Jump to content

Talk:Seacology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSeacology is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 26, 2016.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 17, 2011Good article nomineeListed
October 5, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 15, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Seacology has preserved 957,852 acres (3,876 km2; 1,497 sq mi) of marine habitat and 852,651 acres (3,451 km2; 1,332 sq mi) of terrestrial habitat since it was founded in 1991?
Current status: Featured article

Information that should be incorporated into main article

[edit]

The following was under "Island facts":

According to the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN)’s Global Species Assessment report, of all recorded species extinctions since 1500 A.D., “In total, 62 percent of mammals, 88 percent of birds, 54 percent of amphibians, 86 percent of reptiles, and 68 percent of mollusks were island species.”
David Quammen states on page 264 of his book The Song of the Dodo, since 1600 “Lord Howe Island, a lonesome little bump halfway between Australia and New Zealand, lost more species and subspecies of bird than the combined total lost in Africa, Asia, and Europe.” On page 379 of the same book, Quammen writes that “Hawaii alone has lost more bird species than were lost from all the continents on Earth.”
Dr. Peter J. Bryant, professor of development and cell biology at the University of California, Irvine has written that the unprecedented rate of island species extinctions is “one of the swiftest and most profound biological catastrophes in the history of the earth.”
According to a 2006 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the top ten mammal ‘extinction hotspots’ worldwide are all located on islands. The Pacific Islands have the highest per capita number of rare, threatened and endangered species of any region on Earth.
The island nations of Indonesia and the Philippines have more species threatened with extinction than any other nations on this planet.

This information should be incorporated, in a neutral fashion, to the main article. As it is I don't feel it's appropriate under one section entitled "Island facts". - Tbsdy lives (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will incorporate what I can find sources for. As I stated below, I plan to re-write the article, and neutrality will be one of the goals. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of references

[edit]

I am preparing to re-write this article from the ground up. Because the existing content is not sourced, the work will be a lot harder. Unless sources can be found for this material by the end of the week, I will be deleting it in preparation of the re-write. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been completely rewritten. This is the first time I have written a full article about an organization. If there are issues of neutrality, please post your concerns. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Seacology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – Quadell (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: User:Visionholder

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Very well written. A pleasure to read.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lede, article organization, the infobox, and the end sections are all excellent.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. The References section is great.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). In all my spotchecks, the sources fully back up the data, and there is no plagiarism or close paraphrasing. Excellent and reliable.
2c. it contains no original research. Not a problem.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Absolutely.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). It's very long, but I don't think it goes into unnecessary detail on any facet.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. I searched for reliable sources of criticism of Seacology, but couldn't find anything.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Not a problem
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images are terrific. The logo is used properly and has a correct tag and rationale. All other images are verified free through OTRS.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images are fitting, and captions are excellent.
7. Overall assessment. Very nice. This article has truly earned GA status.

Issues

[edit]
  • 1a: The first sentence in History needs to be split.
Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a: "When cyclone Ofa destroyed the primary school in 1990..." What primary school? The one in Falealupo? It isn't clear.
Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1a: The sentence that begins "In a worst-case scenario," sounds as if it's trying to convince the reader that this approach is superior to others. I understand that it comes from a quote by Erdmann in the source. I believe this should either be reworded or attributed as an opinion.
Thank you for catching this. This is precisely the kind of thing I hoped you would help me locate and fix during the GAN review. For this case, I've chosen to attribute the statement. Please let me know if it looks okay. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All good.
  • 1b: The lede mentions "the continual loss of unique island cultures". I have no doubt that's true, but I don't see it supported in the text. (The "high risk of extinction for island fauna and the decline in coral reef ecosystems" part is fully expanded in the text, however.)
Very good catch. I thought I had covered it in the body, but I did not. Reviewing my sources, I have nothing to support it. I tried finding a new source and came up blank. Therefore, I've removed the mention from the lead. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.
Good idea... I added a link in the lead. Let me know if that's alright. (Btw, I'm glad to see people are aware of that list and that it's getting decent daily traffic. It was a pain to write, but very rewarding.) – VisionHolder « talk » 18:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Spoken Wikipedia

[edit]

Hello editors. My wife frequently suffers from insomnia, and one thing we've discovered is that reading from Wikipedia is an effective way of . . . boring her to sleep. To that end, I have been reading Wikipedia articles to her when she needs it and I've got a computer handy. Just after I finished reading List of common misconceptions, I had the idea that I could help out the community by recording the reading of the article, and contributing to the WP:SPEAK project. I plan on recording this article, soon (probably the next time she needs some help sleeping and I've got a computer). Don't expect an amazing reading, but it'll be something. I'm working under the assumption that something is better than nothing. McKay (talk)

Uploaded McKay (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! This was good timing before being featured on the front page. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Seacology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Seacology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seacology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seacology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seacology&oldid=1218258404"