Talk:Tropic Seamount/GA1

GA Review
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:
 * 1) 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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?
 * 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)