Talk:Challenger Deep#What the now-present sources say on feasibility

No link to what they are or how they’re made. 2600:1700:6756:4830:9DFB:D817:1B88:C1CD (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

:The samples taken were depth soundings. All the information was there in the paragraph about the 1875 Challenger expedition, but it was presented in a slightly confusing order. I have tweaked this to make things a bit more clear. Does that help? Pyrope 02:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of mentions here of bomb soundings or explosive soundings, which are not explained in the article. I would like to link these to another appropriate article, but I don't know what the right target would be. The articles on echo sounding, depth sounding, and multibeam echosounder don't seem to cover this. One thing I found was Sofar bomb but it doesn't seem like the right topic. Can anyone help to find the right article, or do we have a gap here? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Talk:Mariana Trench about the inconsistency between the values used in the two articles. Mikenorton (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The article needs a section at the start saying what it is and how it formed. I find it most odd that there isn't a section about the geological processes that formed it. Just endless willy-waggling accounts of the various expeditions. 86.189.141.23 (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This article has been extremely well referenced for a C-class article, and although it meets several other standards of a B-class article (Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria), I wonder if it could benefit from an info box or two, and some broadening of language for a less technically savvy audience. I think with those two issues addressed, it could be reclassified. What do others think? LesserGoldfinch (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

:I agree Ben Halfond (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)