Template:Did you know nominations/Geology of North America
< Template:Did you know nominations
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Revision as of 07:04, 2 May 2013 by 198.228.216.153 (talk)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Geology of North America
- ... 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)
