Template:Did you know nominations/Geology of North America

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Geology of North America edit

(

)

~~... that the North American continent has one shield but many orogens?~~

Comment: Hook not directly sourced, but in context of all the sources used. It is a broad overview article which deserves a broad hook. But I'm open for suggestions :)

Created by Al Climbs (talk). Nominated by Tobias1984 (talk) at 06:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC).

The hook is not only "not directly sourced," it's not included in the article. It is contradicted by a caption, also. "The Canadian Shield can be seen on a map showing only metamorphic rocks. The shield is the large brown area in the northeast of the continent. A similar structure can also be seen with different rock types." A structure similar to a shield, or a similar structure, meaning another shield? This article has many other problems. However, if the hook is not only "not directly sourced," but does not appear anywhere in the article, that is a big front-page no no. The paragraph about the Canadian shield is also difficult to follow, and the title headings are confusing in this area. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. The caption didn't contradict the hook, but was was a little too much jargon on my behalf. I reworded it. How does the hook "DYK that the Canadian Shield is the largest outcrop of metamorphic rocks on the North American continent" sound? I'm still going to look through the headlines and see if they are coherent. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't find that in the article, can you link to the appropriate section? -68.107.137.178 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

There is some strange original research in this article; it does not belong on the main page. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you can't point out the sentences, then it is probably not a valid criticism of this article. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have pointed out specifics, you just say I didn't instead of addressing them. Another editor just reverts. Article improvement sure isn't wanted, just a score! And I though it was an encyclopedia, not a playground. -198.228.216.153 (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't know where you pointed out a specific list of sentences that you think are OR. Can you post them here? --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't know where I said I pointed out a specific list of sentences that I think are OR. Can you post my comment here? This article is badly written, disorganized, confusing, contradictory, and it's owned by editors who are currently running random googlesearches to try to figure out an outline as they use a book they don't have and an obscure and unavailable book in German as the recommended reading for the article. It should not go on the main page. Wikipedia discredits itself too easily with bad articles on the main page, I template them, then someone gets irritated that an article with a template is on the main page, so I get told to work on them before they go on the main page, but DYK editors only welcome rubber stamps. I am far more irritated when bad science is paraded on the main page than anyone should be irritated that the bad science is pointed out to the world--it's better to spread it? So, Tobias, continue shooting the messengers. Not much I can do to stop that, when people with knowledge in specific areas are held in such deep disdain by people who are capable of doing multiple google searches and distilling that information into articles. Google away -68.107.137.178 (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you actually reading the things you are writing here? You are criticizing everything about the article, but you can't point out a single section that needs improvement? The article has 42 sources and your accusing the author of "running random google searches"? Your calling a book "obscure" just because it is written in a language that you can't read? I nominated this lemma, because the author put a lot of work into it. It is simply unjust of you to write such accusations out of the safety of anonymity. And it seems you are doing everything out of spite: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_100#Participating_in_DYK. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I point out plenty, but you cannot respond so you simply accuse. Who says I can't read German? What does my reading German or not have to do with anything? Oh, personal issue, removes topic from conversation, namely the bad article with Hawaii on North American Plate, craton section that does not say what craton is, etc., and changes topic to me. Who says it is obscure because it is in German? What is it about, anyway, why is its availability so limited, yet with hundreds of texts in English you pick low availability, obscure, German language text? Oh, wait, find something else about me instead of answering, because you have no answers to why this and the Geology of the United States place Hawaii on the North American Plate, describe geological history of the continent from a Cordillera without trend to the Canadian Shield, and then on to other places. So, let's discuss what other languages do I not speak? The article is bad and should be removed from article space since you are more interested in what languages I read than in putting Hawaii on the correct plate. It should certainly not be on the main page, the damage by spreading this all over the web via Wikipedia mirrors is bad enough already. -198.228.216.151 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Your not actually pointing out anything. You are just calling the text bad and the sources bad. I am really not out to insult you, but I really need you to be specific. What is wrong with the Canadian Shield section? --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as you keep insisting that Hawaii on North American Plate isn't anything there is no way that I can point out anything geological to you. You are unwilling to consider real geology, so there is no reason to read or respond to you. -198.228.216.175 (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The word "hawaii" isn't even mentioned in the article. What lemma are you looking at? This is the DYK for Geology of North America. Why are you even reviewing lemmas without reading them? --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

With the rampant Randy in Boise time waste it does not seem likely this article will have sufficient quality edits to improve it for the main page. -198.228.216.175 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Please point out a section that needs improvement. I will gladly review the sources and try to clarify it. I'm just glad we solved that "hawaii-mystery". --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Randy, burn out from the game playing, you know. -198.228.216.175 (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well either you review the article or you don't, but I will defend the hard work User:Al_Climbs hat put into this article from unjust accusations and untruths. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

While this looks to be a generally well-written and well referenced article, I have a few concerns. As the original review, way up there, comments, the hook is not appropriately referenced inline in the article, and in fact, I can't even find a direct mention of it. The hook doesn't make any grammatical sense to me, ,but that might just be a lack of understanding of geology holding me back, I'm unsure. The first paragraph of the "American Cordillera" section in unreferenced, contrary to DYK guidelines. The date of creation (move from userspace) and length both check out fine. At this time, no checks for copyvio or close para-phrasing have been carried out. Harrias ^talk 15:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The original hook makes no sense to me. The revised text is too wordy. The article is a battleground and does not appear ready for exposure on the main page. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 23:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Article has calmed down, although I agree we need a new hook. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It has calmed down to a general agreement that a rewrite is needed. I think the hook just suffered a typo. -166.137.209.150 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio check now done and ok. I think we should pretty much ignore the complaining from the IPs (as far as I can tell, all the same individual) which is mostly of the "article is rubbish" or "use better sources" variety. And this edit which changed the hook into something not making grammatical sense is just pure disruption. Especially as it was combined with the distraction of throwing an insult (WP:RANDY) at another editor leading to it escaping detection and several subsequent editors failing the nom on the basis of the corrupted hook. Where specific actionable points have been raised, they seem to have been happily dealt with by the article editors. This article might well do with improving, it might well be far from perfect, but in my view it is perfectly adequate for DYK standards. Spinning Spark 14:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! Could you think of a better hook? I'm also not to happy about it, but all my ideas are either too broad or too technical. You might have more experience what people would like to see on the front page. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

My, how unnice, another IP hater, but there is a place to discuss IP editors, and, until you change Wikipedia policy, IP editor comments are part of Wikipedia. The typo was an accident, as I use the mobile interface for most edits. Randy from Boise comments are warranted due to the misinformation, factual inaccuracy and apparent pack of understanding of geology within the article coupled with strange use of jargon unexplained to lay readers, such as using shield for craton, but calling the section "craton," then never using or explaining the word. Editors have agreed with me about the problems with the article, as the discussions show, so, it is hard to know what to do with your insults coupled with the urge to put a seriously problematic article on the main page. Without the personal attacks there would he room for discussion, but you want none, so I will just template the problems. -198.228.216.149 (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The admin complaining about IP editors has readily found one major error. One of the article editors says Greenland was omitted due to not being on the map. I did not see this discussion, but Greenland is clearly indicated by the outline source agrees upon, DNAG. But the article has multiple major problems, such as indicating Iceland is on the North American continent, partly accurate, but very misleading. The article requires a complete geological review that will do everything necessary. Yes, Hawaii was moved back to its plate, but getting just a few major errors corrected is a huge job. I hate to see bad science featured on Wikipedia. This article contains bad geology. It needs a technical review, not a push through. -198.228.216.166 (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not hate IPs, I would have made the same comments if you were a registered user. If you want to discuss my attitude to IPs then come to my talk page, this is not an appropriate place. As far as I can see, your specific complaints are old news and have already been addressed. Spinning Spark 18:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, after all, what is a little original research redefining a continent when it comes to moving along a DYK? I changed my mind, as you pointed out one of the more egregious errors that cause me to reevaluate how many more there are. If you don't hate IPs and don't want to discuss it here, don't emphasize it as an issue. -198.228.216.23 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure this needs another review? Since approval, there have been major edits, like removal of image and tagging one section as "confusing" to readers. Also, someone else in talk page found some info on the topic not entirely accurate. Whether these edits are disruptive or not, and whether the addressed issues are true or IP's attempts to be an attention-whore, I can't accept this nomination yet until matters are resolved. --George Ho (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The sooner this DYK closes the better. Instead of giving a new editor a chance to present his work of many weeks to a broader audience this has turned into vile smear campaign by a single IP-hopper (Why are IPs even allowed to vote in this?). The biggest critic of this article hasn't made a single referenced edit to the article and vandalized the talk page (Talk:Geology_of_North_America#Googlers_1.2C_Geologists_0.2C_the_usual_round_score). Needless to say I am retiring from nominating anything for DYK anymore. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

So many personal attacks. Yet the main page and wikipedia are not showcases for hard work. This is still an encyclopedia, and the main page and DYK showcase the usual encyclopedic work: accurate, well-written, informative. This article is not. -198.228.216.145 (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is easily of DYK quality and its other issues are fixable. It either needs a new hook, as this one is neither in the article nor cited, or the hook needs to be placed in the article and properly cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not of the DYK quality I am familiar with. There are contradictory, repeated, unclear, wrong, and plagiarized statement throughout. It mixes up time and processes and structures. Every time anyone with the most basic knowledge comes by they notice things like the ma without Greenland. The article was written by an editor who pit Hawaii on North America. I was okay when editors seemed wilking to generate and outline and work from a solid source, but no one is addressing the fundamentally bad geology and geography used in creating this article. It does not belong on the main page, no matter how many times editors without geological knowledge shoot the messenger. -198.228.216.170 (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK quality means New: yes; Long enough: yes; Cited hook - no, as above; Within policy: Verifiability ok, BLP n/a, copyright ok, NPOV ok. The article need not be of GA quality, indeed it is not expected to be perfectly error-free. This article is up to DYK standard, barring the hook issue. It appears that the article was less good a while back, but that is now history and not relevant to this DYK. DYK reviewers are not expected to have specialized knowledge of an article's topic area, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

And yet, I just told you it is not verifiable and has copyvios, and you bring up Good Article quality. -198.228.216.164 (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It is verifiable with the existing citations; I did not say it was GA quality, just that that was not a requirement here. I read above (another editor) that the copyvio problem had been fixed, which I took AGF. What copyvios remain? It is not enough to say such exist, we must identify them and remove them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this has gone far enough. IP, either put out or get out: where are the copyvios which you claim to exist? Where are the factual errors? If you can't offer anything concrete and just want to send people on a witch hunt, perhaps because of a personal vendetta against the nominator, then just leave. Otherwise I or another editor will consider it disruptive editing and just semi-protect the nomination's page. On the other hand, if you do have anything verifiably concrete, lay it bare so that people will actually look at you as a person who is here to build an encyclopedia and not a troll.

Other editors: if there is misrepresentation (accidental or otherwise) of what the sources say, we need to fix them before this reaches the main page. It's not unreasonable to ask for a DYK article and hook to be factually accurate. In fact, it's policy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have pointed all sorts of things out all over this page, look for example at the posting about continental interior. But, instead of correcting errors, you have now decided that, even though the article's creator and discussions with other editors have led to general agreement that the issues I have raised need addressed, the only problem is a vendetta against the nominator? Ow! If pointing out bad geology and discussing corrections with other editors before the article goes on the main page makes me a troll, then I am going back to templating errors after they reach the main pages. Meanwhile keep personally attacking me in retaliation for pointing out, among other things, Hawaii is not on North America when it isn't and the geologist did not mistakenly say "Interior Plains" meaning "Great Plains" when the former is a geological parr of a continent and the other a geographically different part. I am voting that the person who knows the difference and pointed it out is not trolling Wikipedia, while the person who did not know the difference needs a lot of help writing th article, as he admitted, asked for, and was working with, rather than resorting to personal attacks and blocking threats to avoid improvement. Certainly a new cure for the dreaded appearance of knowledge and accuracy. 198.228.216.155 (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"Hawaii is not on North America when it isn't" - That is one issue (and a very grave one, I agree, as even with my high school geography I know they are different plates) but I believe that has been addressed.
"'Interior Plains' meaning 'Great Plains'" - I don't see either in the article at the moment.
This is exactly what I mean, thank you. If you could kindly indicate the more grievous issues (not oversimplification, but actual quantifiable errors) and give proof/evidence of your copyright violation claims (a most grievous one), which has been already spotchecked with no issues, we may get somewhere with this article yet... even if it's not in time for a main page appearance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The map is missing Greenland, so the captiin contradicts to subject of the article. Since including Greenland causes an "injutice" Wikipedians will now have to dispute resolve a weird political argument, a guess, but what do I know, about whether or not science belongs in a geology article when politics should suffice. -198.228.216.157 (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

'alImage issue As another editor rightly pointed out, while the image caption claims it is a pictoral outline of the subject of the article, the image is not. Greenland is a major part of any discussion of the North American continent, and other editors explicitly state this below. If an editor wants to include this image for political reasons, that it would be an "injustice" for Greenland to be included in North America, this political fringe stance on a geology article simply must be dealt with before the article can be put on the main page. Weirpolitical battles left unresolved will attract more fringies in their defense. -166.147.72.16 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that the Geology of North America includes the core of the supercontinent Laurentia? (thank you User:Chiswick Chap --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that we now have a hook that is cited, and a revised lead image that includes Greenland, I think this DYK is ready to proceed. The author does not have any axe to grind, political or otherwise, about Greenland; and the Hawaii issue is fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course, now we have horsts created in compressional regimes. The geology in this article is bad; it should not be on the main page. The DYK folks seem determined that hard work trumps competence and accuracy. If you were patient, it could be fixed, but the rush to put creationist geology on the main page seems unstoppable. -208.46.240.4 (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

May I remind you of the strict policy here: "No personal attacks". The only mention of horst in the article is in the Midcontinent rift system, which is cited to the Iowa Geological and Water Survey; that source does not appear in the slightest creationist, indeed it describes crustal movements. The horst is discussed in works such as Carlson (Nebraska Geological Survey) which similarly talk of ages in millions of years, so creationism does not seem to be an issue, and the horst appears to be genuine and correctly cited. We are not in a rush as you assert, but this has been a very long DYK already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)