User talk:Yashmeghare/sandbox

General

The map you are using is from Google Maps, there's probably copyright issues there On the Axial Seamount map, you may not need to define what the red dots are, there is a key on the figure. If you want to keep the caption, define the pink dots there too. The remaining figure doesn't need to say "by NOAA" just either cite the figure, or let the wikipedia metadata take care of it, I don't remember which.

Watch your repetitive statements throughout, you have a tendency to maybe unnecessarily rephrase

Intro

Maybe link to the Axial Seamount page when it is mentioned here? Some awkward wording around the first part of this section, maybe rephrase the first part to "The source of this chain is a hotspot located at X,X" and add a location spot; or roll it all into one, " The ridge itself stretches from the Aleutian Trench (wikipedia link if it exists) in the north to the hotspot's present location X,X". You then have two almost identical sentences about the movement of the pacific plate that should be reduced to one at least. Some redundancy in saying that the Axial seamount is the youngest as well Maybe for the penultimate/final sentence "The most studied seamounts are ..., although there are many other seamounts which have not yet been explored or studied" _-I don't like the repetition in the last three words, I would condense it to just explored or just studied or some other singular word

Form

Get rid of the "A lot", i.e. " Seamounts are formed at oceanic hot spots" Get rid of the "Many times" clause Start a new paragraph for the specifics of this seamount chain vs seamounts in general Lose the bit about the location, you've repeatedly mentioned that in this article Rephrase the part about the movement of the Pacific plate, the grammar is a bit awkward here. Consider splitting it into two if you can't rephrase in one.

Locations

You may want to drop this section altogether, it is fairly redundant, and you can just state the information in the next part.

Seamounts

By wikipedia convention this shouldn't be a numbered list, and you should have a separate smaller section underneath each heading pointing to the main wikipedia article, see the Military History section here

Axial Seamount

Probably should be volcanic eruption instead of explosion Formalise the language in the part about the height, try something like this -- " ... 700 m higher than the surrounding volcanoes, and 1000 m higher than the surrounding seafloor" you may want to lose the volcano mention entirely idk. Description of the specific types of lava might be too specific, up to you final part on biology, replace "were found in the region where there were hydro thermal vents present in the caldera" with something like "found near hydrothermal vents that were present in the caldera" - slightly shorter Also might want to try something like " Observing (researching? exploring? this biodiversity helped scientists understand Abyssal ecosystems"

BBV

May consider replacing second sentence with something like " It is to the northeast of the axial seamount and connected to it by a small ridge" although I think it is to the NW? Don't say that it was created by the Cobb hot spot, everything in this article was, maybe a bit redundant? Maybe rephrase spreading sentence: "Due to its distance from the jdf ridge, ocean floor spreading has less of an effect on the bbv" Check spelling on the next sentence ("As a result...") Last depth part, maybe try " It rises approximately 1000 m from the seafloor, to a depth of 1400."

Cobb

Title is probably repetitive, is it really the Cobb Cobb Seamount, that would be hilariously unfortunate Convert the units here to meters, for consistency with the rest of the article, probably fine with just estimation. Lose the specific comment about researchers, cite them as needed, but you probably don't need to talk about them specifically The section on specific composition seems too specific to me, but idk on that one You do mention research techniques again here, which you might consider changing, but I feel that it works better here Maybe add a concluding more general biological statement? pretty optional it's solid as is

Patton

Don't mention specifics of studies, just say the age and cite The next sentence is sort of repetitive You might be able to just say " The seamount is 183 m..." instead of " The summit of the seamount..." New paragraph for biology Lose the specifics of Alvin research? Watch the grammar around here " ...The deep water community consists..." etc, watch plural and tense here

Timeline

May want to drop this section, it is mentioned often the ages in other parts of the article, but if you like it, keep it

Other Seamounts

Cite each seamount, or at the least don't stick the citation in the headingPszczolak (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)