Talk:Kaolin deposits of the Charentes Basin
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Speedy delete? edit
Looks like a copy-vio - what does that mean? strange citations - they don't look strange, but they do need expanding (a refs section giving fuller citations). DuncanHill 14:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- I replaced the tag as the article author had simply removed it without comment. It probably isn't a speedy candidate as is, but I would hope the contributing editor would clarify/explain here. Left a note on his/her talk to that effect. Propose changing speedy to cleanup tag. Vsmith 15:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: It looks like a copyvio, Figure X marks with no images... strange citations.. If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice - I don't think that looks like a copyvio is sufficient for speedy deletion - if someone has proof that it is a copyvio then that's another thing entirely. The article is informative and useful, therefore I'm removing the speedy del notice, and shall do some editing to improve the article (eg wikilinks, cats, etc). DuncanHill 15:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- I wrote the above while you were writing your response Vsmith - would agree cleanup tag. DuncanHill 15:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The use of Harvard style reference links with no associated expanded references in a reference section is quite problematic and likely was the trigger for the copyvio comment by the original tag editor. It would be good if the writer would add a comment here for our enlightenment. Cheers, Vsmith 15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 | This article or section may have been copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. |
--Johnsoniensis (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 | This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (September 2010) |
The article is quite technical in nature, and likely to seem obscure to non-geologists; it needs better wikilinking of terms, and more background in the article. References need to be expanded to enable users to find original sources. DuncanHill 15:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Remove? edit
Should we remove the "Gibbsite" section or even the entire "Transformation during and after Sedimentation" section? RJFJR (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Commercial importance? edit
Are these Kaolin deposits of any commercial importance now or in the past?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)