from dives yet?
 * The discovery of the Bay Queen and Mount Hope (or rather the identification of their remains) seems to have been the most interesting so far. I think the article is up to date with regard to what has been learned about the ships/graveyard there. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looking at the sources, there doesn't appear to have been too much recovery, and Robinson reckons there's not much to find treasure-wise. ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I'm planning to come back to this later tonight and will ping with follow-up questions/comments then. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * responded inline above. thanks. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * does anywhere say what the shoal is made of? (i.e. the Substrate (marine biology)) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I found this, which has some information. I'm not sure how to work this into the article. I'm also unsure which of the bits of information are fundamental enough to merit pulling it from this primary source. Would be happy for any advice on that. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow what an esoteric find. It's a 2001 publication. Proposals are all out of date and not really notable. The material about fauna would be good to add though as the article lacks coverage on that aspect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

PS: Earwig's copyvio tool is clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Consolidating:
 * Added some information about the marine life and the proposal (without getting into it in any depth -- it's indeed old and inconsequential).
 * The proposal says a little bit about the substrate, but it's very vague, e.g. "unconsolidated sediment" such that I don't know how helpful it is. If you think it should be included, I would appreciate a tip on where it could fit.
 * Erring on the side of not including depths cited just to the nautical map. No reason to doubt its accuracy, but citing a map isn't ideal.
 * I think that's it for unresolved matters above... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed with rationale for points above. Hang on.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:08, 25 January 2019 (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:
 * Focused:

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:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - a nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)