Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sea/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Sea

Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Sea/archive1

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap, Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Flushed with victory in the "Core Competition", we are nominating this for featured article. Khazar did a thorough GA review during the course of which he made various suggestions for improving the article, most of which we have followed up. It is a long article, but then we have tried to make it as comprehensive as possible while at the same time providing links to other articles that cover in greater detail the topics we have included. We hope you enjoy reading it as much as we have enjoyed writing it! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cwmhiraeth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Clearly there can be nobody better than Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth, winners of the Core Competition, to write about the sea. Anyway,

• I'm not a fan of the section-name Overview; isn't the lead itself supposed to be the overview?

The section could be given a different heading. It contains matter that is fundamental to the article and unsuitable for inclusion in the lead which is meant to be a summary of the contents of the body of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

(chiming in) - the content in the section currently labelled overview would be better described by the word definition (ie. it is discussing what it is/defined) - in which case the better would be to slot para 1 below paras 2 and 3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: Should add I hate the term overview for precisely the problem noted above - i.e. the lead is the overview....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have adopted Casliber's suggestion and renamed and rearranged the section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Also, shouldn't the legal stuff in that section be its own 2-3 paragraph subsection under Humans?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• I find "sea level rise" in the See also: shouldn't the effects of global warming etc be discussed in this article itself (maybe next to Marine pollution?); I think it's important enough to mention in the lead.

I'm working on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now added a short section on changes in sea level. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• The culture section has a strong Western bias (notwithstanding the occasional Japanese reference): instead of writing about individual works in different media, maybe you should do it culture-wise? "In the West, it was thought of this way; in Japan like this; in Africa like this etc...". It'd also serve to rein-in a somewhat unfocussed section (listing out so many Conrad books, for eg).

Having said that, it's great to have such vast and basic subjects at FAC. I wish you all the best.—indopug (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult, because we have access to Western sources rather than world sources. We could reduce the section and pare out some of the material which would improve the balance a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Drive-by comment. No, no, for FAC, we need the fully global perspective. Indopug's idea is worth considering. Paring down 'western' stuff not the answer. It may take some work to make the cultural persepctive global, not West+Japan. I would particularly expect sources/research available for Middle-east, South and South-east Asia and Pacific (I don't know about the Americas or Africa). Regarding article as a whole: awesome effort. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps add something about the Sea Gypsies of South Asia. PumpkinSky talk 13:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could remove the "In culture" section completely as being unnecessary in an article on a geographical subject. Alternatively, I could rewrite the section in the style of this part of the article Land (including Sea Gypsies and Polynesians etc). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that "in culture" is exactly the best way to express it, but the cultural significance of the sea of course must be covered. Bearing in mind that land is only start class, the general approach there seems feasible and preferable to the current one in sea. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely do not remove it. My suggestion is to change the title to "Cultural significance" and add the sea gypsies, polynesians, and whatever else you can find (except Western and Japanese as you already have those). PumpkinSky talk 16:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's another good one: Polynesian navigation PumpkinSky talk 17:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, I'm working on it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. We are working on your suggestions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now completely rewritten the Culture section and hope it meets with your approval. The Polynesians are already mentioned in the Navigation section earlier in the article. The Sea Gypsies seems not to have been a single ethnic group but a term applied to various maritime groups in southeastern Asia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Two things...the exploitation section is only two sentences and has no refs. Is this getting expanded? yes, sea gypsies is more than one group, but I don't see how people living on the sea doesn't apply to a "humans and the sea" section. PumpkinSky talk 23:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now written a short section on the Sea Gypsies. With regard to the two sentences under "Exploitation", they were just by way of introduction to the several sections that followed (Trade, Food production, Leisure etc.) - all ways in which the sea is used. I have abolished this introduction entirely. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Very nice. I fixed a date format and did two wiki links. PumpkinSky talk 14:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment Really cheering to see an article like this as a FAC - great work! Minor comments follow:

• Some bits need alternative metric/imperial stats added, e.g. "154 million tonnes", "300 metres offshore" etc.

Done, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• On my screen, the number of images looks excessive - there's a fair bit of overlap, with text being pushed around etc. "In art" and "Extractive industries" in particular seem to have a lot of pictures.

Some removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• "sixty percent", but later "87 percent" - worth being consistent in numbers/text

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Scientific oceanography " - it's defined in the lead, but worth defining in the main text when its first introduced.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Would be good to get at least a passing reference to ocean modelling, Geophysical fluid dynamics etc. in connection to the sea - a big field of study, and key to how we understand many of the phenomena mentioned in the article. "Ocean Circulation and Climate: Observing and Modelling the Global Ocean" might be a starting point for some of the literature.
• Unhelpfully, I can't give you a cite, but I'm pretty sure that the ability of the sea to absorb carbon dioxide forms an important buffer to global warming (if it didn't absorb CO2, the atmospheric % would be higher than it otherwise is). Don't know if anyone else can help you with a cite! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have dealt with the easy ones and will work on the others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added modelling links as suggested, with a brief discussion and references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from PSky

I always enjoy seeing work from Cwmhiraeth because it's always top-notch. Chap, I'm not familiar with your work but this article certainly gives a good impression. Excellent submission, guys!

• • Image check

File:Marine debris on Hawaiian coast.jpg needs a year

File:Buzo.jpg, English translation please. And that description needs a language parameter, it looks like Spanish to me.

File:Deutsche Fischfang Union Schiff Kiel 01.jpg same deal as Buzo, but it's German.

File:Euboea island.jpg same deal, I think that's Spanish again.

File:Thermohaline Circulation 2.png needs date and pls fix the numbered url

File:Propagation du tsunami en profondeur variable.gif English please, it's French

File:Putgarten, Kap Arkona (2011-05-21) 3.JPG English pls, it's German.

I've done these with the exception of "Deutsche Fischfang Union Schiff Kiel", the description of which I can't understand. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• • that tanker ship is clearly not loaded with oil! (just a comment, nothing to fix)
  • Other comments "Recreational diving is limited to depths of 100 feet (30 m), beyond which nitrogen narcosis may occur." I was an advanced scuba instructor. This is not totally true. Recreational divers are supposed to stay above that depth (but of course people, including me, break the rule all the time, haha), but narcosis can and does occur above that depth. It is true that the deeper you go, the more likely it is to occur. That statement needs tweaked. If you need it, I can help with the images that have German descriptions. PumpkinSky talk 11:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have rephrased that bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I did that one German one. I'm just waiting on the outcome of the culture section now. PumpkinSky talk 13:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support I support this now and think it should stayed named Sea, with whatever top notes may be needed. Love the gypsie section. PumpkinSky talk 14:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Hamiltonstone

My comments are currently confined to the "in culture" section, about which I would first say: absolutely marvellous re-write of the 'in culture' section, Cwmhiraeth - a quantum leap forward and very well done. I have a few concerns with it at present:

• I think the gigantic leap from ancient Greek to modern European literature, via only a single reference to Basho, is too much of a stretch. Can we find nothing written of notable relevance in that that yawning chasm of over one and a half millenia?

I have plugged the gap a bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I lost that one :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• I feel the following sentence is weak, describing something as notable and being somehow about the sea, without really telling us anything about what it says about the sea: "A well-known American maritime work is Herman Melville's 1851 novel Moby-Dick, describing the adventures of the sailor Ishmael, the whaleship Pequod, its Captain Ahab, and the white sperm whale, Moby Dick" I would be inclined to omit it, unless we can find a good line from a Melville scholar about the work's significance.

Rephrased and comment added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• We should not be confining the treatment of music to the classical in the final section, but to music generally. To elaborate: what about some reference to folk and traditional music portraying the sea's power and the perils of ocean travel, such as in the child ballad The Mermaid? Or the development by sailors of a distinctive genre, the sea shanty, the lyrics of which would often relate to life on the ocean?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• We need to find a really powerful ending, to ensure that the article is rounded out as brilliant prose. My first impulse was to find a brooding and profound reflection in a work reviewing Peter Grimes or the Interludes, which are a very appropriate work with which to conclude the WP article, because they present the sea in a range of moods. However, neither of my books on Britten (Carpenter biography; Whittall's The Music of Britten and Tippett) quite had the right thing. Maybe someone else can come up with something? Sorry not to be of more use on that front... hamiltonstone (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that a "really powerful" ending written in "brilliant prose" is not essential for a Featured Article. Snowman (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Snowman. The FA criteria do not say anything about a "powerful ending" or direct one toward how to present content--it just asks that the article is well-written and comprehensive, which this one is. If you want powerful endings...what do you want to cry, to feel elevated...seriously, look into screenwriting or fiction. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, briliant prose is what is required: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", and a professionally written article about a major subject like this would not just end at whatever the last point happens to be, without attempting to give the reader a sense of conclusion. The makings of it are perfect: the final subsection gives an excellent opportunity to do this, it is just a matter of finding the right material. If I can uncover anything, I will give it a go, but in my view it definitely needs the appropriately crafted conclusion. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The FAC process suffers from exactly this kind of attitude--reviewers adding their subjective longings to the an already clear criteria. If you could point to one place (other than your own personal sense or opinion) that says "must have a really powerful ending", I'd agree with you...but because you can't, I don't. Ridiculous. Give it a go for all its worth, but in the end, don't attempt to apply a rule that doesn't exist just because you "feel" it should.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't get your point. That it should include "engaging, even brilliant" prose, except at the end? Your argument appears to be that because the guidelines do not say "must have a really powerful ending", therefore it is invalid to suggest that in an article of this nature, a powerful ending is what one would expect "engaging, even brilliant prise of a professional standard" to look like. That seems a peculiarly narrow view of the FAC guidelines, and their intention. I'm happy with the suggestion I made to improve the article, and still believe the suggestion is consistent with the FAC guidelines. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at shaping a conclusion to the section. Will see if others are comfortable with it. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the recently added quote from Carson's 1951 book is out-of-date and unsuitable for the end of the article. The quote might have been fine in its time. I presume that the book is copyrighted and that a quote from it should not be used in the article. Snowman (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Its date is not particularly relevant - it is in the 'culture' section, not the science. Inclusion reflects the preeminent status of Carson's work and the influence of her ideas. Copyright is not relevant to quoting in this way. It is not a problem. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed to see what has happened to the "In culture" section, which had previously been very successfully rewritten, i thought. There is now an undue weight problem in the article, in which each of the sections "power generation" and "extractive industries" is longer than the entire section on culture. The level of detail in power generation, in contrast to the almost meaningless superficial consideration of culture, is completely untenable. I'm happy to have a go at editing down the energy section if noms want, but the culture section needs to be at least partly resurrected, regardless of the issue about overall article length (which personally i hadn't seen as much of an issue given the topic). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The Culture section was hived off in an effort to reduce the total length of the article which was perceived as being too large. We will expand it a bit to address your concerns without bringing it back to anything like its previous length. If you would like to pare down the "power generation" and "extractive industries" sections a bit to help restore balance, that would be most helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The culture section is only a click away. The topic has its own page now. Editors might like to work on the new article at "Sea in culture" without worrying about how it fits into a longer article. I think that the split is for the good of the Wikipaedia. See WP:TOOBIG for objective information about article size. WP:Splitting is sometimes necessary. Snowman (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think that it would be wise to discuss removal of referenced facts or text from any sections prior to any cutting, because such modifications may be controversial. Snowman (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Lower down this review page, I started a discussion, which you may not have noticed, about the Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Do you think that it should be included in the new summary of the sea in culture? It is the most famous work about the sea that I know; however, my background is science and not English literature. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is no citation at the end of the sentence "Over most of geologic time, the sea level has been higher than it is today. Only at the Permian-Triassic boundary, around 250 million years ago, was the long-term sea level lower than it is now." I have read the abstract of the cite for the following sentence (an article from Science - i do not have full text access), and it refers only to the Cretaceous period, so it looks like we dont' have a reference for the claims in that first sentence. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Have removed the second sentence, and added a citation for the first one. Sea level has been higher than it is now for part of the Tertiary, part of the Jurassic and a part of the Permian.Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell

I really like this article, and I'd love for a general topic like this to be featured. But there is a difficult conceptual problem that I'm not sure how to fix. A word like "sea" can mean different things. This article generally uses the definition as given in the lede, that "The sea is the connected body of salt water that covers over 70 percent of the Earth's surface." I'll call that the holistic definition of the word Sea. It is also common for a "sea" to mean a specific body of water, and I'll call this the reductionist definition of Sea. The "Definition" section of this article admirably describes the reductionist definition as well, but the rest of the article assumes the holistic definition when discussing all other aspects of the topic.

The trouble is, nearly every other article on Wikipedia makes the opposite assumption. Sea (disambiguation) refers to Sea by calling it "a large body of water", referring to only the reductionist definition. The Ocean article claims "The word 'sea' is often used interchangeably with 'ocean' but, strictly speaking, a sea is a body of saline water (possibly a division of the World Ocean) partly or fully enclosed by land." (It references Princeton's WordNet Search for support when claiming this.) The World Ocean article seems to describe the same subject that this Sea article covers, but it links to sea only when mentioning a particular sea. Both Template:Regions of the world and Template:List of seas link to the Sea article under the assumption that it will cover the reductionist definition. A brief perusal through Special:WhatLinksHere/Sea leads me to believe that 90% of the time a reader gets to the Sea article through a wikilink, she will expect to see an article primarily about the various individual seas, and not about the world ocean. This is a problem.

But I am not suggesting that this article be rewritten to refer to individual seas! We have List of seas for that. I also think that "the sea" may well be the most common way of referring to the World Ocean in English, with "the ocean" being the other major contender. So we have an organization problem that encompasses multiple articles. How should this be organized? What should be the main article that has information about the totality of connected saltwater on Earth? If Sea is that article, then should Ocean simply be a redirect to Sea? If not, what separate information should the Ocean article cover? Should World Ocean just be a redirect here? There doesn't seem to be a consensus about any of this, since these articles all duplicate much of the same information and claim different things when they link to each other. And without some consensus regarding these issues, I can't be confident that the organization suggested here is correct and deserves to be featured.

I'm sure that Sea is by far the best article among the three. I'd love to find some resolution to this, and I'm open to suggestions from anyone. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I agree that the matter you mention is a problem and it has been discussed elsewhere since we started expanding this article, without resolution. I believe the problem boils down to the difference between American and British English. In the United Kingdom we talk of "going to the sea", "swimming in the sea" or "crossing the sea" and would only use the term "crossing the ocean" for a trans-Atlantic or similar journey. The difference is nicely illustrated by the captions to an image in the Ocean article which reads "Waves on an ocean coast" and one in the Sea article which reads "Coastal sea waves in the Gulf of Santa Catalina". The present article "Ocean" is mostly about the 5 oceans of the world and about extra-terrestrial oceans and there is in fact little overlap with our article Sea. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur with this reading. 'The sea' is essentially equivalent not to 'Ocean' but to the far more specialized term 'World ocean'. We Brits use 'ocean' only with a name, e.g. The Atlantic (ocean). The opposite overlap, with List of seas, is as Cwmhiraeth says already handled. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Imagine if the article at Georgia were about the country, with a small section mentioning the U.S. state... but 90% of links to Georgia were clearly referencing the state. That would be a problem. If Georgia were an FAC, that would at the very least indicate future stability concerns, along with other concerns. Or imagine an FAC of football, where the article was about association football, but where 90% of links clearly indicated the reader would expect an article on American gridiron (and those articles typically linked to a separate, competing soccer article about association football). I think that would be a legitimate concern in a FAC. In the cases of Georgia and football, a solution has been ironed out through consensus and disambiguation, and Wikipedia articles are usually predictable in how they link to those articles. That hasn't happened here, and I'm unwilling to support this FAC until the issue is resolved. I'm truly sorry; the article is very good, and I'd like to see it featured. I just can't ignore 90% of inbound wikilinks. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this case is analogous to either of those. "The Sea: is more of a collective term and so integrally related to any smaller subsets thereof. I think the interrelation is such that the topic crossover can be discussed as a whole. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: I am not currently opposing (nor supporting) this FAC. I do believe the questions regarding subject and scope are important and should be dealt with... but I honestly don't whether they are problems with this article or with other related articles, so I can't tell if it's a legitimate reason to oppose. Whether this makes it to FA status or not, I hope we achieve some sort of consistency between what "sea" means in articles that link here, and what "sea" means in this article. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

How about we move Sea to The sea, redirect World Ocean to The sea, and make the article Sea either about the small body of water or a disambiguation page? Using "the" in a title is common: See The Crown, The Holocaust, etc. - Ypnypn (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy with that course of action. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Hmm... it sounds like a good idea to me. Would anyone object to such a change? – Quadell ^(talk) 17:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that solution sounds promising. I favour Sea not being just a disambig, but being about the small body of water - certainly that is what i was expecting to read about, when i saw this at FAC and clicked through. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe sea can redirect to List of seas. LittleJerry (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I like Ypnypn's and LittleJerry's suggestions. I'd also suggest that Ocean#Earth's global ocean should also be merged into the current article/The sea, which has basically already been done with the exception of two sections, Ocean#Divisions and Ocean#Zones and depths. I think an overview on the sea should definitely cover those two topics. One last minor note: the lead should mention that the phrases "the sea" and "the ocean" are synonymous in the context of this article.

It's fantastic to see an article of such importance here—carry on! Cobblet (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have altered the lead as you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• To be fair, if you check out the article talk page, you'll notice I brought up this definitional issue involving "sea", "the sea", "ocean", and "world ocean"... And was ignored. Can't help but grumble a tad to see the suggestion accepted with open arms when by someone else. *sigh* At least the problem is finally being given the attention it deserves --Coin945 (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• And I quote: "Thanks for the good wishes, but I really don't think that'd be a good idea. Generally the article ("The" or "A") is only used in titles of books and films (like "The Cruel Sea"), and never in articles on normal topics. So I expect if we tried it, it would get reverted. Your view of "Sea" does seem very close to what I'd think of as "List of seas", however, and I'd be happy to support you if you'd like to go in that direction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 6:19 pm, 24 April 2013, Wednesday (4 months, 11 days ago) (UTC+8)"--Coin945 (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal So that this FAC can move on, I would like to propose that the article be renamed "The sea" and that the page "Sea" become a disambiguation page. I would then propose that any further discussions on the name of the article and the merging of other articles into it could take place on the talk page of the article.

Adopting this proposal would enable this FAC discussion to focus on the merits and faults of the article rather than its name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Chiswick in that we don't normally put articles in front of article names unless it's a title. Is there such an instance, such as "The air"? To me this whole discussion over "Sea" vs "The sea" is extremely UNDUE and it has stymied the FAC. I think the article should remain named [{Sea]] with hatnotes to other artice(s) as needed. On another note, no one ever responded to my past post of 22 Aug. PumpkinSky talk 10:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your view. I have responded to the previous post now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the heading "Sea" is fine for the Wiki article. OED has "sea", but does not have "the sea" as a page heading for definitions, but it lists examples of the use of "the sea". Curiously, The sea did not exist on the Wiki, so I have just created a redirect from "The sea" to "Sea". Note that The Sea (different capitalisation) is a dab. I have amended the signpost headers. Snowman (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that the "Sea" article has 2000 hits per day. It is obvious that "Sea" should be a primary topic. No changes in the name of this article are needed. Snowman (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Snowman. I did not want to adopt the proposal I made and agree with what you say. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• If there is ambiguity to what the name refers to, maybe the alternate definition should be briefly mentioned in the intro as well? FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have rather belatedly done this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment on possible problems for disambiguation or navigation that might result from changing the current redirects. Currently, World ocean and (I gather, thanks to Snowman) The sea redirect to Sea. As far as I can see, changing which of those three names actually holds the content would have little effect on navigation. By the way, a quick scan of a small, arbitrary set of pages linking to Sea suggests that most of the those links do intend to refer to this super-body of water. As was suggested above, The Sea is the name of several works of art, and The Sea (with capital S) disambiguates them. My personal opinion is that 'Sea' is an appropriate title, and that 'Sea', 'The sea', and 'World ocean' should each point to the same content via redirects. Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done *Be consistent in how you format web citations - for example, is the website name italicized or not?

• Compare FNs 2 and 3 and 24 - why the different approach?
• What makes about.com a high-quality reliable source?
• Book citations almost always need page numbers and publishers
• Use a consistent date format
• Why do some books cited multiple times use short citations while others don't?
• Compare FNs 19 and 58
• FN60: formatting
• FN89: missing italics
• Be consistent in how you treat sources with no named author
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books; if you do, you'll need to be more specific than "United States"
• What makes this a high-quality RS?

Stopping and oppose for now - sorry guys, but there's a significant amount of cleaning up needed wrt citations/sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria. I will work to resolve the points you raise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with Nikkimaria that a fair number of the citations were not up to scratch. I have now finished going through all of them and hope that the anomalies are gone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the amount of changes that've been done, restarting this...

• Publications like National Geographic and Nature should be italicized
• Compare FNs 18 and 31
• Foreign-language sources (ex FN41) should be identified as such
• Use a consistent date format - compare for example FNs 42 and 43
• Compare FNs 54 and 69 and 94
• FN74: pages?
• FN90: should specify DC
• FN95: italicization is backwards
• What makes Military.com a high-quality reliable source?
• FN124: ISBN?
• FN145: don't italicize quotations
• FN147: page(s)?
• FN170: any reason to not just cite the Bible directly?
• FN172: formatting
• FN173: what kind of source is this?
• I'm a bit concerned about your use of primary sources in some cases. For example, you cite "A well-known American maritime work is Herman Melville's 1851 novel Moby-Dick" to Moby-Dick - that citation confirms that a work by that title from that year exists, but not that it's a "well-known American maritime work". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria. I will work through these starting at the end in case the reference numbers alter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap and I have now dealt with all these points, including replacing the references that you questioned with better sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Snowmanradio

• Where did the water in the sea come from? Snowman (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

added, ref Stow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

But "water from volcanoes" does not explain why there is so much water on the Earth. I am puzzled by your recent addition about volcanoes. Possible omission; modern ideas that vast amounts of water on Earth came to the Earth on colliding comets; see Comets Created Earth's Oceans, Study Concludes. I asked for "water from Comets" in this articles Good Article review, and I assumed that the main editors of this article had read it. There are probably better sources for the article. This is well known in the UK, because it has been in a BBC TV documentary. Snowman (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

added comet source, ref Nature. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Possible mission; something about how long ago comet bombardment happened. Snowman (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The age of the water is clearly ancient but in dispute, see Water on Earth and Moon May Have Same Source. Either when earth was 100m years old, or later. Perhaps matter for another article than this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• How unusual is it for a planet to have a sea? Snowman (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

added Earth alone with surface water in solar system, other planets may have water, refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• The image File:Tide overview.svg needs an arrow to each of the two high tides to improve clarity. Snowman (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

label added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I am interested to see dream symbolism is included. However; "collective unconscious" appears in the introduction and nowhere else in the article. Please provide text in the main text and verification in a source. Snowman (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

In Dreams by Jung page 122 does say that the sea is a symbol of the collective unconscious. Possible omission; the sea can also be a symbol of the (personal) unconscious; see Dreams by Jung, pages 192, 230, and 276, which refer to the sea as the (personal) unconscious. My version of the book is published by Ark paperbacks and so the page numbers may not be the same as the book cited in the article. Snowman (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

added personal unconscious, using Ark edition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "parts per thousand (ppt)". Can be confused with parts per trillion; see Parts-per notation. Snowman (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What about using the the permille (‰) symbol? Snowman (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, why not - done. (introduced it on first usage). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Snowmanradio. I will work on these points. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The amount of oxygen found in seawater depends primarily on the plants growing in it." Possible omission: Oxygen dissolved in water is dependant on temperature (school chemistry); see engineeringtoolbox.com and paper in Nature. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

added warming effect, ref Nature, thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission; Personal transport (not holiday cruises which is included). People getting from A to B, particularly on ships prior to popular air-travel. Snowman (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth has added a new section on this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission; some of the constituents of sea water are included in the text. I wonder if a table of constituents (possibly with ranges of concentrations) would enable inclusion of more constituents. The "Seawater" section is long and there is plenty of room for a table. Snowman (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping that more constituents would be added to the table? The article says "... bromides and other salts." Snowman (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

ok, added some more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Problem: "This renewable energy, derived ultimately from the flow of energy from the sun." Tidal energy arises mainly from the relative motion of the Earth and Moon and (article says tidal energy is from the energy of the Sun). Is tidal energy renewable? Tidal energy is from the motion of the Earth and Sun and tidal energy has contributed to the slowing of the Earth's rotation and this energy is not renewed. Tidal energy can be called "green" energy. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed sun clause, said 'green'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the energy could be called sustainable energy, but probably not renewable energy. Fine as it is now using 'green'. Snowman (talk)

• Problem: "The sea offers a very large supply of kinetic energy which is carried by ocean waves, tides, salinity differences, and ocean temperature differences.". Seawater is higher on one side of a tidal barrier and this difference is exploited to force seawater through turbines to produce energy. I think that this exploits potential energy and not kinetic energy. In any event the flow of seawater on both sides of a complete sea barrier would be halted and so the kinetic energy of the flow of moving water on either side of the barrier is essentially zero. In another type of energy production, I think that kinetic energy can be extracted from turbines fixed to the seabed in fast flowing tidal seawater without using a sea barrier. Also, salinity differences and temperature differences are not conventionally classed at kinetic energy, as far as I am aware. Temperature relates to speed of atoms or molecules and associated energy is usually called heat energy. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Removed 'kinetic'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The Moon is 27 million times smaller than the Sun, ...". Does this refer to the masses of the Sun and Moon? Snowman (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Edited sentence.

• Problem; "This means that its gravitational pull at the Earth's surface is more than twice as great as that of the Sun."

F= Gx(M1xEarth's_mass/rxr), enter numbers in separate equations for Moon and Sun and divide F for moon and F fur Sun to get;

(Mass of Moon/250,000x250,000) / (Mass of Sun/93,000,000x93,000,000) leads to

(1/62,500,000,000) / (27,000,000/8,649,000,000,000,000) leads to

(1/62,500) / (27/8,649) leads to

8,649/(62,500x27) leads to 0.005125 or about 1/200. Are my calculations correct?

This means that the Moon's gravitational pull on the Earth's surface is about 1/200 as strong as the Sun's gravitational pull on the Earth's surface. I think that the effect on gravity of the Moon and the Sun on tides is more to do with gravitational gradients, the differences in the pull of gravity on each side of the Earth by the Moon or the Sun (please do not quote this without a RS). A small object would rotate around the Sun in orbit in a state of "weightlessness", this might help thinking of a large object in orbit around the Sun and tides. Snowman (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: I have removed what looks like nonsense about gravity from the article. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have just found something at Tidal Forces and their Effects in the Solar System. As can be expected, it confirms that gravitational force is proportional to the inverse square. It uses a the term "tidal force" which is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance between the relevant solar system objects. The article should have been referring to "tidal force" (inverse cube) and not "gravitational pull" (inverse square) when saying that the influence of the Moon on tides is about 2.2 times that of the Sun. I am wondering how much detail should be included in the article. It seems that there some misconceptions about tides are easy to find, so I might be minded to include more appropriate detail, since tides are fundamental to the sea. The inverse cube relationship for tidal force could be something interesting to include. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Added a brief explanation of the tidal force with footnote and Admiralty Manual reference. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I think that is enough and will be something interesting for readers to think about. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The difference in height between the high tide and low tide is known as the tidal range." Possible omission: "tidal amplitude" as an alternative name for tidal range. I am not sure if it is included in the source provided. Snowman (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Added a footnote with reference. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: the water cycle, perhaps with a brief mention for "cloud forests" or what ever they are called, places that have little rain and where the plants and creatures survive mainly on the water carried in sea mists. Snowman (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We considered this, and did not include it as the sea, like the atmosphere, mountains, soil, and rivers, plays a part in the water cycle but does not 'own' it. Atmosphere for instance does not mention it either. Perhaps it's just outside this article's scope. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that water cycle is well within the scope of this article on sea. I had a quick look at what links here for the "Water cycle" article and found that a lot of articles included it. River includes the water cycle referring to it a hydrological cycle, a redirect to "water cycle". Sea level also includes it wikilinking one of the redirects to water cycle. Snowman (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Have added a section on the sea's part in the water/hydrological cycle. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: Burial at sea. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Have added a section on this (at end of In culture). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Is the article too long? See WP:TOOBIG, which says "> 60 kB - Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". The "Culture section" is a target to be split off leaving a very short culture section here. Current article size as shown by "Page size" facility;

File size: 465 kB

Prose size (including all HTML code): 120 kB

References (including all HTML code): 15 kB

Wiki text: 137 kB

Prose size (text only): 72 kB (12127 words) "readable prose size"

References (text only): 1103 B. Snowman (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Lets see what others think about the size of the article. There are other featured articles that are just as big, and every time you write "Possible omission", it gets larger ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the page as it is is well rounded and a great read. I am having a great deal of trouble thinking what we'd cut if we had to cut anything. If we really really had to trim the article, the only section that I feel is a little specific is the Passenger transport section's focus on transatlantic liners, but removing or trimming that would make it very stubby, and it does help portray well how people have travelled on the sea. I think I am happy with content as is. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

May I ask if User Casliber's opinion was sought, because it was felt that he may calculate its length in a completely different way and has been tolerant of a long articles before; see User Cwmhiraeth's comment. I am sure that User Casliber gave his honest opinion and I think that he has advanced the discussion. Nevertheless, May I ask if a user's established opinion was canvassed and and ask if canvassing has introduced a bias to the discussion here. Snowman (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I did indeed ask Casliber for his opinion because I respect his judgement and great FA experience and knew he would give an unbiased view. In the same way, I asked Nikkimaria if she could do a source review because I knew she was a hard taskmaster and would do a thorough job. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that it would be better to follow the guideline on size since this article would be easy to subdivide two articles. The guideline provides explanations, which I do not need to reiterate here. A more drastic solution could be to split off most of "Humans and the sea" leaving a summary of it in the article. This would divide the article roughly in half. A lot of the sections have an a main article somewhere else on the Wiki and perhaps this huge section could follow this pattern. Snowman (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Having created this article and tried to make it as balanced as possible, I am not keen to lop off any of its limbs. However, if there was a consensus opinion that the article was too long and part needed to go, I would be prepared to explore how that could best be done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size is a guideline and it indicates a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow. Wikipedia:Splitting is a information page. Both are based on a communal consensus. Actually, the split article ("Humans and the sea") could be quite good. The current article will take an average person one hour to read and this is longer than concentration span (according to Wikipedia:Article size). The "Humans and the sea" section looks like a mixture of all sorts of things added in that have a connection with the sea. To use anthropological terms, I do not see it as "cutting of a limb", I see it as getting rid of fat tissue. Snowman (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: While Article size might be a guideline, at 133K this article is shorter than the FA I worked on, Alcohol laws of New Jersey, which is 153K. I disagree with your insistence upon splitting.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the alcohol laws article is 58 kB (9613 words) of readable prose size (this excludes mark-up code, which is not seen on the rendered page). After splitting the culture section, "Sea" is currently 63 kB (10635 words). I am happy to go with the flow using the current article organization (with the reduced culture section) to see what happens. Snowman (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The article size of "Sea" is now 68 kB (11417 words) of readable prose size. There is plenty of space on the Wiki and I think that this article can easily be split. Please do not let the long article size jeopardise writing styles. Snowman (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: as suggested at WP:PROSPLIT, I have started a discussion on Talk:Sea about the possibility of splitting the article. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• The heading "Food production" does not seem right for a section that includes hunting wild animals (ie fishing and whaling). I have been trying to think of a better title or to divide the section into two sections each with suitable headings. Snowman (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed 'Production'. Perhaps that's better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• The heading "Primary producers" : Jargon. Snowman (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we can try 'Plants', though in modern terms it doesn't really cover the microscopic organisms that photosynthesize. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I see what it means now, so I have put "Photosynthetic organisms". Snowman (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Adabow below has a similar issue with 'Plants'. I suggest we go for 'Producers' (plants, algae etc) and 'Consumers' (animals, detritivores etc). It's accurate and not overly technical. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not resolved. I see what you mean, but I have never heard of those words used before like that. I think that "produces" and "consumers" is jargon also. I think that these headings should be more easy to understand. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hm. We could say 'Autotrophs' and 'Heterotrophs' but I suspect that they would not suit; we could say 'Animals and other consumers', 'Plants and other producers', a bit klunky and doesn't avoid the terms; we can use 'Plants' and 'Animals', accepting they're not perfect for the sake of simplicity. There aren't any totally everyday terms that perfectly correspond with producer and consumer. Which would you prefer? WP articles commonly use technical terms, with wikilinks to explain them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

"Plants, algae and many bacteria"? "Animals, fungi and many bacteria"? Snowman (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say we need something snappier, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the section headings to "Algae and plants" and "Animals and other marine life" which is simple English and I think covers the contents of the section adequately. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Without implying corroboration, that looks more suitable to me.. Snowman (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Omission: I think a section is needed to cover the geography of the sea. This would included some details of borders of the oceans and other details of the Oceans. Snowman (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Geography section added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that something has been added, but it is not what I meant. Some of what has been added probably belongs in the history section. Perhaps, I should re-phrase the problem more clearly. The article does not have the "anatomy" of the oceans, the names of the oceans, where the oceans are, where the deep places and shallow places are, and perhaps where the frozen places are, and so on. Labelled map (or maps) of the world might help to show the location of the various oceans and the where deep trenches are and so on. The location of some of the bigger seas could also be added, but I would at least expect the article to have a labelled map of the oceans and their key features. As far as I am aware "Geography" is an earth science, which is one of the physical sciences, so I have re-organised the headings. Snowman (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think what you are suggesting is adequately covered in the article Ocean but we could look for a suitable map to include here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A big proportion of what is in this article is covered in other Wiki articles. The main questions are; Is it in the scope of this article on sea?, How much detail is needed here?, How is information organised across the relevant articles on the Wikipedia?. Snowman (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Basically a top-level, key subject article like this is an overview of many other articles, and tries to present a readable introduction to the subject from which the reader will move on to more detailed pages. This means there are bound to be overlaps and in fact there should be. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: Swell (ocean); not covered nor not defined. Snowman (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

added sentence, wl, ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The addition is; "A regular pattern of waves, swell, once created, can travel right across an ocean." I do not understand this. What is a swell? A regular pattern of waves could be almost anything. Snowman (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Merged mentions of swell, added quote to ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Problem; Much of the section on navigation is about exploration. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

added 'and exploration'; it seems to form a coherent history section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: The navigation does not mention longitude nor the marine chronometer nor other technical advances in shipping, maps, diving, or measuring sea depth. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Added information on navigation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: exploration of the sea depths. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This is mentioned briefly near the end of the "Animals and other marine life" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There is not much about the history of Deep-sea exploration there. Snowman (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: submarines from the warfare section. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible balance problem: Sea Gypsies are included but not Eskimos, who are populations that also live a lifestyle based on the sea (albeit frozen sea). Snowman (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The Inuit's hunting is now mentioned (next item). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible balance problem: Marsh samphire is included as a food but seals as food for Eskimos is omitted. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Added sentence on indigenous hunting of seals and whales by Inuit, ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Are all the external links needed in the "External links" section? Snowman (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There are now only 2, NOAA and Oceans (Open Directory Project), which seems reasonable if you're happy with those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Are they consistent with WP:EL? Do they provide a unique resource? Snowman (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

These are major, unique resources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Are all the Wikilinks in the "See also" section needed? Snowman (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Used 2 in article, deleted the other 2 as basically irrelevant, so removed the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Where do does the Wikibook and the portal go now? Snowman (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

They are beside the Notes which seems reasonable, unless there's a better home for them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines on this? Snowman (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

They normally go in the See also, which we now don't have, so we just have to do our best here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It is appropriate to put it on its a new "See also" section, possibly with Wikibooks? Snowman (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If you prefer. I'm sure someone will tweak it if there's a preferred style in this situation but there's no fixed standard to follow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The current structure using Wikilinks instead of the signpost boxes in a "See also section" may be tidier. It will be interesting to see if it improved. Snowman (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I was mystified about the 10,000 Greeks image, so I did a bit of searching. Can the caption be improved? After a bit of searching I found this here; "A famous part of the Anabasis is Xenophon's description of the Greeks, shouting "Thalassa, thalassa" (the sea, the sea) at the top of a great dune, when they saw the sea." I presume the famous quote is "Thalassa, thalassa". Is the quote I found relevant to the image? Snowman (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, more or less. A fuller quote is in the Xenophon ref in the article; have copied the ref to the caption for convenience. The usual spelling of sea in the quote has -tt- as opposed to the more modern -ss-. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I am still puzzled why the image is in black and white. I would have expected a painting to be in colour. Is a colour version of the image availabe? Snowman (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen a colour version (nor has Google); the painting was litho printed in monochrome in a book, Hutchinson's History of the Nations, and that's where Life got it from. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I expect that details of the painting are catalogued somewhere. It seems to me that the caption should explain that this is a black and white version of a colour painting, if this is what has happened. Also, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(captions) says that the date should be included for captions of paintings. Snowman (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Have added the date and "monochrome printed version" to the caption. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear why the Greeks were pleased to see the sea, if that is what there words mean. They would not want to drink it. The caption seems to be inadequate to me. I have had to search to find out why the image has been added to the this page. The Wiki article, Anabasis (Xenophon), says that when the army saw the sea they knew where they were. According the the Wiki, for them the sea was a significant "landmark" helping them to determine their bearings. Is historic literature about an army being pleased to see the sea, because it indicated their location was in "home" territory within the scope of this article? Snowman (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think that more easy-to-find wikilinks are needed in the captions to be consistent with the guidelines. Snowman (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. The Xenophon one is done, will look through the others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you adding in-line refs? They are often in the article. My suggested problem was that more easy-to-find Wikilinks need adding in captions. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I copied refs to the captions that possibly needed them. Hope that's ok now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: radioactive substances as pollution. Possibly from damaged Japanese power stations. Possibly from historical nuclear bomb tests. Snowman (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: nuclear submarines armed with nuclear warheads from the warfare section. Snowman (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Omission: Many nuclear power stations are on the coast to make use of water as a coolant (heat dump). This would be another addition for the use of the sea in the "Humans and the sea" section. Snowman (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Balance problem; about the nuclear deterrent of nuclear armed submarines. "... their possible replacement and future roles are being questioned." This is a political issue and some people answer these questions by been certain that a nuclear deterrent is needed and they explain more about nuclear proliferation and the possibility of being attacked. The article should be more balanced and present both side of the discussion. Some people would say that the dangers of the cold war have subsided. Some people would say that the dangers arising from nuclear proliferation have increased. Snowman (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

removed political clause, the article isn't the place for that discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that the political issue has been removed, the remaining information on nuclear submarines looks odd at the end of a paragraph on WWII. Dates of the age of nuclear submarines would help the reader. Snowman (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Omission; Current research and exploration, likely future research directions, and likely future exploration. Snowman (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The Oceanography article does not go into details of the direction of future research and I don't think we should speculate either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to what might be found in reliable sources about future research directions. Current research and exploration is omitted. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I note that a user has also commented on this omission on the talk page. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Added by Chiswick Chap. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• The current second paragraph in the "Geography" section is about the history of geography and so it is not in the right place. Snowman (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Moved to History section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Problem: The caption "Movement of molecules as waves pass". What sort of waves? All sorts of waves or a particular type of wave? Does this include ripples? Snowman (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is the same for all waves but is more easily demonstrated with ripples. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Without implying corroboration, I would guess that you are correct. Snowman (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Omission: The pollution section of the article does not report on what is legal or illegal to dump at sea; see Marine_debris#Laws_and_treaties. 17:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Problem: "... falls as rain or snow, thereby sustaining life on land, and returns to the sea." Not all rain returns to the sea; see Endorheic basin. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Problem: the geography section is currently mainly about the definition of geography. Specific details of the geography of the Earth's sea are missing. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify. I found this quote "Marine geography draws on the traditional and well-established skills of the geographer to observe, map, survey, analyse and interpret a wide range of physical and human variables but focuses on the natural and social science of the sea and coastline." That's what we have tried to do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I see. I will think about the heading structure. Snowman (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have put explanations of marine disciplines relevant to physical science in one paragraph. Perhaps, explanations of more disciplines can be added. Snowman (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Puzzle: Re File:Marine debris on Hawaiian coast.jpg. Why is there so much rubbish on the shore there? Was it after a hurricane? Does not look typical for a British beach. Snowman (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Hawaii is not so far from the Great Pacific garbage patch. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe or maybe not, I am not sure. The puzzle about the picture remains, because none of this is explained in the article nor the caption. The amount of rubbish looks exceptionally large. In Commons:Category:Beaches_of_Hawaii most of the beaches have little or no rubbish, and only a small minority of the photographs there show a lot of rubbish. The article may have a balance problem in showing a photograph featuring a lot rubbish, without indicating why there is so much rubbish there or anything about the beaches that do not have much rubbish on them. Snowman (talk) 09:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the image to restore balance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Omission: I think that it would be worth explaining why seawater will not quench a thirst and would be harmful. Missing basic information. Snowman (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is beyond the scope of this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I should have put that it is an omission the fact that drinking seawater will not rehydrate (common knowledge). The reasons for this can be explained on a liked page. I think that this is basic essential information and I think that it should be included, partly because the topic of desalination to make drinking water is included. It could be included briefly. Snowman (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Added a sentence in Seawater. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission; Endorheic basin. This topic features in Book:Seas. Snowman (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have just found the addition in the section of the water cycle. Snowman (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Omission: Deep water source cooling for air conditioning. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is outside the scope of the article. It is not specifically about the sea but about any large volume of cold water including lakes, rivers and aquifers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It is energy efficient and its use may extend. I would guess that it is more important than the Rankine cycle heat engine, which is included in the article. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible balance problem; the Suez Canal is included, but the Panama Canal is not. Snowman (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

In progress... Added Panama Canal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia contradiction about radioactive pollution in Japan. In this article: "The amount of caesium-137 discharged in this event was relatively small ...". In Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster; "This emission of radioactivity into the sea represents the most important individual emissions of artificial radioactivity into the sea ever observed". Snowman (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Trimmed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission. Invasive species (from the "Humans in the sea" section). Snowman (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Misleading: "Cold water is denser than warm water and tends to sink." It is generally true, but not near freezing point. If this was true, then water would freeze from the bottom and not the surface. When water cools from about 4C to zero it expands, thus cold water remains at the surface and the surface freezes and insulates. Snowman (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Scope; Wind power is not power from the sea, however, some wind turbines happen to be placed out at sea. Snowman (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The short paragraph is about Offshore wind power and therefore I think it is relevant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I see. Snowman (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: lighthouses and foghorns. Snowman (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Lighthouse added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Section organisation problem. The last paragraph of the "Leisure" section includes US Navy divers going down to over 600 m and special manned submarines going down to 6000 m, which is professional diving and exploration. Readers might want to find some information quickly and this will be more difficult by looking for information under the wrong heading. Snowman (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission; general information on underwater diving (or swimming) as a profession or as work. Much is made of diving for leisure in the article. Snowman (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This would cause lack of balance as the article does not include information on other marine occupations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission; deaths at sea and drowning. Numbers. Snowman (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission; the sport of Offshore powerboat racing. Snowman (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Problem; "In modern European literature, sea-inspired novels have been written by Joseph Conrad,[214] Herman Wouk,[215] and Herman Melville." Melville was an American. Snowman (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission; Should The Rime of the Ancient Mariner be included? If not, why not? Snowman (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think not, now that the Culture section has been hived off. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that The Rime of the Ancient Mariner has a wiki page on The Rime of the Ancient Mariner in popular culture. I think that this work is important. Snowman

• Lack of detail; The topic of coastal erosion in detail, the sea moving sand and shale and reshaping the coast. Governments spend a lot of money on sea defences. Snowman (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Good point! I will work on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

To me, that looks like a good new section. It is what I was expecting when I mentioned a missing geography section above. I think that Spit (landform) and groyne (groin in the United States) should be included. At this juncture, I do not want to increase the load-time of the article by adding more images, but I think that an image of a groyne showing different levels of sand on either side of it would illustrative of a groyne limiting drift parallel to the beach. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Omission; Tidal defences. Sea walls and other sea defences, Thames Barrier, Dykes in the Netherlands, Levi (? spelling) in USA. Snowman (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I will include this in the coastal erosion paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission; Land reclamation from the sea. Airports built on man-made islands. Snowman (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Clarity problem; "... Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011 may pollute the sea." This sounds vague. Snowman (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• I note it has been changed too "Nuclear accidents as at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011 may pollute the sea." Please make an attempt to say if nuclear accidents have or have not polluted the sea with radiation. In think "may pollute the sea" is too vague. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Balance problem and omission; Caulerpa lentillifera (or sea grapes) are eaten in the far East. The Wiki article describes what sounds like a modest industry in cultivating them. Snowman (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sea grapes are a kind of algae and algaculture is already included in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Re thermal difference energy; "The projected cost per kilowatt has prevented the use of this technology for commercial energy production". It looks like there is quite a lot of research is being done on this, so it might not be as hopeless at the article indicates. There is something on JetWit.com, but I am not sure if it is RS. Snowman (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• eutrophication; Jargon. Snowman (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission; a detailed account of shape and extent of the ocean basins, continental drift, mid-ocean ridges, oceanic trenches and plate tectonics. Snowman (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

May need refining. Snowman (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission; marine occupations in detail. Snowman (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is beyond the scope of this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The article has a section on "Humans and the sea", so how can a section on humans who work at sea be outside the scope of the article? Snowman (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of the subsections in "Humans and the sea" are about the different ways in which the sea is used for industrial purposes, trade, transport, leisure etc. It is obvious that these need employees, and that there must be services to support them. To write about these occupations in detail is beyond the scope of this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there is a lot about diving for leisure (including a photograph) and not much about professional divers. Snowman (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Given this and the talk page request, we are considering the best way to handle this topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission; Definition section. A small part of the sea can be called gulf, bay, or strait. Snowman (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Verifiability problem. " a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae Stow, Dorrik (2004). Encyclopedia of the Oceans. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860687-7." You can not expect readers to read a whole book to verify a fact. Stow's book "Enclopaedia of the Oceans is 256 pages. You can only quote a maximum of a small page ranges only from a book. It is in the Wiki guidelines for verifiability. Same for "a b Kindersley, Dorling (2011). Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Ocean. Dorling Kindersley." and "Cotterell, Arthur (ed.) (2000). World Mythology. Parragon. ISBN 978-0-7525-3037-6.". Snowman (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what is happening here. In response to another reviewer's detailed request we've used RP numbering for the repeated references, so the item appears just once but with different page numbers in the text.Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I have not seen it used before. There is more about it on Template:Rp, which says "This template is only intended for sources that are used many, many times in the same article ..." Update: I have changed the format too {{rp|pages=233–7}} to get "p" or "pp" rendered, and and it is clearer that the numbers mean the pages of the books. Snowman (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission; planetology of surface water. Apparently Mars had a lot of water and possibly big oceans 3.8 billion years ago; see Water on Mars. Snowman (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is about "the connected body of salty water that covers over 70 percent of the Earth's surface." I don't think that water that may at one time have been present on Mars is within its scope. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A possible "sea" on Mars in the distant past may help to put things in context with considerations on why the Earth has kept its water so far. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I recall that the reason why Mars is thought to have mostly dried up is that its gravity is not strong enough to prevent fast moving atoms and molecules in the atmosphere (including water vapour) from leaving the planet; however, the stronger Earth's gravity prevents H2O molecules (water vapour) from leaving the Earth (at the current prevailing temperatures). This is basic stuff. Please do not quote this without reference to a RS. Snowman (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: smuggling, people trafficking. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither of these "occupations" is restricted to the sea. I have added a bit about boat people. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reports on radio and television news about large ports being used for smuggling. Perhaps, some additions on regulation and policing of trade by sea would help the article. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: travel by refugees (including economic refugees). Snowman (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

See previous reply. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Section heading name and content: "The law of the sea". Does it need to be in the pleural? Perhaps, the section could be renamed to something like "International treaties and conventions" be more descriptive. I think a little more could be added about the main work of the International Maritime Organization (part of the UN) to cover a possible omission. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Changed heading to "Maritime law". Added information on IMO. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission; the international date line and customs associated with crossing it at sea. Snowman (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. But can you suggest a more suitable location? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It could go in a new sub-section of "Humans and the sea" called "Time keeping at sea". The recommendations of the 1917 Anglo-French Conference on Time-keeping at Sea could be included with information about international time zones (15° wide pole-to-pole gores) and standard time in territorial waters. Snowman (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we want new sub-sections? I think we should concentrate on the basics of the subject and not clutter the article up with peripheral detail. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that the construct of the telling the time as sea was highly relevant to "Humans and the sea". Is telling the time at sea peripheral detail. I could go under a separate heading or perhaps under the heading of "International conventions and treaties" (currently called "Maritime law"). Snowman (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. The included link to time zone provides further detail as of the conference, etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Omission: Marine bacteriophages, which sounds important. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Added with reluctance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

See the FA on viruses; Virus#Role_in_aquatic_ecosystems; which says abut bacteriophages; "... essential to the regulation of saltwater and freshwater ecosystems." and "... are the most important mechanism of recycling carbon in the marine environment." The "Sea" article still has omissions about the importance of these viruses in the sea. Snowman (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Omission; Aspects of the carbon cycle are included in the article, but a coherent account of the full cycle is not included. This is a fundamental topic and the sea has a key role. Snowman (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• I agree on this - extremely important. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Regression; someone has removed ocean thermal energy conversion and everything about it from the article recently. This topic been in the article for a long time and I think before the FAC started and no one here has asked for it to be removed. I think that it was a mistake to remove this topic, which is being researched and may have potential for large-scale power generation. Snowman (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• I removed it and stand by the suggestion. This is a top level article and you have already raised the issue of it being too big. The culture section has been savagely pruned, and the history of the sea over geological time is concisely mentioned, to put it mildly. I would opppose including a minor technology like this, interesting though it is. Length of time it has been in the article doesn't seem relevant. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Regression; Recently removed. The sea as a heat sink in energy efficient air-conditioning. Snowman (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

With some reviewers seeking for a better balance between sections and others concentrating on possible omissions it is difficult to please everybody. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This is one use of the sea that is now excluded from the article and I think the article is worse for it. Air cooling systems using the sea as a heat sink do exist and are successful. The article includes wind energy, because some wind turbines are placed out at sea, but the energy does not even come from the movement of the sea, so I think that balance has been lost. Snowman (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Cwmhiraeth. I was the one who removed it. Again, a minor technology. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

PS Although this doesn't really address your objection i would be happy to see the wind turbines deleted altogether - as you say, they do not relate to the sea, that just happens to be where they're plonked.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, content on wind-turbines can be minimised; perhaps, with only that they are built out at sea and NIMBY. Snowman (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Question. Would "Marine biology" or "Biological science" be a better heading than "Life in the sea"? Viruses are on the edge of life, so using "Life in the sea" makes the assumption that viruses are a form of life, without discussion about what properties of life viruses have or do not have. Snowman (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the present name is better because the section is not about the study of marine life but is about the variety and range of lifeforms present in the sea. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I see. Snowman (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Problem; "Convection currents within the mantle tend to drive these plates apart." What about the zones where the plates are forced together? Snowman (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have rephrased this section and have added an explanatory diagram. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Problem; I think that the "Ocean basins" section could relate to some of the geographical features of the ocean better; for example, say where the trenches are and name them. Snowman (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the Mid-ocean ridge and Oceanic trench articles. How many of these ridges and trenches do you want to name? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that there are some huge trenches that should be mentioned. There is one that runs almost the entire length of Chile and there are other huge ones as well. Snowman (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the ridges might also need specific geographical reference. They are gigantic - bigger than the Himalayas. Also, details about these important discoveries. Snowman (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Re-think; the ridges are wikilinked, which is probably adequate. Snowman (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Regression: An image has been added back. Its new position is on the left at the top of the history section; however, there is also an image on the right of the page there and so some text is squashed between two images. This might not look good on small screens. Snowman (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed as not needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Regression; I think that the recently added Carson's quote at the end of the culture section (and the end of the article) may be rather too idiosyncratic and also I think that it appears to contradict some of the technical parts of the article. "... from which life first arose ..." is controversial as there are a number of viable theories of the origin of life. "But the sea, though changed in a sinister way, ...", I have no idea what this is referring as the sea remains generally beneficial to life. "... the threat is rather to life itself", I would guess that it is highly unlikely that anything that could happen to the sea would kill all life on Earth within about the next half-billion years or a very very long time. It was published in 1951 and it may have seemed more appropriate in its time. It seems to me that it is obvious that this quote should have no part in this technical Wiki article. (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone made the point earlier in the review that the article needs a good ending to round it off, and I think that the quote is appropriate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A good ending may help, but I think that the old quote is an awful ending. I would be grateful if you would justify the old quote with reference to the problems that I have listed above. Snowman (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to have a discussion about how to end the article, but i would reject the premise that this is a "technical" article. It is a top level article about a thing that is at the centre of both geology, biology, human history and contemporary human life. Its centrality to these things is what makes it top-level in priority, long, and broad in scope. As to the quote, Carson's work is probably one of the most important twentieth century texts involving the sea and unlike some other things mentioned in the article, the sea is not only the setting for its events but the subject of the work. Happy to debate whether the quote is the right one or in the right place, but i thought as something that brought together the history of the sea with its present-day relationship with humankind, it was an appropriate place to conclude. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Please advance the discussion with reference to the problems that I have listed above. Please refer to the Wiki article Origin of life where a number of ideas on the start of life on the Earth are presented, when justifying the part of the recently added quote that says that life first arose from the sea. Please note that some core topics are listed at Wikipedia:Version_0.7/Core_supplement and "sea" is listed under the major heading "Technical topics", then subheading "Earth", then subheading "Water". Snowman (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The quote is from a 1951 book is a copyright violation and should be removed immediately. Snowman (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Per my comment earlier - this is the section on the sea 'in culture', not the science of the origins of life. It is there because of Carson's very significant cultural influence through her writings, that might be described as 'popular science'. The quote is intended to reflect one of the major ideas then (and now) about human relationships with the sea. Copyvio is not an issue with quoting text extracts - it is not like image copyright. You will find similar quoting of text throughout Wiki articles, and you can see policy at WP:QUOTE and Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Text certainly can be copyrighted in a very similar way to images. I think that fair use justification is borderline here, so I have just removed the quote. I think is is best that this core article with over 2000 hits per day did not have possible distribution problems associated with carrying a copyrighted quote. What is the justification for fair use here? See Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and Wikipedia:Non-free content. Snowman (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

THe list of core topics has no relevance to the content of the article. The list is merely a convenient organising of subject matter, where each subject appears under only one heading. It does not consititute guidance as to how any article should be written. I think if you had read either of the policies or guidelines (the one i cited or the one your yourself cited), you would see that the quote is completely within policy. For example, the WP guideline you cited states "For instance, we can quote a sentence or two from a movie review in an article on the movie" - which is exactly what we have done - quoted a sentence or two about the sea, in an article about the sea. Your removal of the quote appears to me tendentious, as it does not arise from the policy you quoted, and you have not presented a reubuttal of my explanation of why it is appropriate. As I read the discussion, one of the noms and I both think it is a good inclusion, you do not, no-one else has expressed a view, its inclusion is not in violation of any policy, yet you deleted it. Can i invite you to self-revert while we wait for others to possibly express a view? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

My removal of the 1951 quote was done primarily as an urgent matter in case the copyrighted quote does not have fair use and this obviously is the safest course of action for the Wiki. Of course, with the possibility that it may not have a fair use in the article, I am not minded to return it to the article. I suspect that one of the nominators did not realise that the 1951 quote was copyrighted, and I removed the quote as a matter of urgency with its copyrighted status at the front of my mind. A think that a review for a film is not the same as a review for a core topic. I do not see any fair use justification for the quote in this article, since it is not necessary for the article, whereas a review of a film has an obvious relevance. Even if the quote could be used as fair use in the article, then I think that the quote is controversial and unsuitable, because it appears to say that life arose from the sea, which is only one of several hypotheses now; see Abiogenesis. I recall that a BBC television documentary broadcast within the last year did not have the sea as the most likely origin of life. The quote was not accompanied with its date in the prose of article and so it could be read out of context. I think that adding a copyrighted quote to an article would be expected to be discussed prior to its addition and not afterwards. Snowman (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe this represents a potentially serious and undesirable precedent to set regarding text copyright violation. I have raised it on the article talk page, and will flag it as a copyright discussion at the FAC talk page. To be clear, I am happy to have a discussion about how to frame the quote, the science, whether it is the best quote to use etc, but the copyright argument I hope will be rejected. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

We are obviously always concerned by copyright issues, and Snowmanradio is to be commended for their concern. A reasonable quote, a paragraph or so is fair use. No one buys a book to read a paragraph, accordingly it does not impact Carson's heir's interests. Wikipedia tries to be like the "real world", and in the real world, a quote of a paragraph is fine. Look at any scholarly paper, or a solid history book.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am reassured that the quote can be used as fair use, so I have returned it to the article. The discussion can focus on the suitability of the old quote in the Wiki article (see the discussion on the article's Talk:Sea page). I think that the old quote from 1951 not put in appropriate context in the article, and so I think that that article's FA status is jeopardised. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I note that a pre-amble on the controversy of the origin of life on Earth has been added to explain part of the presumptive quote, which seems to bring it into line with the wiki guidelines on introducing a point of view as being truth by the back door in quotes. The rest of the quote may provoke thought. The consensus seems to be that the quote can remain in the article. Snowman (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• "A large proportion of all life on Earth exists in the ocean, ..." Is this species count or biomass. "A large proportion" sounds vague. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarified. I have rewritten this bit. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• "... and provides support for the carbon cycle.[66](pp204–229)". The page range is too big to enable easy verification from a book. I think that the carbon cycle should be explained more coherently, possibly with a whole paragraph or sub-section. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added a section on the carbon cycle. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

... but the page range 204-229 is retained and this is too big to enable easy verification from a book. See WP:V. Snowman (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability is an important principal on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Balance and accuracy problem; "Life probably originated in the sea, ...". There are lots of hypotheses about the origin of life now, so this is not balanced. It would probably be better "Life may have originated in the sea, ..." or balance the article with some of the other hypotheses. See Abiogenesis. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission; Marine nitrogen cycle. Snowman (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Balance problem. "Scientists differ as to precisely where in the sea life arose". Another viable idea is that life may have arrived on Earth on from space, which is featured in the recently promoted GA on Comets. There are a number of other non-marine hypotheses on the origin of life as well. Snowman (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Altered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Introduction: Does the introduction include a small part for the important topics in the article? New sections have been added to the article, so I have started bringing new important information about the sea to the introduction. I have been looking at the introduction for some time today, and so I may not find the right words for adding the ocean basins and current research, so I would be grateful if someone else would think about the introduction. Snowman (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think something about coasts including coastal erosion, the ocean basin including techtocic plates, and sea level including historic changes need to be added to the introduction. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Control of the sea is important to the security of a maritime nation ...". This may be too vague. I would have guessed that control of the sea is important to defend against a land invasion from the sea by enemies and this may need to be added before continuing with port blockades. Snowman (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an introductory statement for the section on Naval Warfare and I do not believe it is too vague. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The introductory statement can remain, but I think the historic importance of using the sea to defend against a land invasion from the sea should follow and not something about port blockades. I would guess that air power is more important now. Snowman (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• "... surface deposits and sea ice, ...". Rather vague. What are these surface deposits? Does it mean snow? Snowman (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It actually says "... by ice in glaciers, surface deposits and sea ice" so I think it is clear that we are talking about sheets of ice, lying snow etc. here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Almost everyone knows what snow is, so why call it surface deposits. I think that the readability is unnecessarily complex. Snowman (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Lying snow may consolidate into ice and so "surface deposits" is a more accurate term. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The movement of water in the form of currents, tides and waves affects the coastline and modifies the climate of coastal regions.[6]". I am not sure why only coastal regions are affected. Is this a mistake? Snowman (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it is a statement of fact. It does not state that nothing else is affected. It just states that the coastline is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that this statement is not adequate. It might be correct, but it leaves the reader wondering about non-coastal regions. The climate of whole of Ireland is affected by the Gulf stream and not just the coastal regions, so I would regard the article and not telling the complete truth. Also, the Wiki article on the Gulf Stream says "Although there has been recent debate, there is consensus that the climate of Western Europe and Northern Europe is warmer than it would otherwise be due to the North Atlantic drift, one of the branches from the tail of the Gulf Stream.". It is like saying the male Sun Parakeet is yellow and omitting to say that the female is also yellow. The full effects of how the currents in the sea affect the climate should be in the article and not just about the selected area of coastal zones. Snowman (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The water in the sea was thought to come from the Earth's volcanoes, starting 4 billion years ago, released by degassing from molten rock." I think that is needs to be said clearly if this is now thought to be wrong. Snowman (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this. Chiswick Chap is away. Why don't you do some research into the subject? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, User Chiswick Chap would be the best person to think about this. When is he back? Snowman (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• "... caused by a geological event such as an underwater earthquake or landslide, a meteorite impact, ...". A meteorite impact is an astronomical event and not a geological event. Snowman (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• "... 0.65 percent is in the form of vapour or liquid fresh water in lakes, rivers, the ground and air.". The "or" here puzzles me. I would not say; "I have 10 ounces of porcelain in the form of a cup or a plate". I would use "and" instead of "or" here and say; "I have 10 ounces of porcelain in the forms of a cup and a plate". Snowman (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think either is OK, actually. The trouble was that you made it say "... 0.65 percent is in the forms of vapour, liquid fresh water in lakes, rivers, the ground and air", which would mean ... in the form of the ground and in the form of air. I've replaced the "or" with "and" and got rid of the verbose "in the form(s) of". --Stfg (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that your recent amendment to replace the "or" and use "and" makes the text easier to follow. The "and" indicating a summation. Snowman (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Regression; "The oceans are home to a diverse collection of life forms that use it as a three-dimensional habitat." Some animals a mobile on the sea bed (two dimensional) and some creatures are relatively stationary and cling to a rock. Snowman (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• The third paragraph of the seawater section is basically a repetition of an account of the thermohaline circulation in the currents section. Snowman (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think not. They are referring to different aspects. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• The account of tsunamis in the "Sea" article is not the same as in Wiki "Tsunami" article. This article says that a tusnami is like a wind wave, but the tsunami article says that they are not like wind waves, but are more like fast tides. I think this needs double checking with reference to more than one source. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This article does not say "a tusnami is like a wind wave" but that, as it approaches shore, its behaviour resembles a wind-generated wave. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• About tsunami; "Powerful events can temporarily lift the surface of the water, usually by a few feet." When a meteorite impacts in an ocean and causes a tsunami, then I presume that the initial movement of seawater will be downwards. Snowman (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• About tsunami; I am puzzled by two apparently contradictory statements in the same paragraph; "... a tsunami, radiating outwards at a speed proportional to the square of the sea depth." and "The speed at which these travel varies with the square root of the water depth ...". I presume that these can not be both correct, because speed proportional to the square of the sea depth would be different to speed varying with the square root of the water depth. Snowman (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Problem: "A trough precedes the wave and is the first thing to reach the coast, ...". This is not always the case, but when it happens it can be an useful warning sign. I think that omitting that the wave can precede the trough is a serous omission. See Tsunami Facts and Information on the Australian gov website, which says: "Depending on whether the first part of the tsunami to reach the shore is a crest or a trough, it may appear as a rapidly rising or falling tide." Snowman (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• bout tsunamis; "Powerful events can temporarily lift the surface of the water, usually by a few feet." I think that seawater can also drop. User Pbsouthwood also mentions this below. Snowman (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The US Government Survey to which this is cited is not available at the moment because of the US budget crisis. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I note that User Pbsouthwood has fixed it. Snowman (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds odd; "Often several tsunami are caused by a single geological event and arrive at intervals of between eight minutes and two hours." It sounds odd that a wave two hours late can be caused be a single geological event. How long does a "single geological event" last? Does a "single geological event" include the aftershocks? Snowman (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A single event possibly causing several tsunamis. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

How does that happen? Snowman (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It does. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission and balance problem; the "Animals and other marine life" section includes the marine reptiles "sea snakes" and "sea turtles", but "marine lizards" and "marine crocodiles" do not get a mention. Snowman (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The animals mentioned are only examples and do not provide a comprehensive list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but the sequence of vertebrates seems a little disorganised. "Cetaceans" sounds like jargon to me. 14:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you suggest a better single word covering whales, dolphins and porpoises? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Cetacean" is not jargon. You can find it in any little general-use pocket dictionary. --Stfg (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not in the 2002 edition (reprinted 2003) of the Chambers Mini Dictionary ISBN 0550 100121, which boasts 35,000 references and 45,000 definitions. I have just checked, on page 81 it goes; "... cervix, cessation, cesspool, CET, cf, CFC, chacun a son gout, chador ...". If the nominators really would like suggestions on alternatives, then I would be happy to help, but may I suggest that the nominator has a try at it first. More than one word may be needed, but I think several words would be better than one word that is not in a biggish mini dictionary. "Cetacean" sounds like jargon to me. Snowman (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason why I should be pushed aside from contributing here. It's in the Little Oxford Dictionary today, and has been since at least 1941. The word is used in news reports such as this and many others (try Google). In fact, a Google UK search for the word just on the BBC web site (not a specialist scientific site) yields 2,450 hits. We have an article on the subject, and more than mainspace 200 articles linking just to the redirect page for this word. Introducing rather common scientific words like this one way that Wikipedia can help readers to learn things like how to understand those very news reports. Why should we dumb it down the extent of avoiding words as common as this? --Stfg (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Main articles: Marine animal and Seabird"; Marine animal redirects to "Marine biology". This "Marine biology" page is also signposted under the section above. There may be a better Wiki page to signpost that focuses on marine animals. Snowman (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I could not find a better page so I removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission about tsunami; probably worth a line on high-tech early tsunami detection and warning systems. Snowman (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Possible regression; I note that someone has added the subheading "Marine biology" as a level 3 heading. I am aware that you thought that it was unsuitable as a level 2 heading above; see your comment of 22 Sept 2013 above. Snowman (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It was not added by me and I have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Problem; "This is half the 24 hours and 50 minute period that it takes for the Earth to make a complete revolution and return the Moon to its previous position relative to an observer." 24 hrs and 50 minutes is longer than the Earth takes make a complete rotation. The "Earth's rotation" Wiki page says; "The Earth rotates once in about 24 hours with respect to the sun and once every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds with respect to the stars." Snowman (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is in your lack of understanding. Let us suppose that both the moon and star A are due south from an observer at midnight. The following night star A is due south at about 4 minutes before midnight while the moon is due south at 50 minutes after midnight. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment by the nominator. Yesterday Snowmanradio made some edits to the Tsunami section which left it with grammatical-type errors, poor quality prose, a capital "A" in the middle of a sentence and three bare urls as references. I have not been checking other edits you have been making, Snowman, but request you not to edit the article again while it is at FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not put the bare urls there, User Pbsouthwood did, when he kindly improved the readability of the section, which is carefully explained in the edit summary of his edit of 4 Oct 2013. I did accidentally leave a capital "A", when I was editing to improve the flow, and I apologise for that. I think that the words of the section were a combination of my edits, User Pbsouthwood's edits and previous editor's work. I am puzzled by your complaint and I see no reason that I should refrain from editing the article. Snowman (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The last four edits were yours. You did not adequately check what you did and you left the section in a deplorable state. You have since done two edits and produced the following "These events can temporarily displace a vast amount of water and temporarily lift or lower the surface of the seawater usually by a few feet in the affected area. The potential energy of the displaced seawater ..." You have used each of the words "temporarily", "seawater" and "displace" twice in this sentence and a half, and I have had to rewrite them. Please leave the article alone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) My apologies if my edits caused any confusion, I thought the edit summaries would explain adequately. I edited directly to save myself some time and effort. I did not expect it to be controversial. I left the raw urls as I thought it better to leave it to the nominators to select which of the references they prefer. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Lets look at the edits to the tsunami section. I think that User Pbsouthwood made a good job of re-writing the science explaining his edits with full edit summaries. Then I changed relativity little in four edits. Then User Cwmhiraeth made two edits and then added tsunami warning systems. Most of my sentence reorganisation to the first paragraph has been kept, I did not change the middle paragraph, and my amendment to the third paragraph had been kept. I am puzzled why User Cwmhiraeth is directing complaints at me. I see no reason why I should refrain from editing the article. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You have gone way outside your role as a reviewer and in this instance left the Tsunami section in a deplorable state having failed to read it through carefully after your edits. I was really angry when I saw it. During your review you have made a number of useful suggestions for which I thank you. Now I suggest you stop your review and let the delegates make the decision as to whether the article reaches the required standard. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Provisional impression. I think that the nominators may have given reviewers a lot to do here. I note that the article had 40 edits between achieving GA status on 9 July 2013 and FA nomination on 16 August 2013; see diff. I think that including some topics may have unwittingly given some included topics undue prominence over related or similar topics; for example, the full section on sea gypsies may not be in balance with other cultures with lifestyles based on the sea. I do not see why the topic of the 10,000 Greeks is within the scope of this page. Topic selection may need refining by including relevant topics that are not covered and removing excess detail about included topics. The page is now 79 kB (13236 words) of readable prose size, and WP:TOOBIG suggests that more than 60 kB is too long. The discussion on page size may not have advanced far, partly because the page was significantly shorter than this at the time earlier reviewers completed their reviews and partly because one tolerant opinion on large article sizes appears to have been actively canvassed on 12 Sept 2012; see User Cwmhiraeth's comment. It seems to me that the basic natural science, history, culture, and possibly human activities sections fall naturally into different areas of interest, that would enable splitting off parts. I do not see a compelling reason to keep this article as long as it is. I think that this article should be made shorter, for the explanations given in WP:TOOBIG. Snowman (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. We are actively looking at the best way to do this now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Have split the 'Culture' section into a sub-article, leaving a single summary paragraph behind. This has reduced the article by nearly 20 kB so we are already close to the 60 kB guideline. (And the Greeks have vanished ;-} with it, too.) I agree that the sea gypsies paragraph is a bit detailed - have trimmed them, renamed to Indigenous sea peoples, and added Arctic tribes also. Is there anything else specifically that you feel should be slimmed down or hived off, given that the length is very nearly right? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You may be confusing the page size that includes all the wiki code and references with the readable prose size (rendered words in prose). Do you have access to the "page size" Wiki facility? The readable prose size has been reduced to 72 kB (12143 words) by splitting culture. You could consider the article as several blocks that each cover an area of interest, when looking for for more blocks that could be removed. Does the history section block cover a specialised interest? Presumably most the the history is currently reiterated on various Wiki articles. Snowman (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, more to be done. No, neither of us is a historian; just tried to cover the essentials. Will do to History what I did to culture - either later tonight or very early tomorrow morning, then we'll see where we are. Other items are in work between the two of us. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

With all the changes so far: Wiki text = 138 kB, prose size (text only) = 71 kB (12000 words). The Wiki text size with mark-up code (ie 138 kB) is what you see alongside the edit history and this is not the same as prose size. Snowman (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be a mistake to ruin the article by removing more chunks. Big subjects need big articles to be comprehensive. There are plenty of featured articles that are over 100kb, here are some examples and there are plenty more - BAE Systems, Alfred Russel Wallace, Zinc, Psilocybin, Grand Teton National Park, Tang Dynasty, Greater Manchester, Alzheimer's disease, Hungarian Revolution of 1956, Empire of Brazil, Alcohol laws of New Jersey, Mars, Speed of light, Star, Sun, Venus, Shakespeare authorship question, William Shakespeare, The Beatles and Henry I of England. The Middle Ages with 159kb became a FA in May this year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You have got the facts wrong. The page sizes that you have provided are not the readable prose sizes, because you have have included all the mark-up code, tables, and so on. You should be considering the readable prose size only. For example the prose size of the "Alzheimer's disease" article is 47 kB (7191 words) "readable prose size", and "Alfred Russel Wallace" 52 kB (8518 words) "readable prose size", and "Middle Ages" has 87 kB (14386 words) "readable prose size". Saying that there are bigger FAs is not highly meaningful, because the page size guideline is only a guideline. My point about the "sea" article, is that it is a long article that can be divided into blocks of interest that can reasonably be split off for the benefit of information organization and access of the Wikipedia. Snowman (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Snowman (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: It looks like enough trimming and splitting has bought the article to a more reasonable size (currently 63 kB, 10567 words of readable prose size). At this juncture, it seems to me that further shortening may not be fruitful, especially if the nominators wish to keep the remaining article together. Incidentally, I have removed two not particularly helpful images to reduce page load time, but that does not affect prose size. Snowman (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not totally convinced that retaining half of the article as "Humans and the sea" will be beneficial, but I am prepared to go with the flow and see what happens. Meanwhile I fear that apparent lack of room for expansion may jeopardise writing style. The scope of "sea" is huge and this seems to be a relatively "young" article. Snowman (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. These are key issues and we're considering them now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about this article length on the articles talk page, Talk:Sea. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment There has been some big apparently unilateral reductions in the size of the basic science sections by User Chiswick Chap on 16 and 17 Sept 2013. I would have thought that this would need prior discussion and consensus especially during a FAC. It looks like regressions have occurred with new omissions being created. How are reviewers supposed to follow the progress of an article when this happens? Snowman (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

We are considering restoring these pieces of removed information in view of the fact that the size of the article seems no longer to be an issue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have had a look at the modifications done by the unexplained removal of referenced text. I note that often the edit summary "crisper" was used, which for me disguised the edits somewhat. Please use descriptive edit summaries. I have fixed some of the regressions. To clarify, I am currently "going with the flow" without spitting off "Man and the sea" to see what happens. I think that there is no need for unexplained chopping down of sections, because the Wiki has plenty of space and this article could easily be split into two halves (anthropomorphically, twins); the science of the "sea" and "Man and the sea". Perhaps, the split articles might become FAs more easily than one combined FA. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Any problems with load time?. I have finding that saving changes to the "Sea" article can take several seconds and longer than it takes to load the article to read it. It this a local problem? or are other editors and readers having similar difficulties loading and saving the "Sea" article? Snowman (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I find this article no slower to load while editing than other articles of a similar size. I find that saving time is longer than loading time for other articles as well. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I've been having problems with save-time for all long articles and talk pages, mostly in the last few days. I don't think it's a particular problem with this article. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So have I. But this article gives me no problem, even on my 7-year-old system. Less than 2 seconds to load and render on Chrome, about 10 seconds even on clunky old IE8. --Stfg (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Re Article size; See WP:PROSPLIT, which says "If unsure [about spliting], or with high profile or sensitive articles, start a "Split" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject.". Following this guideline, I have started a discussion at Talk:Sea and I hope to see opinions and a consensus gather one way or the other over the course of a week or two. Snowman (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Provisional impression 2. I think that the general architecture, organization, and content of this long article may soon reach a plateau of development and perhaps a more stable state. I would think that several (about 7) new sections and other new lines have not had sufficient time for enough reviewers to consider, so I think that general work on copy editing, especially of the new sections, can continue. The introduction is in the middle of a re-write to reflect the expanded article. This may be a good time to consider re-starting this FAC on the grounds that the article has changed a lot during this FAC, so that reviewers can comment on this more stable form of the article. Snowman (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You gotta be joking! This review has been going on for seven weeks already and is longer than the article itself. Other editors have had ample time to view the changes made and alter their opinions on the article if they see fit. Let's not start the whole gruelling procedure over again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The first three weeks of the FAC were relatively quite. Almost every part of the article that was about something technical has had to be rewritten, and the culture section has been split off and summarised for the article. The article is currently 72 kB (12086 words) of readable prose size and it has 223 references, so it is not surprising that the FAC is taking a several weeks. As far as I am aware, no spot checking of sources have been reported to this FAC so far. About seven recently added new sections have not been reviewed by very many people. A lot of the FAC so far has been about the omissions and organisation of the article, and I think that it is only now that the article has become stable enough for the second phase of the FAC, which I think will be like a more normal FAC involving discussion about words, sentences and MoS, rather than omissions of whole sections. I think that a lot can be said for restarting this FAC at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no desire to repeat this gruelling review process by restarting the FAC. I believe that the assertion that "Almost every part of the article that was about something technical has had to be rewritten" is untrue. I have invited the editors who have supported the article's candidacy earlier in the review process to take another look in case they wished to change that view. (PumpinSky seems to have departed WikiPedia and ColonelHenry's support was recent and post-dated most changes.) It seems to me that Snowman has gone beyond his proper role of article reviewer in his current suggestion that the review should be restarted. It's almost as if he thinks he is in charge! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

In my proper role as a reviewer, I have made a suggestion to the FAC delegates that they might consider restarting the article, because it has been unstable during this FAC owing to many new sections and paragraphs being added and the culture section being split off. I think that this is an entirely appropriate suggestion and I think that this might be reasonably considered in their summing up for this article and any article that had substantial changes during the FAC. If more reviewers read the new sections, then the FAC delegates can reasonably say that several new sections have been added during the FAC, which were seen by an adequate number of reviewers in the latter half of the FAC after new sections had been added, and hence that the FAC can be completed by this FAC. I would say that User ColonelHenry would have seen most of the new sections, if he re-read the article on the day he finalised his review; however, the carbon cycle section, the nitrogen cycle paragraph, and portions on diamond mining and bathymetry were all added afterwards. It is certain that the earlier reviewers have not commented on many of the new sections yet. At the present time, I doubt if all of the sections have been adequately reviewed here; however, the final decision is with the FAC delegates. Please note that the FAC delegates are the only people empowered to close FAC discussions and reviewers can only offer their observations and other comments, as far as I am aware. Actually, the few restarted FACs that I have seen have passed quite easily in their restarted form having attracted sufficient reviewers, and I expect they were easy for FAC delegates to close and conclude. However, I suspect that the window of opportunity to restart this FAC may have passed, because review on the current stable from of this article has continued here and it would be somewhat more difficult to make a clean start now. Please indicate which technical sections have not been modified during this FAC. I can say for certain the technical aspects of tides, waves, the ocean basin, and power were substantially rewritten, and the section on tsunamis currently has comments without replies from me above and from User User Pbsouthwood below. Snowman (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jimfbleak

Support Comments from Jim bravo for tackling this major topic. I'm not going to quibble aabout details of what you might have included/excluded, or what it's called, but a few points. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Reaffirm support I was asked to have another look in view of the changes instigated by Snowman. I think the article is stronger than ever, and I'm happy to state that I still support it for FA status. I certainly don't think it's appropriate to restart an article with four or five supports, where only one editor is suggesting that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the article again. I was concerned that not many reviewers had commented on several new sections, so your up-to-date positive review of this hugely modified article is reassuring. It is also reassuring to have your opinion that the FAC can be safely finalised here. I am still finding problems, but not major issues like missing content or organisational problems. Snowman (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Winds create currents through friction, setting up slow but stable circulations of water throughout the oceans. — You mention this and the thermohalic circulation, but isn't it the case that a body of water on a rotating planet with a temperature gradient would develop a circulation anyway? On your version, it implies that the thermohaline effect would be directly north-south, and that a gas (the air) is entirely responsible for moving immense quantities of water in the circulation pattern. The water is subject to the Coriolis effect as well.

added and wikilinked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There is still no indication in lead that winds largely affect the oceans only near the surface, and do not drive the deep circulation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

added 'surface' to the wind-driven currents. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Tides, the twice-daily rise and fall of sea levels — "usually" as you make clear later

done Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• anaerobic bacteria producing hydrogen sulphide... Others cluster round deep sea vents where mineral-rich flows of water emerge from the seabed.— you don't link these items, even though this sulphur-based ecosystem is the only one that doesn't rely on energy from the sun

It was linked further down - have moved link to the earlier mention of vents. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see any clear indication that the sulphur-processing bacteria are the basis of the vent ecosystem, and I would have thought they were primary producers anyway, since they convert heat and inorganic chemicals into products that other life forms can access by consuming the bacteria and each other (like plants, but with heat instead of visible light) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Added sentence on the vent community with primary producer bacteria, consumers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• precipitated out in the form of calcium carbonate as the sea becomes more acidic. —Misleading. If it was genuinely acidic, pH<7, all the CaCO₃ would in fact dissolve. You mean more dissolved CO₂, which does precipitate out the compound.

reworded - please check (feel free to edit). Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The next sentence This is likely to have profound effects on certain planktonic marine organisms because their ability to form shells will be reduced has now lost its subject. Need to say that rising CO₂ levels may have this effect (and presumably raise the CCD?) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• You don't seem to mention that calcium carbonate cannot be precipitated out anyway below the carbonate compensation depth

added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• The pH is expected to reach 7.7 by the year 2100, an increase of 320 percent in acidity in a century — technically correct but misleading, it's still alkaline, and the percentage represents a change from 7.9x10^-9 to 2x10^-8.

removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• there seems to be no indication that Nikkimaria's points have been addressed, and I can see at least one (short citations) that appears not to have been considered

Cwmhiraeth is working on them now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait for the responses to Nikkimaria as well as my own outstanding points before I give an overall opinion. I did an oceanography course once, this has jogged a few very rusty little grey cells. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No further queries, just waiting to see the referencing changes before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Nikkimaria's second pass seems to have been addressed, changed to support aboveJimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support, Jim. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Adabow

• "Earth is the only planet in the solar system with liquid surface water, but other earthlike planets may have oceans." - This could be slightly confusing to some readers will little astronomical knowledge. Perhaps capitalise Solar System and/or amend the second half of the sentence to 'but earthlike planets in other planetary systems may have oceans'. Also, should 'earthlike' not be capitalised, seeing as it is relating to the planet, rather than ground/soil. Consider linking to Earth analog here.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Because the salts are aqueous, how can you define which metal goes with each anion? Why can you say '3 grams (0.11 oz) of sulphates, carbonates, bromides and other salts' - this mass would change if all of these salts mentioned here are sodium salts, for example. Where is the citation for this info? ([2] does not cover it.)

Removed, cited Millero 2008 for reference composition of seawater. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• The -ph spelling of sulfur derivatives is acceptable, but note that it is becoming less and less common, especially in chemistry circles.

Noted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• There is no link between seawater acidification and the reduced ability to form shells (it's to do with partial pressure of CO₂ and carbonate concentration and calcium carbonate solubility, is it not?)

I'm not sure about this. One of the sources states "As CO2 continues to dissolve in the ocean it increases ocean acidity, making it harder for some marine organisms to form shells. These ecological changes in turn reduce the capacity of the ocean to absorb CO2." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to write there is no mention of the link between seawater acidification and shell formation (in this article). There's discussion of seawater acidification, and then of calcium solubility, but no explicit link between the two. Readers who are interested in the consequences of ocean acidification must click through to another article to get any idea what those are and how they work. Adabow (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Added explicit link with NOAA ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Adabow (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the main article link for the waves section be wind wave, not wave?

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• "all the major groups of animals" is vague; can the 'groups' be defined biologically?

We could almost use 'Kingdoms' but unfortunately there is no agreement on how many of those there are. Have edited to read 'A wide variety of...' which is certainly true. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• The animals section includes a sentence about bacteria, fungi, microalgae and protozoa. Perhaps rename this section, maybe to heterotrophs?

See discussion of Plants section above. Have renamed the two to 'Producers' and 'Consumers': since 'Primary producers' was felt to be too technical, 'Heterotrophs' probably would have been also. However, the naming remains unresolved, please see above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ship names (except prefixes) should be italicised (MOS:ITALICS)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• FAO should probably per expanded per MOS:ABBR

Done, acronym has been expanded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an excellent article, and a pleasure to read. Adabow (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. We will work our way through them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic piece of work, happy to support now. Adabow (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from ColonelHenry

I admit that this is a tough article to review because of the breadth of coverage that the article's subject demands. But the Sea wouldn't deserve any less. The nominators have done an excellent job preparing the research and writing in advance of and during this FAC. I wish them the best of luck going forward, and look forward to supporting this article. I do have a few comments. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

General comments with regard to the specific FA criteria:

Criteria 1

• 1A - ALMOST PASS (24SEP13) - I believe this article is well-written, it's well planned in terms of sections and content. While I would have written things slightly differently (i.e. certain modes of utterances and idiomatic expressions I tend to eschew), I would regard this article to be of a professional standard. The word "brilliant" requires a subjective judgment that I tend to avoid in an FAC because it doesn't reveal anything actionable.
  • I tend to think the "In culture" section at the end of the article reads like a miscellaneous list and lacks a cogent prose structure. While I disagree with the editor above claiming that there needs to be a magically amazing or captivating ending, I think this section needs better prose and flow.
    • Section has been edited to improve flow, without we hope making it too much longer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Revision of the "In Culture" section suffices. Good Job.--ColonelHenry (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• 1B - PASS - This article is comprehensive and thorough, balancing exquisite detail with WP:SUMMARY
• 1C - ALMOST/FAIL PASS (24SEP13) - The research that goes into this type and scope of article must be impressive, and this article covers a wide variety of sources from high quality legal documents, historical works, scientific works, and literary and artistic works. HOWEVER: There are problems in consistency with several of the references, for instance fn.71 is listed as "Stow, pp. 160–163." linking to a source below, yet other footnotes are far more complete. These sources (Stow, Kindersley, and Cotterell) ought to be better incorporated into the format of the larger majority of references. In order for me to support, the references will have to be made consistent in one style.

• This has now been done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• May I say that the new longer version is easy to understand, but I think the original version is used a lot on the Wiki. Various headings can be used for the references sections; however, I have seen the books used as sources under the heading "Cited texts" more often rather than "Sources", so I have changed the heading to "Cited texts", which is probably more descriptive. Unfortunately, using the longer versions and more cite templates would have increased the article load time. Snowman (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• @Chiswick Chap:, while the full citation is nice, there are now several of them among the footnotes for the three sources name the relevant guideline is WP:CITE#Inline citations#Footnotes#Citing multiple pages of the same source which provides the preferable solutions to this problem, and the {{rp}} template which I suggested on my talk page seems to be the better of the options given the need for consistency of citations throughout the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• My concerns regarding citation consistency have been properly and sufficiently addressed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• 1D - PASS - I don't see any POV issues that undermine neutrality.
• 1E - PASS - I don't see any outstanding content disputes.

Criteria 2

• 2A - PASS (24SEP13) STANDBY - I have to spend some time to consider the lede further.
  • Lede suffices in summarizing the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• 2B - PASS - The article's structure is rather logical. However, I think the last section "In culture" is rushed and has the feel of a bunch of unassociated miscellany just thrown into a spare desk drawer. Because of the breadth of this section, I concede it's difficult to summarize, but a better job has to be done here with reference to my comments above for Criterion 1A.
• 2C - PASS (24SEP13) FAIL - Consistent citations...I issued a few comments above with regard to Criterion 1C concerning inconsistencies that ought to be remedied.

• Have replaced the short Stow/Cotterell refs with full format references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• See reply above, at 1C.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• OK, we can use RP for these repeated refs --- done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Citation consistency properly and sufficiently addressed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Criterion 3

• 3 - STANDBY - I did not yet check the images for compliance. PASS (24SEP13) - Images are sufficiently and properly licensed appropriately for free/fair use per policy.

Criterion 4

• 4 - PASS - I know there were comments above (I replied to them), stating that the article is too long. I don't think this article is too big, and well in proportion to other lengthy FA topics. This article is 133kB when I saw it, my FA for Alcohol laws of New Jersey was 153kB. I think the focus is keen and the article strikes a great balance between detail and summary style. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please note that a longish culture section has recently been split off with a summary being used for this article. Do you think that "Sea in culture" (10 kB or 1773 words) should be added back? That would make the "Sea" article over 70 kB (10635 words) of readable prose (note different measurements to what you have reported from the edit history list). The alcohol laws page is currently 58 kB (9613 words) and may not easily divided into separate interest blocks. Snowman (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't say that in improving the "In culture" section it should be expanded, just that the flow of the prose was lacking because of its rather miscellaneous/random nature. It feels like a grocery list, not a summary. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for clarifying. The "grocery list" analogy might be enough to give the nominators some ideas to run with. Snowman (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I am glad to place my STRONG SUPPORT on this article. Excellent job in research and preparation on a very difficult subject to approach.--ColonelHenry (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and your support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Pbsouthwood

Lead and section: Sea water: generally good.

Section: Wind waves:

The waves form at right angles to the direction from which the wind blows. There is insufficient context for this to make sense. Clarification and citation needed.

Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The height of the wave increases as the energy in it is unable to move downwards and is forced upwards instead. Neither accurate nor good English.

Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Small waves form in restricted areas of water with islands and other land masses, but large waves form in open stretches of sea where the wind blows steadily and strongly. It is more accurate and possibly clearer to say that the size of the wave depends on the fetch - the distance that the wind has blown over the water - and the strength and duration of the wind. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Oscillating may be preferable to circling, as the vertical component of oscillation is constrained by proximity to the bottom. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Section: Tsunami:

This temporarily lifts the surface of the water, usually by a few feet (one meter). One meter is not a suitable conversion for a few feet. Similarly for "a few hundred feet (one hundred meters)". Is it necessarily always lifted?

Removed conversions (which must have been added by someone else as they used American spelling). I think the surface is always lifted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Its behaviour is similar to a wind-generated wave, but the scale is vastly different and involves not just the surface layers of the sea but the whole water column. All shallow water waves involve the whole water column. Wind waves involve the whole water column when they are affected by the bottom, as in refraction and breaking. Shallow water wave velocity is a function of depth, period is fixed.

I think this statement is correct because it is referring to the wave passing over the continental shelf and approaching the coast. Wind-formed waves only disturb the top few metres of the sea. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought this was referring to the mechanism of steepening and shortening, but I see that it could be referring to general propagation.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The water in front of the wave may be sucked back and added into the crest, Drained back into a leading trough might be a more accurate way of describing it, but check up on this, I am not an expert and am relying on long term memory.

The trough is an absence of water and is formed by the water drawing back into the wave. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

But what causes the first trough in a wave train? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it is formed but it certainly exists. I have rephrased this part of the section to clarify. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't find much in the way of references, but what I have found suggests that depending on the precise mechanism, the water level may be raised, lowered, or both at different places, by the causative event, so the tsunami may have a leading crest or a leading trough in a given direction depending on whether the surface was raised or lowered first on that side of the disturbance. As the disturbance displaces water throughout the depth of the water column, the wave must propagate as a shallow water wave, at least when it is in water shallower or equal to the depth where it was created (a shallow water wave is one which is affected by the bottom). Wind waves are generally caused in depths where the wave motion does not reach the bottom, and are therefore deep water waves until they reach shallow water where the motion does reach the bottom, when they transition to shallow water waves. The behaviour is affected by the scale depth more than the initial cause. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

See Tsunami Facts and Information on the Australian government website (I presume that this is a reliable source), which is consistent with some of your summary. Snowman (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like a good summary. Simple, accurate and a reliable source. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

more later. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

As a tsunami moves into shallower water the wave is compressed and its speed decreases to below 80 miles per hour (130 km/h). Its wavelength diminishes to less than 12 miles (19 km), and its amplitude increases enormously.[33] Its behaviour then resembles a wind-generated wave, but the scale is vastly different and involves not just the surface layers of the sea but the whole water column. A trough precedes the wave and is the first thing to reach the coast, the sea draws back and leaves subtidal areas close to the shore exposed.

• The velocity is proportional to square root of the depth, so the quoted 80 mph is connected with a specific depth. Similarly wave length is a function of velocity and therefore depth, and 12 miles would be related to a specific depth. It would probably be better to just say As a tsunami moves into shallower water the wave is compressed and its speed decreases, its wavelength diminishes and its amplitude increases enormously.

Those were figures given by the source but I have rephrased the sentence according to your suggestion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Its behaviour resembles a wind-generated wave in shallow water at all times.

Altered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• A trough may precede the wave, but as far as I can make out from available sources this is not always the case. Sometimes a crest leads, sometimes a trough, depending on whether the water was displaced upwards or downward first in the initial disturbance. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Altered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Section: Currents:

A main deep ocean current flows through all the world's oceans and is known as the thermohaline circulation or global conveyor belt Check this, I think the thermohaline circulation includes surface currents. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think they are synonyms. See Thermohaline circulation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thermohaline circulation and global conveyer are synonyms, my point is that the Thermohaline circulation article and the illustrations of the TC suggest that warm surface currents such as the Gulf stream are part of it (TC). • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have altered the image caption. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Section:Tides:

This is half the 24 hours and 50 minutes that the Moon takes to make a complete rotation of the Earth and return to the same position in the sky. Most people will think of a month as the time for the Moon to make a complete rotation of the Earth.

Good point. I have rephrased the sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Note d: Unlike gravity, which decreases with the inverse square of the distance between the two bodies involved, the tide-raising force decreases with the inverse cube of the distance. appears to contradict the earlier statement Tides are the regular rise and fall in water level experienced by seas and oceans in response to the gravitational influences of the Moon and the Sun, and the effects of the Earth's rotation.

Removed note "d". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

the statement The tidal flows of seawater are resisted by the water's inertia and can be altered by land masses. is sandwiched between parts of an explanation of the mechanism of tides. It should probably be moved to the next paragraph.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Section: Ocean basins:

It floats on the liquid mantle below and is relatively thin, being broken into a number of tectonic plates. This suggests that there is some connection between the being thin and being broken up into tectonic plates, however there are also plate boundaries within continental masses, like the Great rift valley and the Himalayas.

What you say is true. Do you want me to change the wording? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

How about: "It floats on the liquid mantle below, is relatively thin, and is divided into a number of tectonic plates.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As a result of these crustal movements, the oceans are gradually spreading with the continental land masses on either side becoming further apart, This suggests that either the planet is getting bigger, or the continents are getting smaller.

Probably the latter. The spreading is something like 1cm per year I believe, but over time this is significant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the continents are not changing much except where for example the Indian subcontinent is pushing into Asia, Generally subduction zones will be reducing oceanic tectonic plates at to compensate for ridge expansion, so some oceans (Atlantic) are growing, at the expense of others, The Pacific is most likely to be taking up much of the slack along the ring of fire. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I've rewritten this bit. Is it clearer now? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. You might consider changing Near some of the boundaries between the land and sea, the slightly denser oceanic plates slide beneath the lighter continental plates by subduction and more deep oceanic trenches are formed, to Near some of the boundaries between the land and sea, the slightly denser oceanic plates slide beneath the continental plates and more subduction trenches are formed, which is slightly less repetitive. It is not a big issue. I think the section is sufficiently improved. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

more later, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Section: Coasts:

Under their influence, the sand and shingle on the beach is in continual grinding motion. Not really continual.

Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Section: Sea level:

The variations in sea level over time are the result of changes in the oceanic crust, Perhaps the overall trend, but larger shorter term fluctuations due to changes in glaciation are mentioned in the next paragraph.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The final sentence indicates a rising trend, and as this is contrary to the very long term falling trend mentioned earlier in the same paragraph, a time scale should be mentioned.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Section: Life in the sea:

Marine life is economically important to humans, especially the fish they catch and use for food, and provides support for the carbon cycle - needs clarification.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarify major groups of animals by linking to whatever this is intended to mean (Phyla?)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Section: Marine habitats:

The link for "open ocean: redirects to pelagic zone, which is not quite appropriate as a complement to coastal.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The parentheses around "horizontally" and "vertically" do not seem necessary.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Section: Algae and plants:

Productivity is not necessarily higher in warmer waters; it is instead controlled mainly by upwelling of cold but mineral-rich waters and near rivers which bring nutrients leached from the soil. Unclear.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Section: Animals and other marine life:

The pelagic zone between the surface of the water and the seabed contains myriad zooplankton drifting with the currents. Between the surface and seabed includes demersal zone.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Not all planktonic organisms are tiny.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The extensive calcareous skeletons they extrude build up into coral reefs which engineer the seabed. "engineer" implies intelligent design, or at least intentional modification, perhaps not wholly appropriate in this context.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

more later • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Section: Humans and the sea

Section: History:

First and second paragraphs - awkward prose - looks almost as if a bulleted list was reformatted to a string of sentences.

Before I rephrase it, are you happy with the content or do you think there is too much detail? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections to the level of detail at present, but would probably not have any objection if a bit was trimmed or added either. The order could be adjusted a bit to be more strictly chronological, but I leave the logical arrangement to your discretion as long as it flows smoothly. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The latitude (a concentric line on a globe parallel with the equator) Latitude may be depicted by a concentric circle parallel to the equator, but what it is, is the angle between the equatorial plane and the radius to that point.

Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Section:Origins of oceanography and deep sea exploration:

Why Origins, or why is this section in history, while the following group are not? It would give more flexibility if the History header were to be eliminated, as many of the following sections have some history content.

Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The battery-operated Mir submersibles developed by NOAA... Mir was a USSR-Finnish project, DSV Alvin was the US equivalent.

Removed NOAA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sections: Maritime law, Travel:

No comment.

Section: Trade:

Three main types of cargo, if break bulk is still to be included. Containerized cargo ≠ break bulk.

Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Commodities are bulky goods in the form of liquids, powder or particles such as oil, grain, coal, ore, scrap metal, sand and gravel Not how I would define commodities. Looks like this should be referring to bulk cargo.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Section: Food:

No comment.

Section: Leisure:

Beneath the surface, spearfishing and freediving are necessarily restricted to surface waters. Not clear what this is supposed to mean, or why it refers specifically to spearfishing and freediving but not pearl diving or scuba. In any case, pearl diving is not a leisure activity.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Human eyes are not adapted for use underwater, but vision can be improved by wearing a diving mask. The possibilities for exploration of the submarine environment are further extended by the use of fins and snorkels, and scuba equipment allows underwater breathing and hence a longer time can be spent beneath the surface. Diving suits can be worn, and buoyancy can be adjusted through the use of weights. The depths that can be reached by divers and the length of time they can stay underwater is limited by the increase of pressure they experience as they descend and the need to prevent decompression sickness as they return to the surface. Recreational divers are advised to restrict themselves to depths of under 100 feet (30 m) beyond which the danger of nitrogen narcosis increases. Deeper dives can be made with specialised equipment and training. Is this level of detail appropriate? Compare with rest of section.

Trimmed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

A new world record was set in 2006 when a US Navy diver descended to 2,000 feet (610 m) using an atmospheric diving suit. Not a leisure activity. Could go in section "Oceanography and deep exploration".

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

more later. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Section: Power generation:

No comment.

Section: Extractive industries:

Is offshore diamond mining worth mentioning? It has been going on for a long time.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Section: Naval warfare.

No comment.

Section: Marine pollution:

The marine environment has self-cleansing properties and naturally occurring bacteria will act over time to remove the oil from the sea Some indication of the time scale needed for perspective.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sections: Indigenous sea peoples, In culture:

No comment. Support inclusion of Rachel Carson quote as closing line.

Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Signing off for now, The article is improving consistently. I will keep it on my watchlist. If you would like me to go through it again at any stage leave a note on my talk page. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.