Talk:Pine Island Glacier

Pine Island Glacier has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 9, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
February 6, 2025	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Glaciers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glaciers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlaciersWikipedia:WikiProject GlaciersTemplate:WikiProject GlaciersGlacier
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Antarctica High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pine Island Glacier/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?

Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
None provided.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
None Provided.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

There were some formatting errors, but I think the article is overall a very good article. ceranthor 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence in the acceleration section. It would seem that this question can be explored more by describing the acceleration observed. Polargeo I encourage you to do so. That is where is acceleration greatest, is it propogating. This will help indicate whether it is a calving front-ice shelf or upstream induced phenomenon. I did the bathymetry for the Polar Freeze journey for T.Kellogg and T.Hughes.

2010 Katz model

The paper just published in Proc royal soc does not really support any of the media hype. it is the testing of a fairly basic mathematical model on grounding line stability which just adds a peripheral Pine Island Glacier(ish) study. A quote from the paper if you are unconvinced "Given the complex, three-dimensional nature of the real Pine Island glacier, with its convergent feeder streams and subglacial hydrology, it should be clear that the above model is a very crude representation of reality" from the paper "Stability of ice-sheet grounding lines" Katz and Worster 2010. Polargeo (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PineIslandBay.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PineIslandBay.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Geographic resource

January 2012 in-print issue, page 34 & 35 Antarctic Undercut by Douglas Fox. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are below:

There are uncited sections, particularily entire paragraphs in the "History of fieldwork" section
The "History of fieldwork" needs to be updated, as it currently stops at 2012.

Is anyone willing to address the above concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Pine Island Glacier

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. Hog Farm _Talk 00:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited sections, particularily entire paragraphs in the "History of fieldwork" section. The "History of fieldwork" needs to be updated, as it currently stops at 2012. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important topic: I'll take a look at it. — hike395 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Field work on the ice and in the ocean next to the ice seems to have tailed off around 2014 (I cannot find sources past that). It appears that aerial surveys and satellites are now the dominant data sources. I've added a new subsection about those, to round out the history. I've also trimmed back the unsourced trivia in the section.

Still working on the overall article. As usual, marking sentences with {{cn}} would be helpful for me. — hike395 (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395: My citation concerns seem to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What I've done is reorganize the sections to be parallel to the Thwaites Glacier GA, added newer references throughout, cleaned up the lede to reflect the rest of the article, and change the image choice to support the material in the article. I think we're now back to GA-level quality. — hike395 (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 2 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.