Talk:North Sea/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. After a quick read I think it looks really good, although of course I have some suggestions for improvement.

I usually do reviews in 3 stages:

  • coverage, structure and flow.
  • the nitty-gritty stuff including refs, style, copyediting and copyright status of images.
  • lead - once the main content is all OK.

To minimise risk of edit conflicts I'll draft comments in my sandbox first and check that they make sense to me (!). Since this article is big, that might take a day or two. Please nag me if I take longer than 2 days :-) Philcha (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stage 1 took less time than I expected - mainly because you guys have already been so thorough. --Philcha (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage[edit]

Very good on the whole. However I see a few things that should be included:

I've just done some Googling and found Atlas of Mesozoic and Cenozoic Coastlines - pages 27-38 are maps that show the shape of N Sea 95 million years ago to 20 million years ago. --Philcha (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I can access this latter link that has just been added. This one Reconstructions of the continents around the North Atlantic at about the 60th parallel. needs user name and password or payment to view article.  :-( will review the next file - the pdf file, and also do some googling.SriMesh | talk 04:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For North Sea I recommend using Atlas of Mesozoic and Cenozoic Coastlines - pages 27-38 are maps that show the shape of N Sea 95 million years ago to 20 million years ago. This focuses on coastlines, i.e. gives info about the N Sea as a sea. After reading the others in more detail I found that the others focus more on the movement of continental plates, which include the present-day continental shelves, but they say nothing about whether the shelf areas were covered by sea at the time. That restricts North Sea's paleographical coverage to mid-Cretaceous onwards, but: it still gives some info; trying to go back further gets into really heavy geology; going back further also raises problems of definition, i.e. whether a body of water in the same place relative to bits of modern Europe could be called "North Sea" when its coastline and connections to other bodies of seawater were very different (the consensus is "no"). --Philcha (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beginning an article here User:SriMesh/North Sea Geological History about the geological history, when all the sections are filled in, a main space article named North Sea Geological History perhaps can be made, and a summary can be added to the North Sea article. Have asked for help from other geological article editors as well. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 03:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The origins of the North Sea appear to be causing difficulties. Would it help if I drafted a para about it? --Philcha (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would help a lot. The sources I am finding have wonderful pictures about the rifting ( grabens and the platforms ) which was going on in the Triassic and Jurassic. These journals need the early geological eras as they also focus on the petroleum sources of the North Sea as it relates to geology. But really peter off when describing the North Sea formation post Jurassic which is when the North Sea looks like the North Sea, as that does not relate to petroleum geology as much. I am still googling the events of the Cenozoic but there just isn't as much 'free' information but a lot of scientific journals which I don't have access to.SriMesh | talk 20:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you open a "Sources" section of the Talk page (not this review). Mark with ?? those where you can't access the full text and I'll have a look. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit late (22:20 in UK) for me to start now, but I'll try to draft a bit on the evolution of the body of water tomorrow. I'll mainly use Atlas of Mesozoic and Cenozoic Coastlines as recommended above, plus one I found that said the N Sea was just a lake in the middle of a desert for most of the time of Pangea, plus a note on how there was water in the right place but the wrong shape (extension of the Med) "soon" (geologically) after Pangea broke up. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The online atlas is a bit small online for my itty bitty eyes to discern how to make notes of it. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 01:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done the bit on evolution of North Sea as body of water. I've kept it short and simple, as going back further in time creates complications: coastlines were nothing at all like modern ones; relevant landmasses were in different places, mostly further south (S of the equator in the Devonian, equatorial in Carboniferous, which is why USA, UK and Central Europe have coal). I've titled the sub-section "History of the coastlines" for now, and put it under "Geology". If that title survives, it might be good to put your content about more recent changes there as well (Rye-Winchelsea, Jutland, Denmark), as that title fits it and it would make the point that coastlines are still changing. --Philcha (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Thank you enormously to you Pilcha and to Woodwalker for the contributions made to the changing coastlines/geology section. The citations have also been added to this section.SriMesh | talk 02:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC) The content about Rye-Winchelsea and Jutland are referred to from the changing coastlines section. The changing coastlines sections covered many milleniums of years, and the items about Rye-Winchelsea and Jutland are very specific dated events which fit into the storms section a bit better as those are dated as well. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 03:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing coastlines and their significance. E.g. Rye, East Sussex was a Cinque Port but is now a few miles inland (I'm just using Rye as an example; but its top 2 pics make the point in different ways).
I found this item with a citation ... The northernmost part of Jutland is separated by the Limfjord from the mainland, but is still commonly reckoned as part of the peninsula. It only became an island following a flood in 1825.Jutland Peninsula: North SeaSriMesh | talk 01:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article The Physical Geography of Western Europe By Eduard A. Koster has information on the coastline as per geography, but doesn't say much about changes, just really does a description. In the last paragraph it does say how the Holocene affected the Danish coastline.SriMesh | talk 20:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice finds, so Rye and N Jutland make a balanced pair! Go for it. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK SriMesh | talk 01:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Added coastal changes to existing sections: added Rye-Winchelsea and Jutland to the Storm tides section. Added Denmark coast to the Geological history section. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Medieval-early modern trade: The British isles and the age of exploration — a maritime perspective is a good source - Hanseatic fish trade from Shetland; Dutch dominated N Sea fishing around 1580; coastal trade all along E coast of England and Scotland; Antwerp was Spain's principal port for a while. The sea routes map at Hanseatic League makes it look as if the N Sea was as much a barrier as a route, but historically that wasn't true. There's a lot to mine from "The British isles and the age of exploration — a maritime perspective" - if none of you guys can access it, give me a call and I'll extract a fuller list of nuggets to consider for inclusion / summarisation.
     Done Above concepts summarised to this article, and added more in depth to the History of the North Sea article. SriMesh | talk 02:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a gap in the history from 1815 to 1904. Was the N Sea really so uneventful then? I've asked Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force for help.
Added some of the 19th century history to article History of the North Sea SriMesh | talk 01:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1815-1904 was pretty boring. List of conflicts in Europe#19th century. All on the continent except Crimean War, which had Baltic and Black Sea and even Pacific naval components, but no North Sea action that I know of. Britain was the preeminent sea power and didn't have much competition (Victorian Royal Navy) until the Germans starting building their navy and challenging the "two power standard." I'll try to incorporate this into the article so it's not so much a blank spot.
Do you have refs for "1815-1904 was pretty boring"? :-)
  • I know less about World War II, but my understanding is that most of the bombing runs went over the English Channel and most of the naval action was in the Atlantic and Mediterranean (and of course Pacific). Good call on asking the WikiProjects though; I'll be interested to see what they say.
  • My final point would only be that History of the North Sea has its own article (currently in a pretty dreadful state) and the goal of this section is to give a solid overview, mentioning the important events and factors so the reader can do further reading. Its tricky because the article is already so long, but so much stuff is important and interesting, but I think many of the things you mentioned should go there (and also perhaps some of the details that are currently in there should be moved too). I'll look at the sources you mentioned and see what can be incorporated.
  • Similarly with North Sea Oil, we just have to give an overview, though you are right about natural gas, perhaps it should have it's own article too? I don't know enough about it.
  • I think the Marine Traffic section is a pretty decent summary of its current status as a trade route. Some more statistics would be very useful, but I could not find them. What do you think is missing? There is a ports list linked to in that section (List of North Sea ports).
Jieagles (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more explicit. The "History" section stops at 1945. Since you have a "Marine Traffic" section, I think the "History section" could close with e.g. "The North Sea continues to be an active trade route" and cite the Forth Ports plc page.
  •  Done Comment regarding Forth Ports has been added to this section, as noted above as well....SriMesh | talk 01:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Philcha (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

  •  Done I think "Geography" should come as early as possible, for the benefit of those who are not fortunate enough to be NW Europeans. (disclosure: I'm a Scot living in Kent) The "Exclusive Economic Zones" map has the right level of detail, and perhaps could be moved here.
  •  Done "Environmental health" isn't a great heading, as in other contexts it refers to monitoring health hazards such as residual industrial pollution (e.g. when buying a house in England) or to control of health hazards at work (asbestos, infections lurking in air-conditioning, etc.). How about "Biodiversity and conservation"?
Two excellent easy suggestions. I have gone ahead and done them. However, I am inclined to keep the EEZ image in the Political Status section and the standard map with the Geography section. Did you just want a bigger image? or do you think it makes more sense to move it (and why)? -- Jieagles (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The EEZ image has the advantage of showing the boundaries of the N Sea, at least according to 1 definition. And at present it's not in the "Political status" section.
Instead I've highlighted "North Sea" in the standard map. --22:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on recent edits[edit]

After Napoleon's exile in 1815, Britain's military superiority maintained the Pax Britannica and British did not face a challenge to their dominance of the North Sea until World War One broke out in 1914.
  •  Done good suggestion. I changed "maintained" to "enforced" That might not be quite the right word either since it was usually more by intimidation than actual force... Also kept link to history of the royal navy, which I think is a good summary. I was also trying to capture the fact that there were challenges, just the British were able to fight the Chinese in China, the Russians in the Baltic and the Black Sea, etc keeping threats from their shores. I'm not sure how to do that in a summary so I'll try to move it to history of the N Sea
    • I think you've just argued in favour of "maintained". --Philcha (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm...It does seem that way. For some reason "maintained" just doesn't feel right to me. I think its that it evokes images of a handyman with a screwdriver and some duct tape rather than an enormous battleship with 12-inch guns. Call me crazy. What about "preserved"?
    • ROFL. "preserved" it is - I've edited. --Philcha (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done *Ive always thought that the ban on split infinitives was a silly imposition on the language by Latinists and 19th century grammatical prescriptionists, that has never reflected actual usage and adds nothing to clarity. That said, I have my own grammatical pet peeves too, that are just as silly. (I am a serial comma advocate, etc.)
 Done *The 19th century oil was all onshore, and therefore concurrent with the beginning of US, Russian, Caspian drilling.
 Done *I always supported the wikilinking of dates and I still do. As it is no longer policy, I don't do it, because you can always find interesting and relevant things that happened in a certain year. I always have to talk myself out of it though.
Hello there thank you for taking the time to do the GA review. Added some responses myself, and others have been addressing your comments also. As the length of the article is 90 Kb are there any edits or chopping which you can advise. There are some excellent ideas for additions regarding exploration and North Sea coastal changes, which maybe the details of which should be added to the history of the North Sea and then the article History of the North sea re-summarized into the North Sea article proper. I am also still looking for the coastline changes, and will check which articles I can access which you have accessed Pilcha...tis good to have access to these sources, but at FAN, they are advised not to use user name password URLs as the main public can't get them. So will keep looking. Thank you for adding the notes re the exploration, will get them added also. Kind Regards me now...SriMesh | talk 04:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, SriMesh. Re articles on paleogeogrpahy that are not freely available, I'll produce a list of snippets / nuggets in a separate Talk item, as I did with the Medieval history stuff. Whether WP:RS are available at no charge is not a problem, I've seen ebough recent FAs that cite subscriber-only sources. After all, books also cost money, either the purchase price or the fees that libraries charge for inter-library loans (for which there are no guarantees, at least not where I live).
About trimming and WP:SUMMARY, you may be right, but I think it's better to judge that when we can see all of the material. Even a "portal" article on a big subject will be big. --Philcha (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a note about registration required, as per current FAN page. SriMesh | talk 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Readability analyser: North Sea says the article's length currently is: Wikitext: 88.6 KB; Text: 48.8 KB; Proses: 48.6 KB (this means "readable prose", as in WP:SIZE). So this article is long but not outrageous. Given its scope, I don't think that's a problem. BTW you might want to make a note of the Readability analyser - I keep a link to it on my User page. When I get down to the detailed section-by-section review I'll look out for ways to make the wording more concise, and also to simplify the expression - the Readability analyser says the prose is suitable for readers aged 15-18, but I prefer to aim for nearer 12 (though none of "my" articles has achieved that). --Philcha (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review of sections[edit]

Geography[edit]

  • Sentences about Norwegian trench are redundant as this is covered in "Submarine topography". I've moved / merged them inot there. What do you think of the result? :This also works.SriMesh | talk 01:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also added annotations on the 1st map for Skagerrak, Kattegat and English Channel. What do you think of the result?
This is awesome! Thank you, it works well kind of like location maps.SriMesh | talk 01:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sentence "Traditionally, an imaginary line is taken to run from northern Scotland ..." needs a ref.

SriMesh | talk 01:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these works, and my search has got nothing. The modern scientific studies use arbitrary boundaries, nothing to do with "tradition". Stavangher is much too far Sounth - Ålesund is just 1 degree south of Trondheim. I think we should scrap the sentence "Traditionally, an imaginary line is taken to run from northern Scotland ..." and copyedit the start of the following one, which gives equivalent geog co-ords. --10:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I can only find pictures of maps which show a straight north south line extending from the tip of Scotland for a ways, then it travels eash west to bump into Norway, but no text about this demarkation of the north boundarySriMesh | talk 02:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Submarine topography[edit]

  • Is it possible to produce a version of the map that outlines the other features besides the Dogger Bank, with colour coding. The map has to longitude and latitude scales, so geog co-ords alone are not very helpful here? If you can mark out these features, I can add annotations (e.g. "yellow=...")
    • I added the template Map of all coordinates which will show all templates which have coordinates entered for them. So now just to find the cute coordinates. SriMesh | talk 04:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The trouble with template:coord is that the map appears to show nothing but sea, which is not very helpful. --Philcha (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Made new article with a list of coordinates in the North Sea to use the template in The new article is called Geography of the North Sea, and demarks quite a few placenames and features. It would be nice to just be able to substitute the map now without the list.SriMesh | talk 17:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneSee comments added below about the geogroup template SriMesh | talk 05:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

  • Was rather repetitious. I've copyedited to group all the content about "North Sea" in one para and all the alternative names in another. What do you think of the result? (I've left the previous text there but hidden by comments in case I've imotted anything you consider important).
  • Needs ref for influence of Hanseatic maps. Naming the Pacific supports only Spanish Mar del Norte. History of the Frisian Folk does not support any of the names and I have reservations about its tone (rather "Frisian nationalist").
  • Needs ref for occurence in Middle High German.
  • Needs ref(s) for "Mare Frisia, and Mare Frisicum, Oceanum- or Mare Germanicum as well as their English equivalents, Frisian Sea and German Ocean or Sea".
  • Needs ref for "German ..." becoming unacceptable in 20th cent - Overview of North Sea does not support any of the points about the name and specifically lacks a historical section.
  •  Done above section regarding naming is done with citations.SriMesh | talk 18:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check all the refs in this and subsequent sections of the article to make sure they support the statements that precede them. The sad fact is you shouldn't trust refs inherited from previous editors, you need to check every single one before proposing an article for review. Please also check through the link checker report for "North Sea" (another tool you should make a note of; my User page links to it). Codes other than 200 need to be investigated, e.g. to make sure that web sites have not deleted the content and redirected to their home pages. The report's 4th column, "Template metadata" shows places where citations many have omitted information. I'll resume the review when you've checked the refs and replaced any that need it. --Philcha (talk) 11:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references have gone through two robot checkers, and Rosiestep is also helping out with the references...
  •  Done The part about putting all the links through link checker fixed one which linked to the doi page rather than the http page. There are two links left which are subscription pages as per above talk discussion that they should be ok if left on the article. SriMesh | talk 00:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put links again through link checkerSriMesh | talk 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Progress report... opened up to citation 67 the online versions, not the book ones. Changed some, added some, removed some. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 01:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find how the reference 48 Quality Status Report 2000 for the North-East Atlantic, Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR), works for the paragraph...
Around 185 million people live in the catchment area of the rivers that flow into the North Sea.[48] These rivers drain a large part of Northern Europe: a quarter of France, three quarters of Germany, nearly all of Switzerland, half of Denmark, the whole of the Netherlands and Belgium, the southern part of Norway, the Rhine basin of western Austria and the eastern side of Great Britain.[48][49] This area contains one of the world's greatest concentrations of industry.

So added ref 49 which states the names of rivers in the catchment area, but does not support the drainage area.  :-(

Found one reference 47... for the 184 million folk in the catchment area. :-)
The land area drained is not within my citations, but my citaitons do state the rivers of the various countries.SriMesh | talk 02:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for all the work you're putting into this. Let me know when you're done ref-hunting and I'll continue the review. Best wishes --Philcha (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done with this note. Well, I went through all the existing online links to check and the result is that the fishing section was changed somewhat. Let me know if you want it changed more. I found citations which support the approximate numbers given but for different years, so they are within the same area - ballpark as the citations I found. I could change them exactly to my citations, as I don't know the original citations first used in the two sections....Same with the oil section. I found citations which support the figures given as the 1999 peak for year rather than per day. All other refs are good to go that I could see, they seem to say what the preceding blurb was referring to. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Geography (2)[edit]

  •  Done Although the Encyclopedia of Earth is a wiki, its About the EoE and Become an EoE Contributor explain that content and contributors are vetted. I therefore accept that Encyclopedia of Earth is a WP:RS.
  • Rest is OK.

Submarine topography(2)[edit]

  • The 1st interactive map (Long Forties) still comes up showing nothing but empty sea. The template has scaling params which you need to set in each use.
  • The 2nd & 3rd interactive maps (Broad Fourteens) show 2 separate pics of bits of UK & NL coast respectively. Readers need 1 map that shows the whole area. Fixing this will probably involve editing the text to match.
Query plunked onto the talk page of the geo group template to see if this can be helped. Otherwise, will try the colour coding of the map in photoshop. Kind regards.SriMesh | talk 03:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
got an answer, but I still cannot do it, so will now see if someone at technical Village Pump can also help out.SriMesh | talk 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Para has completed this application, and it works perfectly now....applying the coordinates from the geography of the North Sea page on the maps showing up on this article Woo Hoo! SriMesh | talk 05:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name(2)[edit]

Finding WP:RS for this section is insanely difficult - I've just spent an hour searching and it seems to fall into the cracks between different disciplines / specialisations, e.g. history, geography, cartography. The best course for now is to save it and the pathetic few sources I've found somewhere else, e.g. Talk:North Sea, and remove the section from the article.

  • Ref needed re Frisians as a people, & their territory. See Old English and Its Closest Relatives pp 176-178
  • Ref(s) needed re Frisians' names for the surrounding seas. N.B. I know I was the last editor of this section, but that was only a copyedit to make it more concise. I have searched Google, Google Books and Google Scholar and got no relevant online WP:RS. May have to scrap this bit.
  • A History of the German Language Through Texts p. 175 In late 14th cent Hanseatic League gradually moved from Latin to Low German as its main business language.
  • I've read Naming the Pacific more carefully and as far as I can see the Spanish Mar del Norte referred to an enlarged version of the Caribbean - north of the Spanish empire in S America!
Professor Shin Kim of Kyunghee University has written article 3 online at the East Sea Forum... see On the History of Naming the North Sea page 1 The North Sea - where it is - how it grew in importance With the 21st century just ahead, the world closed the age of discord and antagonism and is opening Earliest occurrences of the name of the sea page 2 page 3 Medieval usages which seems to cover a lot of ground regarding names of the North SeaSriMesh | talk 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added a reference for each instance of a previous name of the North Sea. SriMesh | talk 02:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early history[edit]

Well the main article History of Anglo-Saxon England has no online links only some book links. This article Sub-Roman Britain has a bizzilion book links. Roman departure from Britain has no references.  :-( So found a link for Anglo-Saxon England in medieval times :-) as I have no access to the above books.
 Done Both, fixed link to the book as well added new link for Anglo Saxon England.
Cannot find any more Information to support the Lindisfarne local article which was written by Nick Atwood MA, so it is supported with The Viking World listed below. SriMesh | talk 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneReplaced the placename url about Lindisfarne written by Nick Atwood with the book Flying the Black Flag By Alfred S. Bradford.
 DoneAdded reference from listing above. The first reference was supported by all the books as well. The wording of the section was supported by all the links as well. SriMesh | talk 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Furthermore, the League lacked colonies as shipping began to focus on providing Europe with Asian, American, and African goods" has no ref. AFAIK lack of colonies had nothing to do with the decline of the Hanseatic League - from what I found while searching for other items in this article, the League's main problems were imperialism on land from e.g. Sweden and German princes, trade competition from e.g. England under Henry VIII, and lack of a powerful navy. Its fundamental weakness was lack of political unity, so a bunch of city-states were left facing rising nation-states. The World in the Middle Ages p179 provides a useful summary - including the fact the the Age of Discovery made other trade routes more significant.
 Done Added this reference and modified the article text

Early modern history[edit]

 Done replaced the contemplators web site with a book link. Thank you.
  • "the Dutch were no longer a major player in European politics" has no source. But see last item in previous comment (subsequent British naval hegemony).
 Done added google book link

War with England 1801-14] is a WP:RS. Better sources (all from Google Books for "Second "League of Armed Neutrality""):

 Done added google book link
 Done There is a reference for every sentence, and sometimes mid sentence.

20th Century[edit]

 Done Added citation.SriMesh | talk 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Better sources for WW I would be:

 Done Added citation....added come of the following....SriMesh | talk 03:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re WW II, better sources:
    • War at Sea pp 34-108 - a lot not about North Sea, but plenty of gold nuggets.
    • A World at Arms pp 113-114 German strategy re N Sea & Norway; pp 114-118 German fleet decimated by end of 1940; p 145 UK naval stratgy ca 1940 (note importance of air & subs); p 150 UK offensive strategy "blockade, bomb, subvert"; p 180 local dominance of UK navy a factor in Hitler's decision to attack USSR; etc.
  • "gained significant economic importance in the 1960s as the states on the North Sea began full-scale exploitation of its oil and gas resources" needs a ref - are there any citable esources in section "Oil and Gas"?

 Done Added citation....

Political status[edit]

 Done Looks OK --Philcha (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geology[edit]

  • I don't think we need the subheading "History of the coastlines" now. What do you think?
  • Otherwise OK.
 Done removed sub-heading. SriMesh | talk 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and Shellfish[edit]

  •  Done OK

Birds[edit]

  •  Done OK

Marine mammals[edit]

  •  Done OK

Flora[edit]

  • No sources support any of the points from "Many plants are harvested commercially ..." to end of section.
  •  Done Replaced this fact with a different one with a citation, and added more and more references for each statement, and verified via ref.SriMesh | talk 04:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiversity and Conservation[edit]

 DoneRemoved this citation for this sentence and left the other one SriMesh | talk 03:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added a bunch more....SriMesh | talk 03:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So need to ensure that whole of first para contains only what is supported by WP:RS.
  • "Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands also have a trilateral agreement for the protection of ..." needs a ref.
 Done Added reference for this fact.SriMesh | talk 04:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic data[edit]

  • Ref needed for "The eastern side is both the warmest in summer ..."
  • Ref needed for "In the deeper northern North Sea, the water remains a nearly constant 10 °C (50 °F) year round ...
  • Ref needed for "The greatest temperature variations are found on ..."
  • The cited source does not appear to support what is said about salinity. It only give average / typical salinity (which?), and in different units.
  • North Sea Facts does not appear to support area draine dby Baltic rivers.
  • Wrong source for "Around 184 million people live in the catchment area of the rivers that flow into the North Sea". The Japanse PDF suoorts this. don't know what the other 2 support so couldn't fix it myself.
  • Quality Status Report 2000 for the North-East Atlantic neither contains nor links to useful info.
  • "These rivers drain a large part of Northern Europe: a quarter of France, ..." not supported by cited sources.
 Done Re-worded pretty much entirely. Some of these information was a translation from the German wikipedia North Sea article. It has been re worded into facts which I could find in English citations, and trying to keep the German content as much as was possible. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 04:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water circulation[edit]

  • The Met Office page does not support "The main pattern to the flow of water in the North Sea is a counter-clockwise rotation along the edges". The Japanese PDF does.
  • Please check all other sources & statements in the para beginning ""The main pattern to the flow of water in the North Sea ..."
  • "... water in the German Bight can circulate for years before being pulled northwards" needs a ref.
  • Para beginning "Bodies of water characterised by the same temperature, salinity, nutrients ..." has no sources.
 Done Re-worded pretty much entirely. Some of these information was a translation from the German wikipedia North Sea article. It has been re worded into facts which I could find in English citations, and trying to keep the German content as much as was possible. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 04:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table has no sources.
 Done Changed table. All the wikipedia linked to articles on hydrology, and individual rivers likewise have no sources, so added the drainage area of the influent rivers rather than the discharge. The web pages gave differing amounts for the discharge per river, and some rivers were not online. Added sources column, in case more columns or info was added. SriMesh | talk 23:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tides[edit]

  • Para beginning "The North Sea has very strong and unusual tides ..." has no sources.
  • What is "the amphidromic point"? Cited source does not contain this.
  • Cited source does not support "The tidal range is at its greatest ..." - only refers to E coast of England.
  • Refs needed for "In shallow water areas, the real tidal range is strongly influenced by other factors, such as the position of the coast and the wind at any given moment or the action of storms. In river estuaries, high water levels can considerably amplify the effect of high tide".
 Done Re-worded pretty much entirely. Re wrote the section dependent on sources and references, and explained diurnal and amphidromes for the section.



Please check every single statement and the content of every single source in this article. Although the number of citations looks impressive, the number of issues I'm finding indicates that the article was not ready for GA review. Please let me know when all sourcing issues have been fixed, including the sections I have not checked yet. --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continued through the article. I probably need a second set of eyes already about this aspect to look over what statements and facts I am missing still. SriMesh | talk 23:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment pretty much every statement has a reference, some have more than one reference. Some that don't have a reference means the reference at the end of the paragraph references the paragraph. I can't see too many numbers or facts which are missing a fact, a few others are also helping. SriMesh | talk 04:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when it's done. And make sure it is done - checking refs in an article this size is no fun, and I'm only going to do it once. --Philcha (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
notified here and on talk page citations are checked, sections rewritten to facts, citaitons are verifiable books for the main.SriMesh | talk 04:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Comment - hello everyone. Very good work so far! :) A comment that I did not see above is that you should try to stagger images on the left and right sides per MOS:IMAGE (though don't put them directly under third-level headings either). Cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you for your comments. Images have been staggered, and moved away from third level headings, I believe. Kind regards SriMesh | talk 06:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography (2nd go)[edit]

  • In the ref to The American Cyclopaedia, I'd remove the Google Books link as it has no preview. --Philcha (talk)
  • According to the link I viewed, the book is available online as public domain in PDF format. Both of the references requested below are contained in that book on page 499. --Jh12 (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a ref for Eng Channel, Skaggerak and Kattegat. --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also added a note that the reference of the American Encyclopedia does officially ref these two placenames but with archaic 1800 spellings of their names.
  • Will double reference paragraph. --Jh12 (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a ref for the islands, etc. --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will add to Cyclopaedia ref. --Jh12 (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Submarine topography(2nd go)[edit]

  • In the ref to Remote Sensing of the European Seas, I'd remove the Google Books link as it has no preview. --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's strange. Using my home At&T network and via Citrix on the health science center network, the preview is available. --Jh12 (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this note now. The URL picks up the bibliography 'about this book' page and not the page 9 actual book page, which is just a tab at the top of the bibliography about this book page. I changed the url back to the page 9 actual book preview URL. SriMesh | talk 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the catch. That link was only recently changed to a disambig; will fix. --Jh12 (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "The Long Forties" denotes an area of the northern North Sea that is fairly consistently forty fathoms (73 m) deep and thus, on a nautical chart with depth shown in fathoms, a long area with 33, 34, 35, "40" notations":
    • Should explain that it's a raised bank.
    • What's "a long area with 33, 34, 35, "40" notations" about? --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the ref to North sea pilot, I'd remove the Google Books link as it has no preview. --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This part was trying to pay attention to detail as the book, which I can see fine on my server, says that the depths were sounded at ie the various fathoms as noted in the statement, as the statement used to say with repeated 40 notations. So I'll just remove it altogether.
On opening this one... this book url points to the actual book pages 36-40 as the citation suggests, so it is visible and available. SriMesh | talk 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed this section altogether.SriMesh | talk 04:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name (2nd go)[edit]

  • Which page of Through the Pillars of Herakles supports "Septentrionalis Oceanus, or Northern Ocean which was cited by Pliny"? N.B. there are 3 items in that phrase that need to be supported. --11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's found on footnote 28 of page 119. --Jh12 (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added this footnote as a quotation inside the citation. SriMesh | talk 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the ref supports "By the late nineteenth century, these names were rare, scholarly usages". Is this statement needed? --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think the reference "On the History of Naming the North Sea" is really showing the transition in name usage to North Sea. I think it would be better to change the sentence to read along the lines of what is written on page 3: "that the sea was first called North Sea in its equivalent forms by people of the Netherlands in the Middle Ages." --Jh12 (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done added quotation to ref and removed sentence altogether.SriMesh | talk 04:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early history (2nd go)[edit]

  • According to the ref, the Roman Empire did not begin exploring the sea in 12 BC, it was using it as a military route. --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed exploring altogether. SriMesh | talk 01:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see what supports "beginning sustained trade across the North Sea and the English Channel." In fact I'd expect most or perhaps all of the trade was across the Channel, as it's narrower and Rome controlled both coasts (they never really controlled Germany). I'm not asure that the part about the Roman conquest of Britain does for this article.
  • I don't see what supports "The Romans abandoned Britain in 410". The "Life in the UK" ref's URL points to The Strait of Dover.
Oops is all I can say to missing the url change in finding citations. sorry I missed it.

--Philcha (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "End of Roman Britain" ref's URL points to The Strait of Dover. --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Continental Saxons" ref's URL points to The Strait of Dover. --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From the Mediterranean in this era would be high grade cloths, spices, and fruits" is clumsy. What about e.g. "In turn the north Sea countries imported high grade cloths, spices, and fruits from the Mediterranean region? --Philcha (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done All the above are done. Oh my goodness. It is soooo much easier to write an article from scratch than to find citations for an existing article which didn't have references when originally written. The information esp in the history section was a section which got too long, broke into a separate article, and then someone re-summarised it here. Well perhaps it will all need to go into a rewrite.

This is ridiculous - I'm still finding issues. Getting an article to GA involves a lot of attention to detail,especially in a large and wide-ranging article like this - every statement referenced, the refs correct and correctly formatted, wikilinks to articles rather than disambig pages, no image copyright problems, etc., etc. If you want to see how GA review should go, see Talk:Northern Bald Ibis/GA1, where start to pass as GA took only 2 days. Admittedly that article's much shorter, but there were very few issues to start with. Paleontology is a fairly big article (about 2/3 the size of North Sea), but the review took under a week. I will wait for a week and recheck, if I find any issues then, the result wil be "fail". Philcha (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell from your eye that you have more experience at seeing things than I. I will try again to see things. I find it frustrating now that I am missing things. I am sorry. SriMesh | talk 06:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK I now see why so many FA articles have quotations in their citations. I am re-checking the references, and adding quotations which support the text. It is slow going, but it for sure will work (I think) - it will give a method to not miss anything methinks. SriMesh | talk 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early history and Early modern history and Modern Era[edit]

Early history section and Early modern history and Modern era sections have quotational citational references now. The url which may give an issue is "IRON AND FIRE IF European Wars.pub" (pdf). Other 19th Century European Wars. which is supported by a second quotational citational reference from the website Danish Naval History. The Danish Naval History website is used for both 1st and 2nd Schleswig War blockade supports. Couldn't find a google book :-( Then all the North Sea activity in the form of blockades has been verified in this manner, showing activity in this time span. If these citations are not good enough to show verifiability then the blockades will be taken away out of the article, and there may be a gap in the time era. SriMesh | talk 02:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological sites[edit]

This section is all referenced from news articles and support section text, they are not long books, so no quotations. Will add quotations if necessarySriMesh | talk 04:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom of article working up[edit]

Now I tried to go from Marine traffic, Tourism, Renewable energy, Mineral resources, fising, Oil and gas, Policital status and eliminated statements which were not referenced, and added citations again. If there are statements in a row with no citation following, the reference for the group should be at the end of the group of statements, and the facts stated within that reference... I am thinking. I ruthlessly changed sections, and edited text to comply to citations which were found. I wished and hoped to find citations to verifity original text but it was very challenging to do so, so sections had to be changed or shortened. I will now keep going upwards, but some sections mentioned above 'passed' the reference checking thingie. Kind Regards me again trying more citations and refs. I hope I am getting better.SriMesh | talk 03:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Srimesh. I've been watching this page and the article, and can see how much work you're putting in. Leave a message when you're done. --Philcha (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I keep trying. I got a bit sick last week, and it is too hard to work at long stretches on an article this long. The eyes start to go cross eyed, and one needs to take a break. I will drop you another note, and I hope things will be better a little bit. SriMesh | talk 05:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, reviewing can have similar effects :-) --Philcha (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I am still a bit under the weather, but I think the refs on the article are better now. I went at it in January with a different mind set I suppose. Before I tried to support the existing text, which was hard to do when it wasn't referenced from the time of writing. This time I changed text to match the existing citations. The other change was initially I cited mainly focused on numerical or fact citation needed data which would be challenged, and this time I tried referencing more as if I was originally writing the article paying more attention to the verifiablity aspect of any of the comments. I removed the quotes which had been added. Hopefully if you try the refchecks again, it will smoosh better. I tried to open all the refs as well. It was easier going bottom to the top. Anyways thanks for your patience. JH and Inwind are still puttering somewhat, so will also contact them. Mikenorton is working on red links from geology section. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 21:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got the right idea. Some of the articles I've got to GA were "transformed". It's a bit late in the UK to start such a big job, I'll start tomorrow. --Philcha (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again[edit]

I see there have a lot of changes! Unfortunately these have introduced new structure and coverage issues - excess rather than gaps, on the whole, so it will probably be easier to fix them (e.g. save the excess bits to sub-pages and then decide what to do with them).

The following comments refer to this version.

Structure[edit]

I think the "Geography" section should come first, as it defines place names that are used elsewhere.

 Done SriMesh | talk 00:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geography[edit]

  • One important ommission: major rivers that flow into N Sea, e.g. Rhine, Thames, Forth. N.B That's off the top of my head and over-emphasises UK rivers; check for rivers on the E coast of the N Sea as well. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done to do Improve the List of rivers discharging into the North Sea article

Landforms and Geomorphology[edit]

  • The title is misleading, as its mostly about underseas features. "Major features" would be better. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SriMesh | talk 00:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The seabed is separated into three bathymetric areas, the Norwegian Trench and the north and south North Sea separated by the Dogger Bank" should be the first sentence, as it breaks the sea into major chunks, about which you can then give more info.

 Done moved sentence into lead...to do'Double check all three areas have a yadda yadda. SriMesh | talk 02:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the details about formation of the Norwegian Trench are superfluous here, and should be in Norwegian Trench. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SriMesh | talk 00:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How deep are the Silver Pit & its crater? --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd change the order of "The North Sea has been difficult to navigate which has been alleviated by the implementation of satellite navigation systems.[58][59] The Long Forties and the Broad Fourteens are areas which refer to the depth in fathoms. These great banks and others make the North Sea particularly hazardous.[60]" to mention the actual hazards first, and then how sat nav has reduced the dangers. You need to supply depths in meters as well as fathoms, as the rest of the article uses meters for depths. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SriMesh | talk 00:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last version I saw had a map that showed the Dogger Bank in red. An enhanced version of this map with the other features marked in different colours would be a big help to readers, especially non-Europeans. --Philcha (talk) 1

4:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done created a map for the features mentioned in the article, but it is still on the talk page to see if it should be used.70.76.43.200 (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrology: Basic data[edit]

  • It's currently about climate and salinity, and the heading should reflect the contents. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done this does indeed make more sense. SriMesh | talk 00:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences about the population and industry do not belong here. Probably best somewhere in "Economics", would also be fairlyl useful inthe intor para of "Geography". --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SriMesh | talk 00:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrology:Water circulation[edit]

  • A very short section, I'd combine it with "Tides" as "Water circulation and tides" --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done This is a good idea, both sections previously were longer, just couldn't find the citations to keep the lengths, which was unfortunate and frustrating.SriMesh | talk 00:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tides[edit]

  • Re wave speeds and amplitudes, it would be useful to link to something that explains why the N Sea has lower speeds but higher amplitudes. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source this is cited from just jumped into this fact, but it is also in another that I read, so will cite another fact about the fact that it is in regard to the shallowness of the water on the plate.70.76.43.200 (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to group sub-topics coherently - there are 2 separate passages about waves, and they should be together. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure one of the sources in the last version I reviewed had a useful diagram of the circulation. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I puttered at making a map, and including it on the article page.70.76.43.200 (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the 2 & a bit amphidromic systems? Why is the third incomplete? --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The location can be plotted via a mathematical formula for precision, as per one of the sources. From four separate sources, the maps of the amphidromic systems set them into slightly different places, so making an article map would need to go into a specific article about amphidromic systems explaining more about them in detail, and why four maps would be needed.SriMesh | talk 00:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coasts (intor paras)[edit]

One of the best sections in this version, covers the topic clearly but concisely. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woo hoo !!!!  :-) SriMesh | talk 00:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern fjords, skerries, and cliffs[edit]

  • I think this is too much detail, given the length of the article. You should copy it to a sub-page or the Talk page, and then remove it. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Well the North Sea article is too long. The intro paragraph does summarise this paragraph, so a new article was created Coastline of the North Sea, so it helps this article in two ways. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southern shoals and mudflats[edit]

  • I think this is also too much detail. You should copy it to a sub-page or the Talk page, and then remove it. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done as per above. SriMesh | talk 02:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal management[edit]

  • I'd be inclined to make this a separate top-level section, as it's an important topic, especially in Netherlands. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done There were many sub levels SriMesh | talk 00:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geology[edit]

  • I think this looks OK, but then I and (at my request) a serious geologist contributed the content and refs. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, very much. SriMesh | talk 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At present I suggest this section should follow "Geography", so that "Geography" describes how the N Sea is to-day and "Geology" descrobes how it got to be that way. -Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done This also presents a good lead into history keeping chronological order as geological time predates historical time.SriMesh | talk 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natural history[edit]

  • No problems jump out at me in this quick overview. This section perhaps ought to be 3rd, after "Geography" and "Geology", so that topgther they describe how the N Sea is naturally, and the rest covers interactions between N Sea and humans. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneSriMesh | talk 01:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

  • I'd make this the first of the "human-oriented" sections, after the nature-oriented" ones.--Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneSriMesh | talk 01:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Early history[edit]

  • This looks too British-oriented. I know the problem is sources - you had to take out stuff about the Friesians because the sources were "national pride" web sites, and I guess a lot of the good sources about early continental settlement are not in English. It might be useful to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archeology[edit]

 Done A different kind of done. Put this entire section into the article Archaeology of the North Sea, as the notability of the news article content in comparison to perhaps the geography etc perhaps does not need to be included here in this article for broad coverage. perhaps. SriMesh | talk 01:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this content should be in "Early history" - or before it, if you prefer to restrict "history" to written records. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section does not say enough to establish relevance to the N Sea. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think you need to say more about what the scientists thought they found, to show that this is not just another crackpot Atlantis story. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Danish, Swedish archaeologists announce vast underground city in North Sea is from a site for science and fantasy fiction enthusiasts, not a WP:RS for a science topic - see comment above on Atlantis. You really need to find a better source, search Google Scholar for artciles by the head honcho, van Gelder. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lost world warning from North Sea is from the BBC and is very reliable as accurate as news reports get. However the actual journal papers by Gaffney & co. would be better. BTW the map showing the Channel land bridge and the Dogger Hills is great, if you can find the journal papers to back it up I suggest you ask Wikipedia:Graphic Lab to produce a similar map. The "Geology" section might be a good place, as the map shows the N Sea in its penultimate form. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Placed new maps and sources to graphics lab for formatting. Will place appropriate info on new article about North Sea archaeology as well. SriMesh | talk 04:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economy[edit]

  • I think the "economic zones" map should be here. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise the section looks OK at first glance. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SriMesh | talk 01:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

I have not checked through all the sources and other nitty-gritty stuff. This quick skim-through has revealed problems in the structure, places where there's too much detail and places where there's not quite enough. In addition there are lot of places that need really serious copy-editing. If I did that or told you in detail how re-phrase: I'd be so heavily involved that I wouldn't be eligible to continue the review; it wouldn't be "your" article any more, it would be "mine".

I've let this review go on since early Nov 2008, although the "standard" time for fixing issues in GA is one week. I've let it take a lot longer for 2 reasons: it's a big article; the editors of this article have been willing to work very hard at improving it.

However I think the fairest thing for the sake of the editors would be to mark this artcile as a fail right now. I could say I'll give you a week to fix it, and that would mean you'd have to fix all the structure and coverage issues in 2 days so I can do the detailed walk-through (2 day's work, I think), and then 2 days to fix any issues the walk-through reveals, and finally a day to ensure that the lead summarises the main content well. But based on what I've seen and the amount of time this has taken already, I don't think you'd get the article up to GA standard in a week and it would be wrong to build up your hopes and then dash them.

I am seriously impressed with your enthusiasm and determination, but I think you don't yet have the skills to handle such a huge article. To put it in perspective, the biggest article I've written is Evolutionary history of life - but that is an easier topic than North Sea, because it has to mainly chronological, in other words the subject gave me the structure on a plate. I suggest you do what I did at Talk:Evolutionary history of life - start a section for a catalogue of sources, grouped in sections and with 1-line comments about the main points of each; and another section to sketch out the structure.

Meanwhile I suggest you work on smaller topics for a while, and then use the more formal preparation method (sources catalogue + structure outline) every time you move up to a significantly larger article. The other thing that would be useful would be to have a look at the Wikipedia:Good article criteria from time to time, and look at some GAs and perhaps FAs in the same subject area as the article you're working on - you can often find these in pages run by the relevant Wikiprojects, as they are usually keen to brag about them.

If you are working on a set of related articles, it often easier to work on the smaller, more detailed articles first. If it's a really big collection of related articles, consider settig up a "taskforce" or at least "to do" list, as my buddy Martin did at WP:CEX. Advantages of the "bottom-up" approach include:

  • It gives you a store of text and refs you can use in the more general articles.
  • You can get the smaller, more detailed articles reviewed. If they pass, that's a source of satisfaction. If not, they're easier toi improve than big articles.
  • When you go up a level in the "tree" of articles, i.e. to a more general article, you known where in the general article you can summarise and say "See main article ..." for the details ({{main}}).
  • It's easier to plan the more general article, as you already know what content and refs you have. --Philcha (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also try to get a couple of experienced and helpful GA reviewers to see if they can can offer additional advice.

If you disagree with my conclusion, you can re-submit the article of review, or seek advice at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations.

Thank you for all the hard work you've put into this. With the enthusiasm and determination you've shown, you will become very good editors if you work your way up through the difficulty levels. Best wishes, --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Thank you again for your notes. I puttered at a few of them and will proceed with another copyedit of text after a break and come back, possibly again with fresh eyes. SriMesh | talk 04:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Malleus Fatuorum[edit]

  • Philcha asked me to take a look at this article, to see if I could offer any additional advice. In short, I agree with pretty much everything he says in this review, particularly in regard to the article's structure, which just doesn't work for me at all. In addition to the issues already raised, I think there are too many short sections, as in the Natural history section, which chop up the text unnecessarily. I'm also unconvinced that much of the material in the Hydrology section really belongs there; some of it looks a better fit with Geology. The need for a thorough copyedit of the whole article once the structure is fixed is very evident in sentences such as this one, picked almost at random: "Ports provide vehicle traffic service to regulate traffic and monitor vessels in the North Sea lanes." I just have no idea what that's trying to say.
  • Having said that, there are many things to like about this article, and the images all look good with appropriate licensing. I very much hope that the editors will not be discouraged by the failure of this GA nomination. This is a big topic, and a correspondingly big task that you've taken on. You're to be congratulated on what's been achieved so far.
--Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you also for your puttering on the article as well as the above comments. It is appreciated to look again at the article from a different respect now. It has been a wonderful learning process which is why I learn to write here. SriMesh | talk 04:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - - please put all GA review comments / responses above this line - - - - -

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Sea/GA1&oldid=1078755350"