# Talk:Kemp Caldera

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kemp Caldera/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 11:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Collapsed above, as it's a lot of text that is mostly dealt with. I'm satisfied with GA criteria 2-5. For 6 (images) I might suggest a map, but I'm not going to hold the nomination on that. From the above, there seem to be two areas of prose that we disagree on, the two paragraphs of geology, and some organisation within Biology. For Biology, I continue to think some shifts need to happen. For example, the second paragraph currently goes from vent-related species to seafloor/whale related-species and then back to vent-related species and then to whale-related species again. I'm not wedded to my suggested rearrangement, but I do feel it is one method that would reduce the instances of repetition noted above. For geology, I may ask for a second opinion if you're amenable, purely on understandability to a broad audience. CMD (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis, a second opinion seems eminently reasonable to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Partially delivering on second opinion. I think the geology section is sufficiently understandable and it doesn't appear to use unnecessary jargon, except "white smoker" which perhaps be clarified a bit that it is a type of hydrothermal vent. I'm also confused by "Volcanic activity in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean has been known since the 19th century." Does that mean that there was none before 19th century or it wasn't observed by humans? Either way, what is the importance to this article? I have no opinion on the biology section. (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe:Added an explanation and rewrote that sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Also going to try to contribute to a second opinion. I made some edits to see if I could rectify the issues, which I'll try to explain here in relation to those conflicts. I am rather inexperienced with reviewing, and in retrospect, may have misunderstood the relationship between the more fluid regular cycle of editing and what seems to be a rigid style of GAN editing, so I apologize if my edits were improper. I approached most of the edits as an average reader to try to make everything as understandable as possible. Anyways I'll summarize them now.
0. Edits to lead: moved discovery phrase out of middle of hydrothermal vent thing to compound sentence at the end. Altered in-article explanation of white smoker vent. In retrospect this moving to parentheses is probably one of the more objectionable changes, so any reversion of this back to the note is fine by me if you guys agree.
1. Geography and geomorphology: changed sentence about discovery and first sampling. Not opposed to moving mention of first sample to following sentence about further sampling. However, what is sampling? A link or brief explanation, or even just an adjective before sampling would help. Picky thing about ref 9, but not essential: is using the same reference three words apart necessary?  The lack of a map to illustrate what the whole thing looks like is pretty brutal, but I agree that holding the nomination on that is maybe excessive. The prose does a good job explaining it, although it is necessarily complex. Could a different word be used instead of sill? Word choice change is not essential though.
2. Geology (2 paragraphs): the conflict here seemed to be about how to "zoom in" on Kemp Caldera from a greater perspective of Antarctic volcanism. Both you guys seemed to want to do the same thing, but the prose seemed to obstruct it a little bit. Kept the mention of the other hydrothermal vents in the arc for local context, feel its okay, but it did need that explicit clarification that those vents were nearby. Focused in a bit, as CMD said, in sentence about the arc. Hope it's acceptable.
2-1. Geochemistry and activity: moved one reference that created a disruptive break in how the first sentence mentally read. Tried to clarify the "torn down by icebergs" sentence with a link to seabed gouging, which I think is what was meant. If it isn't what is meant, my bad. Added "relatively" to "young."
3. Biology (well, ecology now): section name change feels justified, as it deals pretty specifically the relation between the article subject (the specific environment) and the organisms. Prose changes which seem minor and acceptable. I agree with CMD, that the mention of the Vesicomyid clams in the third paragraph is redundant (just move the reference to the comma after the mention in the second). I don't know if the distinct vent/whale fall division is necessary, the way the three paragraphs are currently organized seems alright. It seems to me to go 1: sort of an overview? (maybe a little jumbly and not as tightly centered, but acceptable) 2: Species on the vents, then, species on the surrounding seafloor, then, mentions of new species in the collective area of Kemp Caldera, not just the caldera. 3: Whale fall communities, possible connection of ecological development. Fine by me, but if you did want to clean up paragraph one, you could move the 9 communities fact out of the third.
3-1. Conservation: split this bit off, to create a clearer break between the three preceding paragraphs which share more in common, and the paragraph dealing with what I think could be summarized as conservation.
I hope this helps resolve any issues. Once again, sorry if I erred in doing some edits myself. Also, pinging @Chipmunkdavis: and @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, as this page has been dormant for two months (sorry for the pun, low-hanging fruit, I know). Starkenborgher (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I have adjusted the second vesicomyid sentence. My understanding of Starkenborgher's assessment was that this was their only significant issue with the Ecology section. Alongside buidhe having provided an opinion on the geology section (thanks very much to both), I am passing this now. CMD (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)