Talk:Island

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Island/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ForksForks (talk · contribs) 12:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

I'll have a go at this one.

• The 'Definition' spends a lot of time on continents, especially Australia, basically off-topic. Please cut it down.
  • Done

• The 'Etymology' is slightly backwards, as we wait until the last sentence to discover the cognates, complete with an apologetic "is actually a cognate", as if Swedish were somehow a less-valued language, very odd. Please restructure so that we have the real etymology first, all of it; and then (I suggest a separate paragraph) the false etymology, trimmed to reduce repetition (the 3 mentions "false ... incorrect ... etymologically unrelated ..." are all synonyms, and we don't need the wikilink on "etymologically" either).
  • This is an artifact of the previous crufty version of the article. Should have rewritten but was scared to touch, thank you!

• 'Geology' alludes to atolls in paragraph 1 but doesn't introduce them until paragraph 3. Suggest rearrange.
  • Attempted to make this make more sense

• The 'See also' list of lists is excessive; since 'List of islands' is actually a misnomer for 'List of lists of islands', all the links to other lists of islands (listed there in that list of lists) should be removed as duplicates. 'Island country' could be a 'further' link for 'Political significance', and again remove it from 'See also'. (Not sure that 'Political significance' is quite the right heading, maybe 'Island nations and territories'.)
  • Done

• 'Island biogeography' and 'Island ecology' are obviously important subtopics, and they are in fact briefly discussed (without naming them!) in 'Life on islands'. Please name and link them there (and remove them from 'See also'); I'd suggest you restructure the chapter with subsections with these as headings and "main" links.
  • Done

• 'Life on islands' should discuss and illustrate Island gigantism in a short subsection (it's part of Island biogeography); there is good material with sources to select from in that article, which should get a 'main' link. The subsection should mention Foster's rule and Insular dwarfism too. Perhaps the section should be named 'The island rule' to cover both gigantism and the lesser-known dwarfism.
  • Done

• 'Life on islands' should also mention the species–area relationship in an island context.
  • Done

• The last paragraph of 'Life on islands' is evidently about 'Conservation of endemic island species'. Obviously the concept of endemism needs to be discussed (populations evolve in isolation [French isolé="put on an island"], become new local i.e. endemic species), and then the conservation of endemic species can be explained in that context. I think you'll need a 'further' link to endemism. From there, you should discuss dispersal (by flying, swimming, floating on rafts, blowing in the wind...) and hence the idea of diverging evolution on island chains or groups (adaptive radiation): and that will be the place to introduce Darwin and natural selection. So the section will need a bit of rearrangement - I think you will be able to reuse most of the existing text, but with this logic and a new set of subsection headings (maybe 'Endemism', 'Dispersal', 'Evolution on island groups', 'Darwin, the Galapagos, and natural selection').
  • Done

• The subsection on 'Conservation of endemic island species' could be placed separately alongside '[Impact of] climate change': both sections affect life on islands, and both have human causes, so they will fit well together. There seems no reason to place one in the 'Humans' chapter and the other one outside it really, so perhaps both should go in a new 'Threats' chapter.
  • Done

• The 'Islands portal' adds nothing to the article; here the reader gets links in precise and explained context, there the reader gets random links with no logic to them. Suggest we remove it.
  • Done, I just wanted to avoid making possibly contentious changes, but I agree with you.

• Not sure why a modern article needs to list the short and outdated 1911 EB text, either.
  • Done

• Earwig flags one page as a close match (48.5%). It looks to me as if they have directly copied Wikipedia, and indeed they mention us shortly afterwards, so no worries there.

• "Many island nations ... generally have little land" - could be improved. Having little land on an island is definitional (islands are smaller than continents), so no need to hesitate about it.
  • done

• "Bananal Island" - please add that it's in the Tocantins of Brazil.
  • Done

Images

• Suggest the caption for Kansai Airport has the city name "Osaka" added.
  • Done

• Similarly, the Outer Banks caption should add that it's off the East Coast of the United States.
  • Done

• Several captions just describe their images, without saying why they are relevant to the article. E.g. "A tropical beach in Malapascua, the Philippines": well, so what? The caption needs to say "Tourists are attracted in large numbers to tropical beaches, such as to ...". The same goes for several other captions, so please check all of them.
  • Interesting, that was the idea I had for how captions were meant to be, but will switch. This is good info.

• All the images are on Commons and plausibly licensed.

cross section through Earth at the Hawaii hotspot. Magma from the mantle rises into the lithosphere, creating a chain of volcanoes as the lithosphere moves over the hotspot.

• The 'Formation in oceans' section would benefit from an image explaining the formation of island chains.
  • Done

• The kangaroo/Australia image is basically off-topic for this article. There is no shortage of endemism images on Commons, so please replace the image with something more suitable, such as of island gigantism to accompany the suggested text more closely.
  • Done

Adaptive radiation of finch A (Geospiza magnirostris) into three other species of finches on the Galapagos Islands. Due to the absence of other birds, Darwin's finches adapted to new niches. Their seed-eating beaks evolved to handle foods such as nuts, fruits, and insects.

• The Galápagos turtle image is a possible choice for the Darwin subsection, but I'd suggest you might do better to replace it with an image of Darwin's finches (and link that article) as these much more directly suggest the evolution from the island endemism story. For instance, the image of adaptive radiation of Finch A into three other species tells the story rather plainly.
  • Done

Sources

• [1], [15], [27], [30] are all Britannica. This is not forbidden exactly, but it does seem rather intensive use of the tertiary source; we certainly prefer reliable secondary sources.
  • Tried to pretty extensively take care of Britannica. I think I only couldn't remove one cite (Bananal island)

• [3] is a dead link (and seemed a dubious source), please replace.
  • Done

• [12] is not a journal paper; there are many better sources on atolls.
  • Done

• [18] is a desperately old (1968) source for island ecology and biogeography. Please follow the suggestions above and the provided wikilinks to obtain more up-to-date sources for this chapter, there are plenty in the linked articles.

• [21] is ok, but article has made very heavy use of it for the human geography.
  • Found a couple more sources, want more.

• [22] please spell out and wikilink "Encyclopedia of Life Sciences".
  • Done

• [28] is a whole book. Please provide page number(s).
  • Done

• [29] - ethnogeriatrics! This may be a reliable source for facts on geriatrics, but it is presumably just copying from other sources on the history of the Pacific islands, on which it can't be an authority. Please find a better source.
  • Done

• [31] - what makes Ballard Brief a reliable source?
  • Found a better source and a more neutral claim

• [35] please add second author (you have Fisher, need Hirschfeld also).
  • Done

• [36] Fang, Duan is a whole book, please provide page number(s).
  • I used a snippet of a chapter without page numbers from science direct, threw that in.

• [37] and [38] Mirasola are the same source, please merge them.
  • Done

Summary

• Nom has recently rewritten this article, mainly in a single draft, starting from an old but mainly geographical article. The new 'Humans' chapter is a large improvement; the new 'Life on islands' chapter too is very welcome, but needs rearrangement, linking, and illustrating. Suggestions have been made on the article's illustrations, and for adjustments to the text. Some attention is needed to the sources used. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Will continue working soon. Have covered several comments already ForksForks (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I'm completely out of time this afternoon to complete Darwin's section -- almost over the finish line. The rest should be a pretty good first pass. If you have suggested images or sources for a quick Darwin summary let me know. ForksForks (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• • OK, I'm happy with the new section and I've added a couple more images. Please let me know if there's other changes you would like. Thank you! ForksForks (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that islands are home to 50% of land species at risk of extinction?

• Source: [1] page 2045

• ALT1: ... that animals can colonize islands by riding tropical cyclones? Source: [2]
• ALT2: ... that Polynesian navigators discovered new islands without the use of navigational instruments? Source: [3]
• Reviewed: [[]]

Improved to Good Article status by ForksForks (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

ForksForks (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

• As a Good level article, this automatically passes several of the criteria, such as length and very obviously using in-line referencing properly and all of that. The nomination was passed yesterday, making this new enough. All three hooks are good and their refs check out for the info and for in-line usage in the article for the information. I'm more partial to the first two than the third one, personally, as the most interesting. No QPQ needs to be done as this is your first nomination. Looks good to go! Silverseren^C 21:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Silver seren: per the DYK criteria, a GA pass is not sufficient for DYK purposes – the DYK reviewer has to re-verify that the article meets DYK criteria, even on the same points. A bit cumbersome, unfortunately, but would you mind taking a look for me? (Also, ALT1 fucking rules. Animals can ride tropical cyclones???) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Apologies for my lack of clarity in my response above, theleekycauldron. I did check for those anyways, it's just that length was very apparent and I looked through for in-line referencing, copyvio, and the rest anyways. I was just making a generalized statement about it being a Good article. I did still check those criteria. So, still Silverseren^C 21:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
      • I don't know if this kind of comment matters, but I would be happy to use ALT1 if people prefer it. No preference from me. Someone suggested "....that an island is land" for an alt as well, which is pretty funny to me. ForksForks (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

"Types of islands" section

Please recover the "Types of islands" section. I don't know why someone removed this section without discussion. When I clicked internal links such as continental islands, oceanic islands, and tropical islands etc., these links have been redirected to the main article island because the relevant information is lost.

Other types of islands, such as volcanic islands (a.k.a. high islands), coral islands (a.k.a. low islands), barrier islands, sand islands, fluvial islands (a.k.a. river islands), lake islands, uninhabited islands, vanishing islands, tidal islands, tied islands, former islands, and phantom islands etc. also deserve to have their own paragraph under the "Types of islands" section. Can someone please recover these information before they are lost forever? Thank you. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:4596:9966:BC0C:D351 (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back. The discussion was automatically archived due to inactivity (i.e. after 30 days of inactivity). In that discussion, all other parties seemed to reaffirm the present structure of the article and questioned the utility of reincorporating such a list section. I recommend engaging with the points made previously before rehashing this discussion again, as consensus seems to be against your proposed changes. Thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 05:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Why though? I am not saying that this current article is badly written, but it is focusing too much on the biogeographic aspects of islands. Why can't we reinstate the "Types of islands" section which focuses on the geologic aspects of islands.

I have found another similar article on the Internet which serves as a good example of how a geography-related article should be written:

https//www.newworld encyclopedia.org/entry/Island 2001:8003:9100:2C01:4596:9966:BC0C:D351 (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

New World Encyclopedia is simply a mirror of Wikipedia: that article is clearly a fork of the previous version of this article, which again others consider to be inferior. In response to the "the present version overemphasizes biology over geology" angle: given one can peruse the aforementioned list articles or the specific articles pertaining specifically to geologic island typology, I feel this article is properly weighted.

I have given my reasons already in the archived discussion, and will not be doing so again. Please engage with the reasons given before rehashing this discussion again. Remsense ‥ 论 07:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Inferior? I wouldn't say so. The New World Encyclopedia has quality control, only certified experts with academic and literary qualifications can edit their articles. Whereas in Wikipedia, anyone can write something, including ten-year-old primary school students. The New World Encyclopedia is not a mirror of Wikipedia, it is actually the opposite. I noticed that a lot of Wikipedia articles have copied contents from the New World Encyclopedia. I reckon that the average quality of their articles are better.

By the way, even if the New World Encyclopedia is considered to be "not good enough", how about National Geographic's article about islands:

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/island/

They have also adopted a similar format which lists the types of islands first before discussing the biogeographic aspects of these different islands. I think their article serves as a good example here. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:4596:9966:BC0C:D351 (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If you prefer the encyclopedia written by the Moonies, go read that. Don't continue to pester us here when no one has agreed with you despite the opportunity having been available for months, and you refuse to engage with any of the reasons stated for the consensus position. Remsense ‥ 论 13:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Can we have a civilized discussion please? I just mentioned that the National Geographic's article had used a similar format too.

By the way, where is the previous discussion you were referring to? The one stored in the archives only has a few responses and no consensus was reached there. I couldn't find your response in that discussion either. Can you provide a link to the previous discussion to prove that you are not talking nonsense here? 2001:8003:9100:2C01:4596:9966:BC0C:D351 (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I linked it above. Remsense ‥ 论 14:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I have read the linked discussion and the GA Review. In the linked discussion, you were the only one opposing the proposal to reinstate the "Types of islands" section. There was absolutely no consensus. In the GA Review, 95% of the discussions were focused on the details about the biogeographic aspects of islands. The only relevant part is as follows:

* The 'Definition' spends a lot of time on continents, especially Australia, basically off-topic. Please cut it down.

** Done

Based on my observations, I would like to point out that:

1. There was no consensus to remove the part discussing the "types of islands" which contains various subsections, arranged in a list format with each subsection focusing on one particular type of island. Some of these subsections can be directly accessed via clicking internal links such as continental islands, oceanic islands, and tropical islands etc.
2. The GA Review spent a lot of energy discussing the details in regard to the biogeographic aspects of islands. Only one person has participated in this review seriously and almost all the relevant edits were done by this same person.
3. Overall, the contents relating to the biogeographic aspects of islands have improved significantly after the review. However, some important information about the geologic aspects of islands were lost. Most notably Wikipedia users can no longer find relevant information via clicking those above-mentioned internal links as all of them have been redirected to the main article title which serves no real purposes.

I strongly recommend the restoration of the geologic part of the article in a list format. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:4596:9966:BC0C:D351 (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you don't need a positive consensus to change something, except for in extreme cases. You can just change that thing. ForksForks (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)