Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology

WikiProject Geology was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 6 May 2013.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 8 sections are present.

Good article reassessment for 2024 Wayanad landslides

2024 Wayanad landslides has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of important publications in geology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of important publications in geology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in geology (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Kev min § 22:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black River Formation

I was planning to send this article to Afd as its been badly sourced since it was created. I was reviewing it. It seems to duplicate content found in Black River Group. The editor who reverted gave the reason Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability#Stratigraphic units for reverted when I redirect it. That is not a policy or a guideline, so i'm curious as to why the editor is edit-warring to keep it. scope_creep^Talk 14:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed notable is not the same as worth keeping. Chances are they're the same thing, but I'll take a closer look tomorrow. At least I can't seem to find any sources that refer to both on a quick look. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, the reasoning the merge of BRF to BRG is gaining support does not apply to the proposed merges you have suggested at other formations, can you please not unilaterally decide to completely ignore essays. Essays exist for a reason. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quality assessment of Geologic Time Scale - A-class?

Requesting independent class assessment of Geologic Time Scale. The article was rightfully demoted from Featured Article in 2004, and then assessed as a B-class article. Since then it has undergone significant revision, particularly in the past two years in which I significantly overhauled the article. I think it may now qualify for an A-class status, and will seek mentorship GA/FA nomination as well. Any commentary on how the article and/or lead image could be improved is welcome. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This project does not appear to support A-class assessment. So I suggest that you ask for a peer-review of content from here. Possible a GA nomination could be a way to change the assessment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rater tool which analyzes articles based on some kind of machine metrics derived from other articles puts the article at 40% B. In my experience top B articles are 90%+. It's not fool proof to be sure, but it's a hint. The A rating is not really a thing, AFAICT. Rather, the system is Stub, Start, C, B, GA, FA.

If you go through the WP:Good article criteria list you will get plenty of ideas for the next step. The toughest one is verifiable references, eg "Table of geologic time" is missing refs. In particular, wikilinks are not references. The peer review suggested above can help with the question of coverage. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will mention: there is inadequate coverage of colour codes, and Anthropocene proposal info is out of date. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback so far, I did ask for a peer-review a few months ago and it only got a few minor comments. If either of you have the time and feel up to providing a peer-review I'm happy to start a new one.

I'm thinking GAN will be a good way to get additional feedback and a potential class change; however, it will immediately fail under the verifiable refs criteria even though it is propbably acceptable under all other criteria. While the remainder of the article is now well cited (with a few updates to specific sections needed e.g. Anthropocene being voted against by the subcommission), the "Table of geologic time" events column is going to be a problem. Many events have been added to it over the years without citations, and it will be a Hurculean effort to find the citations for all the existing content. Any ideas on how to proceed with rectifying that issue over time?

On the other point raised around the coverage of colour codes, do you have any specific suggestions as to what a section on that should contain, is it really neccessary given they are relatively arbitrary? Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If decent textbooks like Stanley 2015 and Torsvik & Cocks 2017 are good references then referencing the Table of geologic time may not be quite as bad as it appears. If this is considered a worthwhile exercise, I don't mind making a start on it. Silica Cat (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And any unsourced content can be deleted. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood why there's such a thing as an A-class rank in the first place. I've never seen it used much throughout my 18 years as a Wikipedian. Volcanoguy 16:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was made to prioritize articles for the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team project. I would dearly scrap it at least for the Volcanoes wikiproject, though. No need to keep this particular piece of red tape going. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Theia (planet) into Giant impact hypothesis

I have proposed merging Theia (planet) into Giant impact hypothesis, see Talk:Giant-impact_hypothesis#Proposal_to_merge_Theia_(planet)_into_this_article. Participate if interested. Thanks Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Input please on Polymetallic ore

The page Polymetallic ore has been restored after an RfC about it. I have done some editing which I think is about OK, but as I am not an expert in either mining or geology I might not have included the right refs, there could be things missing or mistakes. I would appreciate expert input from those of you who know more. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Peretti draft at AfC

On behalf of the subject and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I have submitted a draft article about Adolf Peretti for review, if any project members are interested in taking a look. I have disclosed my COI on the draft and its Talk page, and will avoid editing the main space. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Move of all tectonic plate names - Proposal discussion

A proposal to rename/move the articles for Earth's tectonic plates is being discussed at Talk:Eurasian_Plate#Requested_move_6_October_2024. The rename involves changing the word "plate" to lowercase; for example, change from e.g. "Eurasian Plate" to "Eurasian plate". The proposal currently lists 74 plates. Participation in the discussion is welcome. GeoWriter (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]