Talk:Clipperton Island/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 17:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. 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. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 07:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   A few reverts but nothing like an edit war.

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Sorry for the delay, I was just about to finish the previous GA nomination. I'll try to post some comments today. ¹⁴¹Pr {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:

• Clipperton Island is the only French possession in the North Pacific. - not sure, but I think only French-owned territory in ... sounds better.

Changed to "only French territory" "-owned" sounds off to my ear. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. ¹⁴¹Pr {contribs} 11:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Explain interconnectivity and stepping stone in the interconnectivity of its marine fauna with the marine fauna of Hawaii and Kiribati's Line Islands, with the island being labelled as a stepping stone between the southcentral and southeastern Pacific

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 due to commonalities between its marine fauna and the marine fauna of Hawaii and Kiribati's Line Islands, with the island sitting along the migration path for animals in the Eastern Tropical Pacific region —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• The land ring surrounding the lagoon measures 1.7 square kilometres (0.66 sq mi) in area with an average elevation of 2 m (6.6 ft) although a small volcanic outcropping, referred to as Clipperton Rock (Rocher de Clipperton), rises to 29 m (95 ft) on its southeast side add a comma before although.

Done. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Clipperton Rock is the remains of the island's now extinct volcano; because it includes this rocky remanent, Clipperton is not a true atoll and is sometimes referred to as a 'near-atoll' - 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? —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great. ¹⁴¹Pr {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. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I've copy-edited the first section some. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• The lagoon is devoid of fish, and is shallow over parts of the previous coral reefs but contains some deep basins with depths of 43–72 m (141–236 ft), including a spot known as Trou "Sans Fond" ('the bottomless hole') with acidic water at its base. - 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. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• The island is assigned the French postal code 98799, though there is no post office on the island. - 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. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

More to come later, I'm really busy in real life right now. ¹⁴¹Pr {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. ¹⁴¹Pr {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. ¹⁴¹Pr {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.

—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.