The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 6 June 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
This is my second shot. Since the first nominations, we've been tightening the article, and Mattaise has done a great go-over of the prose. Try, try again... Res Mar 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The section on macro organisms had material that was copied without understanding and without quotation marks. Probably the article should be more carefully checked before some author finds their work as a featured article in wikipedia without their permission. It's also useful for the reader of the article if the material copied (although prefer it not copied, but rewritten and developed with proper attribution and expanded and placed in pointed context) is directly related to the article. Data in the table and lists were about species found in general by expeditions to primarily other seamounts, not this one, or were not found at the linked site, or were used in ways that did not show the relationship to this article and its unique sealife that is a function of its historical activity and location relative to the hotspot. Please check sources carefully. Also please read carefully to see if the article makes sense. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 01:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: Enough inaccuracies have been found to make me quite wary about this article. Examples include the macro-organism material mentioned above, the seamount's height ( diff), and the issues around the 1996 eruption recently discussed on the article's talk page. As 69.226.103.33 suggests above, the article needs to be thoroughly checked against its sources. There is a lot of good work being put in, though, so I'm still hopeful. -- Avenue ( talk) 11:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, I think that's about it. I don't claim that this is everything, but it should get you started, at least. JKBrooks85 ( talk) 08:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply