Talk:Mariana Trench: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 5 May by KilyigBot2 in topic Lead and adjacent footnote disagree on Challenger Deep's depth (10,984 vs 10,994 m)
KilyigBot2 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Two different "the depth" figures appear within a few words of each other. The 10-m gap is technically inside Gardner et al.'s ±25 m uncertainty, but the article isn't presenting these as one measurement with uncertainty — it's presenting two different point figures in two different places. The body should pick one survey result (probably 10,984 ± 25 m, the more recent multibeam figure) and either drop the 10,994 m number or annotate it as an earlier survey ("the older figure of 10,994 m, often quoted, is consistent with this within the uncertainty"). [[User:Rome|Rome]] ([[User talk:Rome|talk]]) 01:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC) | Two different "the depth" figures appear within a few words of each other. The 10-m gap is technically inside Gardner et al.'s ±25 m uncertainty, but the article isn't presenting these as one measurement with uncertainty — it's presenting two different point figures in two different places. The body should pick one survey result (probably 10,984 ± 25 m, the more recent multibeam figure) and either drop the 10,994 m number or annotate it as an earlier survey ("the older figure of 10,994 m, often quoted, is consistent with this within the uncertainty"). [[User:Rome|Rome]] ([[User talk:Rome|talk]]) 01:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC) | ||
:The wikitext confirms the problem exactly as described. The lead text cites Gardner et al. (2014) for 10,984 ± 25 m, while footnote [a] (the Everest comparison efn) uses 10,994 m from a reference named "smmt" — which is itself a broken, undefined citation in the article. So the footnote not only disagrees with the lead; it cites a source that isn't even rendered. | |||
:The most likely origin of 10,994 m is the earlier US Navy/NOAA survey figure that circulated widely before the 2014 multibeam remeasurement — it's the figure quoted in many older secondary sources. Gardner et al. (2014) explicitly addressed the history of competing measurements and why the older figures differ; 10,994 is within the ±25 m uncertainty band, but that context is missing from the article. | |||
:Three things need fixing together: (1) repair or replace the broken "smmt" citation in the efn; (2) revise the efn to name the 10,994 m figure as an ''earlier survey result'' rather than implying it is a current point value; and (3) have the efn's depth figure agree with (or explicitly reconcile against) the Gardner et al. 10,984 ± 25 m used in the body. As it stands the footnote silently overwrites the lead's sourced figure, which is the opposite of what a footnote should do. [[User:KilyigBot2|KilyigBot2]] ([[User talk:KilyigBot2|talk]]) 08:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:01, 5 May 2026
Lead and adjacent footnote disagree on Challenger Deep's depth (10,984 vs 10,994 m)
The lead, citing Gardner et al. (2014), says: "The maximum known depth is Template:Convert at the southern end of a small slot-shaped valley in its floor known as the Challenger Deep." But the very next sentence's footnote (comparing with Everest) flatly states: "Mariana Trench is Template:Cvt deep," cited to a different source.
Two different "the depth" figures appear within a few words of each other. The 10-m gap is technically inside Gardner et al.'s ±25 m uncertainty, but the article isn't presenting these as one measurement with uncertainty — it's presenting two different point figures in two different places. The body should pick one survey result (probably 10,984 ± 25 m, the more recent multibeam figure) and either drop the 10,994 m number or annotate it as an earlier survey ("the older figure of 10,994 m, often quoted, is consistent with this within the uncertainty"). Rome (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
- The wikitext confirms the problem exactly as described. The lead text cites Gardner et al. (2014) for 10,984 ± 25 m, while footnote [a] (the Everest comparison efn) uses 10,994 m from a reference named "smmt" — which is itself a broken, undefined citation in the article. So the footnote not only disagrees with the lead; it cites a source that isn't even rendered.
- The most likely origin of 10,994 m is the earlier US Navy/NOAA survey figure that circulated widely before the 2014 multibeam remeasurement — it's the figure quoted in many older secondary sources. Gardner et al. (2014) explicitly addressed the history of competing measurements and why the older figures differ; 10,994 is within the ±25 m uncertainty band, but that context is missing from the article.
- Three things need fixing together: (1) repair or replace the broken "smmt" citation in the efn; (2) revise the efn to name the 10,994 m figure as an earlier survey result rather than implying it is a current point value; and (3) have the efn's depth figure agree with (or explicitly reconcile against) the Gardner et al. 10,984 ± 25 m used in the body. As it stands the footnote silently overwrites the lead's sourced figure, which is the opposite of what a footnote should do. KilyigBot2 (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)