Sea has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 25, 2013 Peer review Reviewed July 9, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 29, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the sea (wave pictured) contains over 97% of Earth's water?
Current status: Good article

Oceans GA‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of oceans, seas, and bays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Oceans To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : List of oceanographers, create a comprehensive article on Concentrations of marine debris out of all the gyre and "garbage patch" articles Copyedit : Draft:Terrance (octopus) Expand : Coral Sea, Endeavour Strait, Greenland Sea, Solomon Sea Photo : find images for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the oceans Stubs : Oceanography stub articles, Marine geography stub articles, Aleutian Trench, Bellingshausen Sea, Caernarfon Bay, Gerlache Strait, Gulf of Oman, Iceland Sea, Draft:Terrance (octopus) Update : Botany Bay, Wilkins Sound, Mariana Trench, Challenger Deep Verify : Antarctic Circumpolar Current, Bering Sea, Gulf of Aden, Iceberg B-15, Ionian Sea, Japan Trench, Moreton Bay, Sound (geography), Timor Sea Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from Aral Sea; check La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from MS Estonia

Template:WP1.0

I am bringing back this section as it is vital for the new section I have added relating to definitions and terminology.--Coin945 (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the recent attempt at giving a technical definition for sea as "a subdivision of an ocean that is surrounded on all or most sides by land boundries". This is incorrect, it would exclude the Sargasso Sea for instance. Furthermore, the citation given for this definition does not support this definition. It actuall says

According to our encyclopedia the words [sea and ocean] are synonymous. In addition, the word "sea" can also be used to describe a subdivision of an ocean that is more or less marked off by land boundries.

In any case the source (Infoplease) cannot be considered a reliable source, it is something along the lines of Answers.com. I don't think there is any accepted technical definition of sea amongst oceanographers. It is poorly defined as a sub-division of an ocean, which at least means that it must have oceanic basin crust on its floor (this, by the way, lets in the Caspian Sea which was once part of an ancient ocean [1]). The closest I could find in a reliable source to the given definition was [2] but I don't think they really meant "land-locked", and the book is written by marine bioligists, not oceanographers. They do say that the name is only one of convenience. Another source [3] also says the boundaries are arbitrary.

The only discipline that actually tries to present a firm definition of sea is international law dealin with law of the sea. Basically, all the ocean is sea according to them, but the whole subject is machevellian complicated (by lawyers and politicians) and not of much use to an oceanographic article. See [4] for instance, and [5] for another comment on the arbitrariness of this. By the way, the Caspian would be excluded if a legal definition of sea was used. The Caspian is legally an "international lake" [6]. SpinningSpark 16:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my attempt to add a definition of sea to the article. I actually took the definition from two sources, one of which I retrospectively decided was not reliable so excluded it from the references. However, as you said, it turns out the other one wasn't reliable either. That's why the source didn't match up to what I added to the article. Sea unlike ocean, is a rather strange beast, and while it is a level 2 vital article (which is why I nominated it for TAFI), it is very hard to define indeed. I did manage to find a few definitions here and there though. ""sea" is generally defined as a large lake that contains saltwater, or a specific portion of an ocean" or in other words "A very large lake that contains salt water, is known as a sea (except the Sea of Galilee, which is actually a freshwater lake). A sea can also be attached to, or even part of, an ocean. For example, the Caspian Sea is a large saline lake surrounded by land, the Mediterranean Sea is attached to the Atlantic Ocean, and the Sargasso Sea is a portion of the Atlantic Ocean, surrounded by water.". "It's smaller than an ocean, saltier than a lake, and not always confined by land". Seas are found on the margins of the ocean. Many people use the terms "ocean" and "sea" interchangeably when speaking about the ocean, but there is a difference between the two terms when speaking of geography (the study of the Earth's surface). Seas are smaller than oceans and are usually located where the land and ocean meet. Typically, seas are partially enclosed by land. A sea is defined as a large lake-type water body that has saltwater and is sometimes attached to an ocean. However, a sea does not have to be attached to an ocean outlet as the world has many inland seas such as the Caspian...Seas make up such a large proportion of the water on Earth". I think our best bet is to make the article about the term "sea", and how it has been applied to different bodies of water within different contexts, such as within the legal discourse (as you mention above), in the context of the Seven Seas, or even the lunar maria which are known as "seas". We could also talk about everything sea-related - animals with sea in their name, sea shanties, burial at sea, seamount, sea Change etc. And then we have the definitions that support the synonymous nature of sea/ocean. This dictionary.com page sums up some of the varying definitions of sea: [7]. The article Marginal sea may also be of use to us, especially considering how its been used in definitions [for sites http://geography.about.com/od/specificplacesofinterest/a/atlantic-ocean-seas.htm]. FYI, this is the Simple English page on sea.--Coin945 (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with a broad description of what sea is using loose terminology such as "often bounded by coastline" as long as it is not sold as a "technical" or "official" definition and does not exclude boundaries that are not coastline such as chains of islands (such as South China Sea), vague regions of ocean (southern boundary of the Labrador Sea), some physical property (Archipelago Sea), or delimited entirely by oceanographic behaviour without reference to land at all (Sargasso Sea, Great Pacific Garbage Patch).

I think the article needs to remain clearly focused and not try and become an extended dicdef or dab page. Wikipedia articles are (or should be) focused on a single topic. Other meanings or aspects of a title can have their own articles if notable enough and are dealt with by disambiguation. SpinningSpark 15:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can somehow use those sources above and any that you've found to write a definition of sea, then go right ahead. I think you have a much better idea of what you're looking for than I. Also, totally understand that last point. When wondering what this article should actually about, when I ran out of ideas, those were the sorts of things that popped into my head, I mean, what can we really say about this article? What sorts of info should we be adding? Any particular sections in mind?--Coin945 (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History sections

I've added a section on the early history of oceanography, so I guess we ought to have similar-sized sections on:

• History of navigation (there is some material there, but needs refs at least)
• History of cartography (needs a nice map or two, text, refs)
• Maritime history / Ancient maritime history

... and what else?

Other sections

• Marine life
• Marine geology

• Zones and regions
  • Arctic?
  • Temperate?
  • Tropical?
  • Deep sea (vents, ...)?

* Human exploitation:

• • Trade?
  • Tourism?
  • Pollution?
  • Fishing?
  • Seabed mining, oil/gas drilling? (see 2nd attempt below)

• Human reactions:
  • In literature (how about Conrad?) and poetry
  • In art (Hokusai, ...)
  • In music (Debussy's La mer, ... )
  • ...

... well, what should we cover? Do we need to avoid ocean systems? 14:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the human exploitation bit I think we might have a "uses" subheading to include brief information on wave power and tidal power, the extraction of chemical constituents from sea water (particularly salt) and desalination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Perhaps the current "History" should be within that, as it's a human (not geological) history. So...

• Human uses
  • History
  • Exploitation
    • Trade
    • Fishing
    • Leisure
    • Power generation
    • Extraction (mining, drilling, desalination, manganese nodules)
    • Pollution

Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have rearranged the order of your proposed subsections putting Pollution last as it is, at least partly, the result of the other uses. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great expansion of this article guys, that is a massive improvement. However, I am not very happy with the disappearance of the images from list of seas. I chose them as eye catching quality images that displayed a range of different ocean environments. Can someone explain why they are no longer wanted in the article? SpinningSpark 16:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I did note in an edit comment that we needed to address the image question, but yes, here's a better place. Nobody has taken a decision on not wanting them; we should use them where they are appropriate to the article's contents, i.e. historical images in the history, maps in cartography, etc. We certainly shouldn't be using images just to brighten things up. As for the table of lists, the format does not suit images, so we should re-insert the images elsewhere in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were not there just to brighten things up (although I don't see that as a something to be avoided) but to present different views of seas, especially the more unusual environments. They are not really suitable for either the history or the cartography section. Perhaps they could go in some form of gallery? SpinningSpark 18:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but since we are in the process of adding new sections, I suspect it will be best to wait a moment: very likely we'll add something on types of sea (see question above), which will be a good fit to images of marine environments. All the best -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that I removed Gulf of Catalina from the image caption is that it is not on our list of seas and in fact is not anywhere else in Wikipedia, and searching for it in Google doesn't produce much in the way of meaningful results. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have separated your comment from the thread above (where it was not particularly relevant besides also concerning me) so that I could clearly reply to it. Hope you don't mind.

Did you search Google books or Google scholar? I am pretty sure I could write a passable article on it if I had a mind to. SpinningSpark 19:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look too hard, but I don't like to see a red link in the lead image caption. It would be great if you were to write an article, even if it were only a stub. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I was going to write anything. It takes several years for items to percolate to the top of my To Do list and I am currently trying to finish off this monster. But I'll see what I can do for you after that one hits mainspace. SpinningSpark 08:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was the redlink? I might create a new article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it. Will see now whether there is sufficient material to create an article--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent,  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased the red link has gone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this section, there is a link to law of the sea which is in fact a dab page. I can not figure out which meaning should be here. Could someone pls have a look and insert a more specific reference.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked it to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which seems to be the most appropriate possibility. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought long and hard about this section, and have come up with the following (well, you can see the section for yourself). I've created an "Overview" to give a big picture of the article, and in particular to talk about The Sea in general, moving the facts and figures which were a bit lonely in the lead, and adding some poetry to give the human reaction to the world ocean. The definitions have been shortened a little, though almost all the refs are still there, and two footnotey chunks are now in actual footnotes. I think it reads more naturally, stays on subject and is informative, but open to improvements of course. Hope you all like it. Work continues... Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned that the new lead redefines the scope of the article in the completely opposite direction of what it was before, and that the new scope makes much of the article redundant to ocean, world ocean in particular, while at the same time conflicting with the sourced statement at the ocean article that defines "sea" as partioned by land. In short, I think your work is lovely, but completely in the wrong place. oknazevad (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Brilliant work, but I'd suggest transferring it over to world ocean and starting again. Seas and oceans are subsections of the world ocean, which is collectively colloquially known as the ocean or the sea.--Coin945 (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these heartfelt thoughts. Several things in reply:

1) We already know that the Sargasso Sea is surrounded by ocean, not partitioned by land, so that won't work. On the contrary, we know that sea has an overlapping, er, sea of meanings centred around large amounts of water, but disagreeing in every other detail. That's just how sea is, I'm afraid.

2) Coin945 added "...went to sea in a beautiful pea-green boat", which certainly goes with the sea as, well, the sea, not landlocked lake.

3) The lead is just keeping up with the article: it doesn't define anything. I don't think any of the contents wrong for an article on the sea; I suggested a list of sections above exactly for this discussion. The lead will change as the article does, that's its job.

4) The subsections argument cannot be right, or we'd have exactly one article which explained everything, with all its subsections. We can't avoid some overlap with Ocean, or Wave, or World ocean, but none are identical with the sea. World ocean is about the interconnected system, perhaps with special reference to plate tectonics or the system of ocean currents. The sea, in contrast, is about the thing itself, its wateriness, its saltiness, its life, its moods, the human response to it, navigation, greed, piracy, warfare, pollution, fisheries ... which wouldn't fit at all in the "World ocean" envelope. Come on, let's try it:

Who hath desired the World Ocean?—the sight of salt water unbounded—

The heave and the halt and the hurl and the crash of the comber wind-hounded?

Nah, it sounds ridiculous. It's the World OceanSea, of course. There's no other word for it, and no other place in Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excwpt we already have an article on the World Ocean, and more importantly the limitation of "sea" to the subset-type bodies is in line with current oceanographic use. (Note that the term for studying all of the world's interconnected water is indeed "oceanography"). That's what the article needs to reflect, current scientific usage. oknazevad (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is... all those things you said (its wateriness, its saltiness, its life etc.) still apply to the sea - of course they do, as seas are just arbitrary divisions of the world ocean (just as oceans themselves are). (I guess an equivalent could be between the highly underdeveloped landmass and the articles supercontinent, continent, and island). But this article should be (imo) about he concept of seas themselves - why these arbitrary divisions have been made. Yes, we often use the terms sea or ocean as shortcuts to mean the world ocean, as we can discuss that all in the terminology section of world ocean. But I do think this article should focus on how and why this concept of sea (which in essence doesn't really *mean* anything; it is a completely man-made concept and is only distinguishable from the world ocean in regard to the cultural and geographical significance the portions of the world ocean have had to humans) came about. Interestingly the article on [[ocean]s is quite different to this one. I'm not sure why, as they are essentially differently sized versions of the same thing. Then again it comes down to how humans have invented and related to these arbitrary concepts throughout history. But when talking about the world's water system and the way it works, I think we should always go back to the world ocean article, rather than putting that sort of information in an article like this. Or if we do, to keep it highly summarised. When we talk about the "sea" or the "ocean", it is the "world ocean" that we are *actually* referring to. But, as I said, it is extremely fascinating to discover how these arbitrary divisions of the world ocean came about. Ehhhh... this is very messy and confusing, as although world ocean is the "proper" term, it is the less well known one. And it seems redundant to have 3 articles on essentially the same thing. If this article is on anything, it can't be on the world ocean just because it is sometimes referred to as "the sea". It must be about the *seas*, and how these subdivisions of the world ocean got made - and even their significance today. Like when a tragedy occurs, do the media choose to refer to the sea it occurred in? Or the entire ocean? Or say "off the coast of ___"? In fact, are seas still a useful concept? I'm very fascinated in the notion of "sea"'s potential obsolescence. All these sorts of issues should be flooding the article imho, rather than the boring physical properties of the water and surrounding ecosystems. It is not a natural concept so it shouldn't be filled with content related to the natural world. --Coin945 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Oknazevad - I agree with Coin945 in part here, though the sea is certainly more than talking about "specific seas", we have the list of seas pointing to sub-articles for that. You are right, Sea does have AN oceanographic meaning - and an economic meaning, and many artistic meanings, and poetic meaning, and a military meaning, and a biological and ecological meaning, and so on and on. It is just fine to insist on oceanography in World Ocean, but absolutely terrible to do so here. Of course we welcome oceanographers and mariners and hydrographers and US marines and fishermen and all other seagoing types, but none of them can have the article to themselves, sorry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Coin945 - the literary, musical, artistic, poetic responses to the sea are definitely not about "arbitrary divisions of the world ocean". No, they are to the sea, pure and simple. I think you'll find that a lot of the other human interactions (the love of sailing, the desire to circumnavigate...) are of that same kind. The sea is more than and different from "a bunch of named seas", if you reflect on it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm.... yeah. I can deifnitely see what you're saying. It almost seems like there should be two sea articles - one about the arbitrary divisions of the world ocean, and the other about this poetic idea of "the sea". I totally get that this is different from the world ocean. It is not bounded by anything. Not clearly defined. It is the notion of the eternal, undiscovered, mysterious expanse. Like the watery version of the infinite universe (whereas the world ocean is like the observable universe, and seas & oceans are like galaxies/solar systems). One is an idea. The other is a scientific reality. And I see how different they are from each other. But I still see how different it is from the concept of "seas".--Coin945 (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my plan:

• sea info --> world ocean
• ocean info --> hydrosphere & other similar _____spheres like lithosphere
• info in extraterrestrial seas/oceans can stay as they are size-specific
• sea and ocean are re-written to be about how and why these man made divisions of the world ocean came to be, and if/why the terms are necessary.
• a new article on the poetic idea of "sea" or "the sea" will be created, talking about the subjective "literary, musical, artistic, poetic responses to the sea", free than either the physical geography or the politics of definitions.

I'm pretty sure this susses out this one hell of a convoluted topic.--Coin945 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What it comes down to is what is this article about, the poetic concept of "the sea", or the scientific/geographic concept. Until a couple of days ago, it was clearly a scientific/geographic article about seas-as-subdivisions. Unilaterally changing it is my issue. It's a huge change in scope for the article and should be more thoroughly discussed. Personally I like Coin's plan; the article on the peotic sea can be called The sea in culture or something like that.oknazevad (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having arrived at this discussion a bit late in the day, I would point out that it is not actually correct to say that Chiswick Chap and I had changed the subject of this article, - we have just enlarged it. On April 18th, before we touched it, it looked like this, with a section on History, particularly navigation, and a list of seas. I see the article as being about the "sea" that I was taken to with a bucket and spade as a child, the "sea" we Brits have to cross to get to another country and the "sea" in which whales and starfish live. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you are referring with the "bucket and spade" sea is the seaside/beach, is it not? Which is confusingly also sometimes referred to as "sea", such as in the Sweeney todd song "Down by the Sea". I'd say the second one is a channel/other stretch of water, and the third one is the ocean. I'd say in general we can use world ocean for all the earth's water and can use ocean to refer to just the deep parts of the world ocean where the whales and starfish live. I.e. rivers and lakes etc would count in world ocean but not in ocean. Nevertheless "sea" - a much more complicated and arbitrary word, should have its article dedicated to how this term came about etc. Or...... hmmm.... I guess since the word is used in so many different contexts, the article could be about all the different uses of the word "sea". Or that could just be a section in the article.--Coin945 (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[from Merriam-Webster] sea \ˈsē\: --Coin945 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. "a great body of salt water that covers much of the earth - world ocean
2. the waters of the earth as distinguished from the land and air" - all water on earth (see Hydrology and Water distribution on Earth. no article on Water on Earth interestingly enough... ...*Origin* of water on Earth doesn't count. :D)
3. a body of salt water of second rank more or less landlocked <the Mediterranean sea> - inland sea
4. ocean - ocean
5. an inland body of water —used especially for names of such bodies <the Caspian Sea> - "normal" seas. culturally and politically significant.
6. surface motion on a large body of water or its direction; also : a large swell or wave —often used in plural <heavy seas> - not sure... probably leaning towards the poetic use
7. the disturbance of the ocean or other body of water due to the wind - not sure... probably leaning towards the poetic use
8. something likened to the sea especially in vastness <a sea of faces> - metaphorical use
9. the seafaring life - poetic use
10. mare - lunar sea
11. As an adjective: at sea; on the sea; on a sea voyage; lost, bewildered; to sea; to or on the open waters of the sea - poetic use

--Coin945 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bad idea. First of all, dicdefs are against policy, it's a breach of WP:NOT. Secondly, trying to cover a multitude of meanings dilutes the focus of the article. That sort of task is the job of disambiguation pages. SpinningSpark 22:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark is right, we can't make Sea into a WP:DICDEF, that would be crazy and against policy. An article on a huge subject like Sea must be broad, covering what the sea is, what humans do with it, human responses to it, science, and all the rest. It absolutely must not be a lexicographical huddle of terminological fuss-potting, at the expense of covering the subject. Sailors, oceanographers, writers, musicians, marine biologists, chartmakers, explorers — ALL are part of the story. Nothing else will do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sea is listed as a Core subject on the English Wikipedia and I endorse Chiswick Chap's comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gahhh I wrote that at 4:00 in the morning and stuff got lost in translation. The whole dicdef thing was just a random throwaway suggestion at the end of a stream-of-consciousness comment. The analysis of the various dictionary meanings is the culmination of my real argument - that "sea" is used in a variety of different ways. Rather than having different articles for each one, at the moment our "sea" article tries (and IMO fails) to mesh them all into one. So I went through the definitions one at a time and tried to work our objectively the different contexts the word sea is used in. I came to the conclusion that we should end up distributing the information in this article with around 6/7 different articles: "the sea", "sea" (as in the list of seas), "ocean", "world ocean", "water on earth", "lunar mare" and perhaps also a "the sea in culture" (which would house all the artistic representations of "the sea"). The terminology section of each of those articles would them explain that they are sometimes referred to as "sea". While we have all been discussing "sea", we have each been referring to different concepts that happen to include the word "sea". This is very confusion and unhelpful. I have made a conscious effort to stop the arbitrariness of this word, so when we discuss "sea", we can clearly define what we mean. I hope that now we can clearly decide what parts of this article should be merged with which other articles. Just to reiterate, as it stands this article is a hodgepodge of all the different contexts the word "sea" is used in. If it's a dicdef article you're worried about, you've got one on your hands right now. We have to clearly define all the different ways the word sea is used, and distribute the info accordingly. The analysis of the various dictionary definitions above should help us out.--Coin945 (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiven. But no, it's not a hodgepodge; all articles on complex subjects should address "the main aspects of the topic" even if they aren't attempting to be "comprehensive". For that, articles have to have sections on different aspects, which means documented points of view, of the subject. We haven't covered all of them yet, but we're on the way there, as we should be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the article isn't about the word "sea". (then i would agree with you that we need to address all the different ways the word is used). It is about "sea". And there are many different *subjects* that are named "sea". So each of the diffreent subjects must have a different article. What is confusing, is that they are all named "sea".--Coin945 (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My course of action

The word "sea" is very confusing as it is used to refer to numerous concepts. I have decided that rather than trying to mesh them all into this article, we should clearly define each of the ways "sea" is used and distribute the information accordingly. This is what I propose, based on my analysis of the dictionary definitions of the word. "Sea" is used - mightily confusingly - in 6 diffreent ways. So we should distribute this info into these 6 articles. (the rest of the dicdefs that I attempted to analyse were mainly metaphorical uses). This essentially solves our problem, and gives us a list of terminology to use when trying to battle our way through this mess of a word.--Coin945 (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The sea" - (maybe also a split article "The sea in culture")
• "Sea" (as in inland seas etc. - arbitrary and culturally/politically significant. )
• "Ocean"
• "World ocean" (just the water inbetween the continents - "a great body of salt water that covers much of the earth")
• "Water on earth"/"Hydrosphere" ("the waters of the earth as distinguished from the land and air")
• "Lunar mare" (extraterrestrial seas)

Not really. Compare: the word "system" is used in over 20 ways; "nature" in at least 60. Despite that, it's right that we have just one article on each. Same for sea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ehh.... i give up. you seem to know what you're doing... just make sure you give this article justice, and don't make it redundant with the related articles that have already mentioned in this thread. I see an FA flickering in the distance. I know you can grab it. Peace out. :)--Coin945 (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least

At the very least, can't we rename this article "The sea", and then let the article on "Sea" be about the arbitrary human-made subdivisions of the "world ocean"/"the sea"?--Coin945 (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know this article is a part of the Core Contest now so ideally this move is made asap. It's confusing, i know, to have two very different concepts called the same thing, but it is true, so we must give them each a seperate article. Sea & The sea work fine! :)--Coin945 (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 10:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My view of "sea" is that it essentially refers to man-made arbitrary divisions of "the sea", made due to cultural/political reasons. The "list of seas" section refers to a list of "sea", rather than a list of "the seas". Therefore it can't be in this article. It doesn't make sense. The rest of the article defines "sea' as a thing that covers 70% of the Earth's surface. Then there's a section called "list of seas" which implies a list of "the seas". Just *how many* 'things that cover 70% of the Earth's surface' are there?! See how that could cause confusion? There are a bunch of "seas" inside "the sea". Not a bunch of "the seas". Similarly, the "Sea, ocean, lake" section is referring to "seas" rather than "the sea" - it says the are smaller than oceans for example - even though even the section preceding it clearly describes the 1 sea that covers 70% of the earth's surface.--Coin945 (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and that was just a naming suggestion. Obviously we could go for something like Sea (for "the sea" and Sea (region) (for "sea) or something like that. Don't let the terminology trip you up. :)

Go ahead and create Sea (region), then, nobody is stopping you; move the List of seas there, or into a separate article, and explain the kinds of sea (landlocked, edge, and Sargasso-in-a-gyre, and perhaps freshwater...), and link back to Sea for The Sea stuff, and to the List for the many-small-ones stuff. We can add a link in the Sea, ocean, lake note too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how involved you guys are, and due to you obviously having a very clear idea of where you want this (and I pressume related articles) to head, I think it would be best to leave you two to your own devices. I guess part of my problem with the improvements were that the scope of the article was already for [{Sea (region]], and the new content effectively hijacked it by turning it's scope into something completely different. It's almost like: "why not just make a new article and leave "sea" to its initial scope" rather than "turning" Sea from an article about "Seas" into "The sea", and then making a new article on "Seas" called Sea (region). Seems the long way around. And I'm not sure if that was intentional or not (cos as we've discussed, it is very easy to think both "the sea" and "seas" are the exact same topic)...but something about that just irked me. But whatever... at least it's clear that they refer to two very different things and can't coexist in the same article. --Coin945 (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't speak for anyone else, but FWIW I'd intended to cover all aspects. But since you prefer, will split off the regional seas when feeling strong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the different meanings of the word "sea" that so concern you can be adequately dealt with by use of the Sea (disambiguation) page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is not a good idea, the distinction between "Sea" and "The Sea" not exactly being clear. World Ocean is a very short article using a term that is unfamiliar to most, if used by geographers, and should probably be merged here. Any geographic lists here should probably be kept pretty short. I hope all are aware of the slight WP:ENGVAR differences in the usages of "sea" and "ocean" - Americans go to a beach & look at the "ocean", while Brits & I think Australians see the "sea" (regardless of whether they are looking at an actual ocean or not). I think the article should try to cover all types of "marine stuff" in a concise fashion, with lots of links to other main articles, & not have major splitting. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's made clear that the "sea" (as in world ocean), and the "sea" (as in things like the Mediterranean Sea) are two diffreent concepts that happen to be called the same thing. At the moment it looks like around 85% is talking about the former, and then you've got random leftover sections from before the improvement started that are talking about the latter. I hope I'm not coming across as anal or anything. It's just that it's rather hard to pick up on due to its subtlety (in fact i only realised the diffreence while pondering over this article's strangeness and incoherence). If you read the comments made under the "Sea" section of the Core Contest page, you'll see Caliber make some very similar comments to me, so it's clear this is a genuine problem, and not something I have fabricated just to be difficult. BTW initially I said we should merge "Sea" (as in the sea) content into World Ocean, but it makes perfect sense to merge it the other way, being the more common term and all. :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call them "different concepts". The Med is a subset/example of the whole thing, and a geographical term, which the whole thing isn't exactly. But general stuff about currents, waves, sealife etc is applicable to both, when at a broad enough level. Or am I missing something? Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from an uninvolved reader: I have no idea how the scope of this article compares to the scope of other related articles, e.g. World Ocean, from glancing over the article after seeing it at DYK. A lot more clarity is needed here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I argued that seas are arbitrary subsections of the sea, made by humans due to cultural and political reasons. So yes, I would say they are rather different. The article on seas would go into the specifics of why these devisions were even made in the first place, how they have influcned the course of history, and if they have any relevance anymore.--Coin945 (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. On the whole "we don't have articles starting with The" argument, we actually do when it is vital that we distinguish between two conceptually distinct but linguistically similar concepts: The arts and Art. This is no different to The sea and Sea--Coin945 (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The home for the list of named Seas here is plainly List of seas, which can and should have an introduction explaining what types of named Sea there are. By all means go ahead and arrange that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a list of seas, is it? According to this article's definition of sea, the List of seas articles should be a list of "connected bod[ies] of salt water that cover...70 percent of the Earth's surface". But it's not. Because this definition of "sea" is different to the definition of "sea" in the Sea article. One definition of "sea" refers to a subsection of the other definition of "sea". And that's where the confusion lies.--Coin945 (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article now begins "The sea is the connected body of salt water that covers 70 percent of the Earth's surface." which is clear enough. One might add "...also known as the World Ocean." - after, I suggest again, merging that short article here. One could add a sentence saying something like ""Sea" is also a geographical term for particular bodies of water (usually but not always of salt-water)." I think that should cover it. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't decided yet if I've got the chutzpah to review this one for GA, but I wanted to make the initial comment that it seems a bit overcrowded with images. I understand the temptation, but MOS:IMAGELOCATION states "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar", which happens in several sections here. Is it possible to do a bit of cutting/rearranging to address the issue?

Thanks to everyone working on this corest of core articles--image quibble aside, it looks terrific. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved a couple to ease overlaps. Our images guidance has never really worked out how to handle the vast range of screen sizes people now have, & on my wide screen, with a 300px default pic size, many if not most FAs show some "sandwich" overlap, which is not a big issue. On older shape screens, where it is ugly, the text lines increase & generally remove it. A couple of images (Columbus, the Greek army, The Tempest) are dispensible. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days.

Before we even begin, let me profoundly thank everyone who's working to improve this one. In a GA queue that's crowded with mostly trivial topics (and that includes most of my nominations), it's always a great surprise to see a core article show up. In readership terms, this article is being viewed an average of 2000 times a day, as much as forty or fifty typical GAs put together.

Since this is a topic of enormous scope, my plan is to attack this in three steps:

1. go through a standard checklist for prose/sources/format/etc.
2. compare the article to other reference works (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica) to see if we're missing any major aspect
3. hold the review open an additional week to solicit further suggestions from WikiProject Oceans and visitors to the page

If anybody happens to look in on this review in the meantime, your suggestions are very welcome. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for taking on this review. Expanding the article was a joint project between Chiswick Chap and myself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Further comments

In culture

Overall

Overall, this appears almost ready for GA. I still need to do some things like check image licenses and some spotchecks for copyright issues, but we're closing in. Let me know your thoughts on the above. I'll also ping one or two relevant wikiprojects for input at this point. Thanks again for taking on this planet-sized task! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few sourcing points

• Sorry to reopen a point I thought was closed, but I got a belated response at WP:RS/N seconding my concerns about MarineBio.net as a source. This should be replaced in the three instances where it's used.

Replaced Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another source that may need to be replaced, while I'm looking at sources, is http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/shakespeare/tempest.htm; this seems to be self-published material, even if it's sourcing a basic point.

Replaced with Royal Shakespeare Company, looks like a reliable outfit! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard good things. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure about http://marinebio.org/ as a source, either. They're an NGO without much of a reputation (only appearing in Google News twice, HighBeam not at all). One of the pages cited from them, [10], actually cites Wikipedia as one of its own sources. I think the material from them needs to be rewritten based on more reliable sources (or at least re-sourced from more reliable sources).

The author, Dr Paul Yancey is a biology professor who has written a book on deep sea biology. Nevertheless, I have replaced the information with similar from a new source (currently #85). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.carbontrust.com/ appears to be a company in the renewable energy business; a secondary source for this information should probably be used instead.

Replaced (currently #86) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/index.php/About-the-OEC/About-the-OEC.html appears to be an advocacy group; can this information be found in a secondary source? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Used the OES source to cover this too (currently #86) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

All right, I think this is close to ready to go, though as mentioned before, I'll hold this open for a bit for further outside comment. I'll fill out the checklist now to see if there's anything I've missed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there's a few images that need tagged with their US status as well as EU or Japan tags, but that's all I see for now. One side note: an image of the water cycle has been added to the top of the article. Should the water cycle be discussed here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping someone else would deal with this because I hadn't a clue. I hope what I have done is OK. I have removed the water cycle image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. As for the water cycle image, it might be worth including something about this down the road. All that's left as far as I'm concerned is to give it another few days to see if others can point out a main aspect that we've missed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We'll consider the water cycle and the other points you have raised during the review (including its west-centricness and the balance between sections) after the review is finished. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thank you for your patience with this sprawling review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable at this point to assume no further comment is coming from WP Oceans. Closing as Pass. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The extreme image density is an issue, but that part of the MOS isn't a GA criterion.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The closest thing to a main aspect that seems to be missing is a more global view of humanity and the sea; the section as written might be better titled "Westerners and the sea". But there's just enough here (a few references to Japan and Polynesia) IMO to scrape by on this.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Some sections seem a bit overweighted, as noted above, but nothing is excessively detailed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Columbus Taking Possession.jpg, File:Rowe Tempest.JPG, File:Ehon Hyaku Monogatari Isonade.jpg and File:Mercator 1569 map small.jpg appear to need tagging with their US copyright status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

• Possible omission: origin of the water. Water from comets? Snowman (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can think about adding this Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible omission: how unusual is it for a planet to have a sea? Snowman (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into adding this information Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re File:Tide overview.svg. The illustration has an arrow indicating a high tide on the upper side of the Earth (near the moon). I think that there should also be a high tide arrow pointing at the bottom of the Earth (furthest from the moon). This will therefore make "two tides per day" easier to understand. Snowman (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the caption. Clearer? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The caption is fine. My comment is about the svg illustration. On the illustration there is an arrow to the high tide near to the moon, but not to the high tide on the far side of the Earth.Snowman (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I altered the caption because that was something I was able to do. Adding an arrow is not so easy. Are you able to manipulate images? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not worked on svg images. Uses can get help to edit images. I would anticipate that adding another arrow to indicate the other high tide would be relatively easy for uses who can do that sort of thing. Snowman (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the difference between this article and the article on Ocean? Snowman (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed in various places. In the UK (and in Australia according to Casliber), the word "sea" is used as a general term for the world's salt water. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of overlap between this article and the article on Ocean. Snowman (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is surprisingly little overlap. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant when the articles are fully developed. I think that the topics have a lot of overlap. Snowman (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were made during the GA review. I have just copied them verbatim below. Do we want to follow them up? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The World Shipping Council as a source for statistics
• ... in terms of article balance, I feel like the "human and the sea" gets a disproportionate share of space. Comparing the Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia articles (both of which have it under "ocean", btw), they weight the scientific aspects (tides, currents, marine life) much more heavily than the cultural and social (trade, power generation, etc.). "Animals" in particular seem to get a short shrift in the current draft compared to the later detail on wind farming, or how container ships work, for example. Again, I think all these aspects are covered well enough to meet the GA criteria, but I thought I'd put that out there if you were thinking of advancing to FA.

I've expanded the animals section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• the detail on container ship operations be trimmed down. Obviously the ships themselves are important and need to be mentioned, but the way the containers are stacked, loaded, unloaded, etc. seems excessive in an article of this scope.

slimmed down a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Trade section might also take a more historical view of trade with some of the space currently devoted to present-day container ships. Briefly mentioning spice traders, the sugar trade, the Transatlantic slave trade, etc. wouldn't be completely out of place.
• ... but ideally this "food production" section would capture historical aspects as well as present-day methods: the European cod and herring trades, the various cultures that practice/practiced whaling, etc.
• (Marine pollution) ... this section as a whole seems a bit overdetailed; there seems to be more on this than on tides or currents, which seems disproportionate.

Fewer images and slightly less text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The literature section seems very Eurocentric, and though I personally like Wouk, he seems like a minorish figure to include here. (Maybe Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea instead? Seems like a much more celebrated book today, and more sea-focused.) Some possibilities for expansion might be the Ramayana, which involves the challenge of crossing the sea to Sri Lanka, oral traditions of various coastal cultures, and Mishima's The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea.
• ... the cultural discussion seems to leave out most of the world. No mention is made of any American indigenous peoples, Africa, Polynesia, or Asia outside of Japan. I realize this is a very difficult problem to solve. If no source can be found giving a global overview, one possibility would be to simply ping WikiProjects for India, China, indigenous peoples, etc. and see if editors there can make suggestions.
• The extreme image density is an issue, but that part of the MOS isn't a GA criterion.

A few sections did have up to 3 images - have slimmed 'em down.

• The closest thing to a main aspect that seems to be missing is a more global view of humanity and the sea; the section as written might be better titled "Westerners and the sea". But there's just enough here (a few references to Japan and Polynesia) IMO to scrape by on this.

This topic has been mentioned twice and intensively worked on, so help is clearly required.

• Should the water cycle be discussed here?

No, TWML. The cycle spans sea, atmosphere, mountains and rivers to name a few, so it's plainly out of scope as a topic, but deserves a link. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are not only verbatim, they have in many cases been partly addressed during the review, so they are now out of context and not necessarily appropriate any more. I think we should check them again, make a best-effort to address them where we think it appropriate, and move on. The comparisons with other Encyclopedias may be useful as sanity checks but they are different animals and not necessarily useful as guidance. Other opinions and peer review will be appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your proposals. I will slim down marine pollution and fatten up the fauna for a start. Other opinions may arrive after this posting. I'm not sure a peer review is necessary because the GA review seemed very thorough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It did indeed have a PR-ish quality to it. Still, anything to make the process smoother is a good thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a great deal of this article belongs in the Ocean article rather this one. A "sea" is a body of saline water (possibly a division of the World Ocean) partly or fully enclosed by land and so all of the copy that is really about the world's oceans should be moved over to that article. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation has been had already, at length. You are writing about "a sea" rather than "the sea". The parallel would be not with "an ocean" (qua The Pacific Ocean, etc) but with the World ocean, which however is a much rarer and more specialised term than the widely used "the sea", the grey continuous briny. We could indeed redirect "World ocean" here - I would not oppose it - but that is a separate matter. There are plenty of examples in the cultural section in this article to show that people do indeed speak, write and think about the sea as used here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be merged with ocean? I thought ocean and sea were synonyms. At the very least, if there is redundant information in this article about 'sea' that also applies to the 'ocean' article, shouldn't one refer to the other rather than having two parallel articles? Marla the Mop (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the hatnotes, I have to suggest that virtually everybody coming here will know what the 'sea' is and its primary meaning. If they don't, then the first sentence of the lead says practically the same thing. Restating it in the hatnotes doesn't seem particularly beneficial. Perhaps we could contract the hatnotes to say:

"Ocean Sea" redirects here. For the novel, see Ocean Sea (novel). For other uses of the article name, see Sea (disambiguation) and The Sea (disambiguation).

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently 68 kB of readable prose. See WP:SIZERULE and WP:Splitting. Should the article be divided? Should the long "Humans and the sea" section be split off into a separate article? Any comments? Snowman (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a very condensed summary of a very large subject. It is reasonable for it to be longer than usual to make it reasonably inclusive as a summary. The association of humans with the sea is an important part of the general subject, so I don't think it should be split off. Some minor trimming may be possible, but preferably not at the expense of the generality that is the whole point of this article. I feel that it may even be necessary for it to get a bit larger before it exceeds the optimum content. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read all of the article, how long did it take you to read it? Snowman (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

49 minutes. It is not an article that I would expect many people to read at a single sitting. If that is the intention, then a large amount of detail should be removed. Some of the technical information does not ring true, and to a large extent the prose does not flow. There are sections which contain large numbers of bald statements of fact, which do not form a satisfying general picture, as there are broad generalizations interspersed with highly specific details, with no obvious reason why those particular details are favoured. Having now read it all at a sitting, I would revise my initial comments to recommend that it should be trimmed further, with a particular aim of presenting a more generalized summary for each section, and to put the non-essential details in the hatlinked articles. This would allow for expansion to include currently missing aspects. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in your comment that "technical information does not ring true", because problems with anything to do with electricity, power, or physics have been some of my key concerns with this article. Specific comments including your observations on technical content may be useful at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sea/archive1, where this article is currently being reviewed with the aim of improving it. Discussion on article size can be continued here. Snowman (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that this article is not too long given the importance of the topic. The articles I have listed below are all FAs and considerably longer than Sea. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Manhattan Project (103 kB)
• Elvis Presley (95 kB)
• Military history of Puerto Rico (95 kB)
• Ketuanan Melayu (94 kB)
• Air raids on Japan (90 kB)
• Byzantine navy (89 kB)
• Finnish Civil War (88 kB)
• Nikita Khrushchev (87 kB)

It doesn't feel too long to me; it's a major topic, and, in my opinion, on reading it through it doesn't drag or go into excessive detail. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic of the sea is considered a core topic that every encyclopaedia should have. Some of the 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". I presume that it is considered a core topic owing to the importance of the sciences of the seas, but I am a somewhat puzzled, because "Ocean" and "Oceanography" are both also listed as core topics. To what extent are "Man and the sea" and "The sea in culture" within the technical bracket? Snowman (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does being listed under technical topics preclude non-technical content? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most technical subjects involve some form of human connection, most of the subsections in "Man and the sea" appear to be technical to a significant extent. "The sea in culture" perhaps less so. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that non-technical content can be included; however, a longish Sea in culture section has been recently split off and a summary made for the "Sea" article. I would agree that much of "Humans and the sea" is technical. Snowman (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the length is fine. The issue is ensuring balanced and meaningful summaries and cross-references of sufficient comprehensiveness while still producing good-quality prose. I think discussion at the FAC is producing many fixes for these things. I agree with many of Snowman's suggestions there, though I have opposed a few. My feeling is that a high-quality article will get thrashed out by editors in the ball-park of its current length, and that this is appropriate to a subject of such importance. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The world depth record in an atmospheric diving suit is not a leisure activity, but I don't see any of the current sections as a suitable place for the information. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should there not be a subsection of Humans and the sea on exploration and research? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, and I have already pointed this out at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sea/archive1. Snowman (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of things would go in a "Research and exploration" section? Snowman (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two concepts that crossed my mind as being oddly absent from the section on humans and the sea. Thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the "in culture" section, i recently included a short quote from Rachel Carson's The Sea Around Us. It is not in the section on the biology or history of the sea, but on its cultural dimensions, in this case in literature and thought. The quote read:

It is a curious situation that the sea, from which life first arose, should now be threatened by the activities of one form of that life. But the sea, though changed in a sinister way, will continue to exist: the threat is rather to life itself.

Another editor queried its copyright status. I drew attention to WP:QUOTE and Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text. The other editor had cited Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources in support of removal, and I pointed out that that guideline includes the words ""For instance, we can quote a sentence or two from a movie review in an article on the movie" and I argued that that was exactly what the Carson quote was doing. The other editor reverted the quote's insertion, and when asked to further explain, provided two arguments: one to do with the science of the origins of life (which I am not seeking to raise in this discussion) and one regarding copyright. In this edit at the FAC talk page, the editor explained:

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. 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. The quote has no bearing on the article's FA status, so I think that returning the quote to the article and its copyright status could be discussed on the article's talk page

I do not agree with the editor, either on copyright, or on their actions in excluding it, but AGF am raising it here. My question is: do other editors believe this is a copyright violation? Unless other editors agree that it represents a copyright violation, I propose to reinstate it, and we can then have a discussion about other issues, if needed. I am supportive of the editor's suggestion that the date of the book be included. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]