Jump to content

Talk:Climate change in Antarctica/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: InformationToKnowledge (talk · contribs) 15:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Well this is a major article on a genuinely vital topic. It's well-written and fully-cited.
  • Many complex technical matters are explained clearly and concisely, with suitable diagrams.
  • I've made some very small copy-edits. Thank you x 3.
  • It's a miracle that Climate of Antarctica is linked only in the 'See also' list. Surely it should be linked somewhere. Added a "See Also" link for now.
  • The article is marked EngvarB. Should it not be in either British or American English? That marking was added during the copyedit I requested. I have no opinion either way.

Images

[edit]
  • Several of the diagrams have text labels way too small to be legible at the chosen scale; either the images or the text labels need to be enlarged (or both). I think you'll find it obvious which are the culprits here, but I'll list'em if need be. I'll be honest, image adjustment is not my strongest side. For what it's worth, GOCE volunteer thought those images were acceptable in their current state.
  • Consider adding an image of one of the mosses named in the text which has responded to climate change. You could use the multiple image template to put 2 images side-by-side, for example.I chose a footprint image to represent those mosses, which I anticipate to have a greater impact.
  • The king penguin image has a helpful caption; the Atlantic krill and gentoo penguin images do not. Why are they in the article? The text gives hints which the captions should summarize. It is advisable to repeat the citations in the captions. Done.

Sources

[edit]
  • The many sources are largely scientific journal papers, i.e. of good quality, and they are clearly relevant to the subject.
  • Consider using |display-authors=5 (or near offer) for sources with many authors. I can see the argument for this, but my subjective preference is to acknowledge every co-author. References are already hidden from most readers as is; hiding "extra" authors to only be seen by editors seems like an unnecessary step.
  • Multiple journalists said these findings were "contradictory" to global warming,[35][36][37][38][39][40] - this is basically synthesis from a set of primary sources. What is needed here is a single statement in a book or review article that makes the point directly. Removed a good number of those primary sources, and emphasized articles which discussed the reaction of those sources.
  • This kind of collapse is now considered almost inevitable because it appears to have occurred during the Eemian period 125,000 years ago, when temperatures were similar to those in the early 21st century.[97][98][17][18][99] isn't synthesis but does look like over-citation.Took out two.
  • [134] should be attributed to Hayley Dunning. Done.
  • Spot-checks: [3], [16], [26], [41], [57], [86] ok.

Summary

[edit]

InformationToKnowledge? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember. Finding the right review-style citation and adjusting the diagrams was a little more complex than I thought at first, and slowed me down. I'll try to set aside the time for another stab at this as soon as tomorrow. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Made some more progress, will try to clean up the rest ASAP. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment

  • there have been several studies discussing the potential usefulness of using lichens to monitor climate change in Antarctica; perhaps this is worth a mention in this article? Here's a relevant review article: doi:10.3390/d11030042 Esculenta (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, though I generally prefer to avoid citing MDPI articles if at all possible. This review seems like it would be a good fit without carrying the same baggage, and it seems like the article could receive quite a few updates beyond lichens based on it. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that review I found added quite a lot. I think that once the basic idea of "warming benefits lichen, but too little moisture or too much snow hurts them" is conveyed, a reference to the relatively niche concept of biomonitoring might even be a little excessive for this particular article (since here we are meant to summarize the numerous impacts for the general audience first and foremost, and a description of observation methods is secondary to that.) InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
InformationToKnowledge - nearly there, can we finish up now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take one more look at the article and place finishing touches over the weekend, and then yes, sure. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this took longer than I thought, but I think the article is about as good as it can realistically be for the foreseeable future! InformationToKnowledge (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_change_in_Antarctica/GA1&oldid=1277960368"