Talk:Rove Formation/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

I've now read, sometimes skim-read, this article a couples of times. On the plus side there is a lot of good information in there and its well referenced; but on the minus side, the article is quite difficult to read: particularly the Lead.

The WP:Lead is intended to both introduce the article and to summarise the main points. I normally review the main body of the article first and do the Lead last. In this case I'm going to do the Lead first, because that is where the "problems" start.

The Lead -

This is quite a difficult section to read, and I suspect that most people to stop at that point. So I will cover this in some depth.

Simple question: "what is the Rover Formation"? Its quite difficult to get the answer out of the Lead.
The first paragraph aught to answer that question.
If I got it right - "The Rove Formation is located in the upper northeastern part of Cook County, Minnesota, United States, and extends into Ontario, Canada. It is the youngest of the many Animikie layers, which are a layer of sedimentary rocks".
The rest of the lead, I suggest could be split into what became before and what came after; and explain why the the Rover Formation is important/of interest.

Location -

The easiest section to read. But its OK.

Geologic history -

This is the bulk of the article. Its quite readable, but I'm not sure that there is much Rove Formation in it. I may come back to this one.

Human history -

This is two paragraphs; but is readable. This first (I think) is about the Pigeon River: but it starts with Grand Portage Bay and then goes inland to water falls. The second is about French-speaking non-natives.

There is not very much in this section.

Present-day topography -

The section is easy to read. But its probably OK as a (possible) GA article.

Endangered flora -

I'm not sure what this phrase is: "Topographically this is the Shallow Rove Slate Landtype Association".
This section as a whole is quote readable and is well referenced, but is somewhat under wikilinked.

At this point, I'm putting the review On Hold. The main "problem" that needs to be addressed is a goodcopy edit on the Lead to improve the readability; after that Human History needs to be considered. If points that I have made above are addressed in a reasonable time (I regard this as posible) the article can made GA-status this time round.

Any questions, helps needed, etc, add them to this page - its on my watch list. Pyrotec (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for analyzing this article for GA status. I didn't expect anyone to look at it so soon; and then you did it so quickly. I truly appreciate your time and efforts. ;)

The Lead

I wasn't crazy about the lead, I was trying to incorporate suggestions from a few people and got really messed up.
In your third point, you got it right; I copied your sentence about the Animikie layers. That suggestion makes a lot of sense.
I liked your idea of having the Rove sedimentary layers be the 'before' and 'after'; that made revamping the lead easier. I was also able to remove some information (which occurs later, anyway).
Do you feel it is more readable? If not, I welcome further suggestions.

Human history

Again, I wasn't too happy with this section. I had halved the content upon the suggestion of someone during PR. I went back to the history and restored the verbiage I had. No wonder you didn't know that I was talking about the Grand Portage Trail (it's amazing what eyes "see" when they are too close to the topic!!)

Endangered flora

I added another reference to the "Topographically this . . .". I also changed the wording of the Shallow Rove Slate portion. Lands are typed according to their topographical features.
This wasn't the only section that was under-wikilinked!!! Without checking, I must have thought that individual plants would not be listed. I did go back in a few sections to wikilink them. Thank you for catching that.

Again, thank you for your work on this article. Please let me know other ways I can improve it. It is my first one and is therefore quite a learning experience. ;) Bettymnz4 (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/April 2010, so the number of unreviewed nominations has fallen from 388 on 1 April to about 17 first thing this morning.

The lead is much improved and easier to understand. Pyrotec (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated article,

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

As a result of recent improvements, I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on acheiving your first GA. Pyrotec (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]