Talk:Scientists report skyrocketing phytoplankton population in aftermath of Kīlauea eruption

Basic physics

I know we make a habit of providing our readers with basic information that seems obvious to us, but it's usually culture-specific information like, "We mean the Georgia in the American South and not the one in Europe" or "the Prime Minister is not chosen by direct election." But "warmer matter tends to expand" is literally universal. Do you guys think it's too dumbed down? We don't want to treat our readers like they're stupid or even like they don't have a high school education. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think stating matter expands is insultingly simple or self-evident. It's not like you said water makes things wet or fire is hot. However, in this case I don't know if it should be there. I didn't read the sources, but I did skim the w:upwelling article and matter expansion didn't really seem to be a factor. Also, (trying to recall my science classes) isn't liquid water quite resistant to heat expansion (giving rise to hydraulics)?

The title could use some evening out. Perhaps the layman's term 'green algae' is better suited here, especially when used in conjunction with a non-scientific use of 'explosion' which itself might not be the best choice since we are talking about a volcano and it might evoke a different mental image than rapid population growth. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Water is an incompressible fluid (and universal solvent; extraordinary stuff). --Pi zero (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Title's up for grabs, as ever.

Nonetheless, water expands when heated enough for deep seawater to rise when heated. Remember, the water's not "competing" with air or alcohol or any other fluid. It's competing with other water. It's not even a fresh-vs-salt thing; they're both saltwater (salt water is more buoyant than fresh).

Eureka source: "...nitrate was brought to the surface ocean when heat from the substantial input of lava into the ocean warmed nutrient-rich deep waters and caused them to rise up, s..."

The word "upwelling" comes from the abstract, though I suppose it refers to when nutrient-rich water comes to the surface under its own power for any reason, not just thermal. I'll get to that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I just looked at the upwelling article on Wikipedia. Yeah, that's kind of wrong. Not all upwelling is wind-driven. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Granted, it expands enough that hot water rises, just as hot air rises. Which doesn't require very much expansion. Though the explanation of what happens might be more effective here without trying to get into why. (obligatory xkcd) --Pi zero (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Today

I'm going to be pretty busy later today and might not be able to check in. I extra-invite my fellow Wikinewsies to hit "review" if they feel the article is ready. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

So tempting...

"Scientists publish pugnaceous phyotplankton population in aftermath of Kīlauea kaboom" Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Lede

The lede has problems that I'm not sure I'll be able to fix without disqualifying myself from publishing the article. I'm going to try, though, and even if I do end up disqualifying myself, at least I'll have illustrated what I'm saying about the lede:

• The first sentence contains some important background information, but says nothing substantive about the focal event, the specific thing that just happened, which is the publication. So I expect the sentence will have to be extracted, with some pieces of it redeployed elsewhere in the lede.
• The main part of the lede, that directly addresses the focal event, grammatically subordinates the past-facing character of what is being reported. No, that does not require every verb to be technically in past tense (a mechanical detail), but emphasis is crucial.

--Pi zero (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Shifting the verb of the focal event (published) from passive voice to active voice is likely to clear up the latter. --Pi zero (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I've addressed the first sentence; I'd hoped to shift it to active voice in this session, but have to go off-line for a bit now. --Pi zero (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Active voice. --Pi zero (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Distance from source

My preliminary check for distance-from-source turned up four passages for scrutiny.

• In the second paragraph, the verbatim phrase "in a press release" turns out to be at the center of a larger structural similarity to Eurekalert PM that warrants defusing.
• In the third paragraph, the phrase "ocean warmed nutrient rich deep water" is verbatim Eurekalert and the latter four-of-six-words also from the paper, which is worth thinking about breaking up.
• In the fourth paragraph, from "test" through "response" is near-verbatim Eurekalert with some superficial changes (which often make things worse rather than better); definitely needs redress.
• In the fifth paragraph, there's some structural similarity to Eurekalert worth eliminating.

--Pi zero (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

All addressed. --Pi zero (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4510381 [Passed]

Revision 4510381 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Though rather more than would be practical, or proper, for a reviewer to do regularly, I think this is tolerable as an investment in illustration/demonstration. Mainstream science reportage has a major problem with failing to distinguish between theory and fact. Caveat. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4510381 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Though rather more than would be practical, or proper, for a reviewer to do regularly, I think this is tolerable as an investment in illustration/demonstration. Mainstream science reportage has a major problem with failing to distinguish between theory and fact. Caveat. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Edit request

{{edit protected}}

Please change

[[Category:Hawaii]]]

to

[[Category:Hawaii]]

to get rid of the extra ]. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thx. --Pi zero (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)