Wikipedia:Peer review/Algoman orogeny/archive1

Algoman orogeny

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it appears to be near GA status and could benefit from a review before submitting it as a candidate.

Below I transcribe some comments by Chris.urs-o (talk) from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Algoman_orogeny.2C_a_Good_Article_prospect:

I changed User:Bettymnz4's Great Lakes tectonic zone to Mid importance. I personally think that the Great Lakes tectonic zone, the San Andreas Fault, the Yellowstone hotspot and the New Madrid Seismic Zone are the most important geologic features in the USA. The ~~Yellowstone hotspot~~ and the New Madrid Seismic Zone aren't part of the WP Geology. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

The USA could be described as: Yellowstone hotspot track, Basin and Range Province, Rocky Mountains, Mississippi Basin and Appalachian Mountains. Great Lakes tectonic zone and New Madrid Seismic Zone are near the Mississippi valley. Jemez Lineament, Rio Grande rift and Hawaii hotspot are interesting formations too, but there are in less populated areas. There are faults in the direction of the North American craton's motion in or near the Basin and Range Province, the Jemez Lineament has a SW-NE orientation too.

Thanks, RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Noleander

" it is known as the Kenoran orogeny in Canada." - reads very clunky. Suggest re-word first sentence: "The Algoman orogeny (also known as K.O.) was a mountain building episode .." Done RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no See Also section: are there any similar articles that readers may want to know about? Done A comprehensive article doesn't necessarily need a See Also section, but I found one link that seems relevant. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Continents were much smaller than today; they were a series of granitic nuclei a few kilometers across" - When? Also, this sounds like all continents in the world were only a few km across ... that cannot be right. Done That detail seems dubious; I have removed some of this and replaced it by introductory material earlier in the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Red links: "Wabigoon subprovince" etc. See WP:RED: if it is unlikely that WP will ever have an article on these subprovinces, then remove the links. Done - I unlinked them; they don't seem likely to have separate articles. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"protocontinents" - Im not a geologist, but it seems odd that such a fundamental term is red-linked. Can another term be used? Does WP have an article on it by another name? Do the sources use that term? Why has no editor yet created the article? Done - I think "protocontinent" is an informal term, and I have replaced it by "terrane". RockMagnetist (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Basalts became greenstones." - That may be a legal sentence, but it doesnt read well. Re-phrase. Done RockMagnetist (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Section name: "Age, names and location" - Is there a more pithy phrase available? "Identification", or "Overview" or "Characteristics"? Done RockMagnetist (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sidebar image: The image of the upper-right sidebar is obviously useful, but it is rather large, and seems to crowd the top of the article. I'd recommend moving it down into the body of the article, and putting a smaller image (or nothing) at the top. The sidebar contain a terse overview of the article's topic ... not too much detail. Done RockMagnetist (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Standard sidebar? - On a related note, the article Canadian Shield has a nice sidebar: can that format be used in this article? It is {{Infobox rockunit}} ✗ Not done - that template is for rock units and this article is about a tectonic event. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Provinces? - The hierarchical breakdown of the region into provinces is not clear. I gather from the table of contents that the thing is divided into three provinces (Sup, Slave, Nain). That should be explained and made clear in the prose _before_ the first (Superior Province) section on a particular province. Done - This is done in the lead and the overview. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: it says the AO is a "mountain-building episode" ... but the text reads as if the AO is a location, or a region, or a formation. I suppose it could be both an event (in the past) as the present physical manifestation of that event ... but that duality should be made clear in the lead. ✗ Not done - I don't see any text where the AO could be interpreted as anything but an event. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Photos? - the maps & diagrams are great, but are there any photos of actual rocks/formations available? Done RockMagnetist (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Caption: "This is an illustration of how the Minnesota ..." - no need to tell the reader they are looking at a picture. Just start the caption with "The Minnesota River ..." Done RockMagnetist (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology - The article assumes that the reader is familiar with geological terms, and uses some rather specialized words without explanation. WP articles on scientific topics are not required to be tutorials, and are not required to define everything. But this article is a bit intimidating to the layman. Top priority is providing blue links to other articles so the reader can educate themself; but you may want to consider adding some more layman-friendly material, especially at the start of each section. Done - I have defined a lot of the terms, added several links and put more introductory material in. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Links - "cratons" is not linked .. double check all technical terms & make sure the first occurrence is linked. Done RockMagnetist (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grammar - "During the Late Archean time ... was the mountain-building episode known" - Doesnt read well. Try "During the Late Archean time a mountain-building episode, known as ..., ". Also, "time" seems colloquial ... shouldn't that be "eon"? Done RockMagnetist (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Degrees: " 90°" - ~~Check the WP:MOS to make sure that is okay, vs. spelling out "degrees".~~ - I checked an the symbol is okay. Done RockMagnetist (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify: "Most greenstone belts, with all of their ..." - It this talking about the belts in the AO? or all belts in the world? ✗ Not done - Everything in this section is about the Algomen orogeny, so I don't think that should be necessary to clarify it. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Also about 2,700 million years ago ..." - that is a few paragaphs after the other "2,700 ago" ... so the "also" may confuse the reader, or make them pause to look up. Consider eliminating the "also", or reword to specifically refer back to the other contemporaneous event. Done RockMagnetist (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Link needed: "Voyageurs National Park" - review all similar terms & phrases and make sure the article links them. Done RockMagnetist (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Map comparison: the map File:World geologic provinces.jpg shows "orogen" zones in the world but the region of the AO is not indicated on the map as an orogen .. am I reading the map wrong? or is the AO too small to show on the map? Done - this map paints with a broad brush. Most of the orogens marked still have mountains. A lot has happened in the Canadian shield since the Algomen orogeny, so it is classified as "shield". RockMagnetist (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GA status: I think the article is close to GA status. It has great sources, nice diagrams, appears to be complete, and uses decent prose. I think, after addressing the items above, you can take it to GAN with confidence.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your excellent comments, Noleander. I have not quite addressed all of them, but I think I'm close enough to nominate the article for GA. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]