Talk:Greenland ice sheet/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 18:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Happy to review this interesting article. However, its large size might mean that the review process takes longer than is recommended (a couple of weeks from start to finish). I'll start adding comments as soon as I can. AM


 * Thank you, and fair enough! I have done a final pre-GA round of revision on the article, and it should now remain highly stable as you work through the review. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Leads section / infobox

 * Any information in the lead/infobox also needs to be included in the main body of the article (e.g. the average thickness of the sheet). The citations in the lead/infobox can then be moved out and placed in the body. See WP:LEAD for more information.
 * The cleanup tag ([clarification needed]) needs to be addressed.
 * I would place the top image (Greenland ice sheet…) inside the infobox (as shown).
 * The bottom image should not form part of the lead, as it shunts all the lower images away from their sections.
 * There is no need for the coordinates to be included in the infobox as well as at the top of the article.
 * (note to reviewer—the lead will need to be checked again once the other sections are reviewed, to check it is a proper summary of the article.)

Duplicate links

 * There are multiple duplicate links,which need to be removed. See MOS:DUPLICATELINK for more guildance about these.

More comments to follow. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Failing the article
I have realised I need to quick fail the article.

Having started work on the sections, it has become apparent that the quality of the prose need a lot of attention. The comments below cover a couple of sections, after which I have stopped. The article needs to be copy edited throughout, and the text amended so that the article is more encyclopedic. The captions should not be so detailed that they cover material that is not included in the main text of the article, i.e. they need to be a lot shorter.

Further comments:

Description

 * The link to Greenland needs to be moved to where it first appears.
 * onto each other seems redundant.
 * Once the ice sheet was formed in Greenland, its size had generally remained similar to its current state is too vague, as no specific size or state is given, and generally remained similar is almost meaningless.
 * Why However?
 * its current boundaries – there needs to an indication of what these are.
 * the last one – it’s not clear what this is referring to.
 * weight of causes – needs copy editing.
 * Why is flow in quotation marks?
 * many mountains – why many?
 * normally prevent – why normally?
 * Nowadays is a word to watch, and one I would avoid (see RELTIME).
 * Nowadays, northwest and southeast of the ice sheet are the main areas where is clumsily written.
 * a very long time is too vague.
 * at Greenland – needs copy editing.

In geologic timescales

 * Check the values are all converted (e.g. 2000 to 3000 meter), in this section and elsewhere.
 * The Glaciologist at work image causes sandwiching, (MOS:SANDWICH) and being superfluous, should be removed.
 * Similar sandwiching occurs in several places throughout he article. All such instances need to be dealt with (by removing images, trimming captions, moving images, or making multiple images).
 * The sentence beginning While as recently as 3 million years ago… is far too long.
 * Ditto However, there are parts of the Greenland ice sheet…
 * warmer than preindustrial – needs copy editing.